Hide "Content and structure area" with autogenerated finding aid

Toni Schoenbuchner

unread,

Jun 29, 2021, 7:19:48 AM6/29/21

to AtoM Users

Hello atom-users,

after migration from atom 2.5 to 2.6 the fonds detail is showing a new section "Content and structure area" with an auto-generated finding aids. Can one say if this is a new feature in 2.6 and how this section can be turned off or hidden?

Thanks a lot,

Toni

Bildschirmfoto von 2021-06-29 13-16-36.png

Dan Gillean

unread,

Jun 29, 2021, 9:27:52 AM6/29/21

to ICA-AtoM Users

Hi Toni,

I believe this link in the body of the description was added in 2.4, actually! See:

https://projects.artefactual.com/issues/9699

At this time, there is unfortunately not a UI setting that will hide this field. I suspect you could suppress it in a custom theme if needed?

I respect your preferences, but I am also curious about why you want to hide the field, so your feedback might perhaps help us refine it in the future. It's intended to help users notice that there is a finding aid available - we've noticed that some users don't always realize there is related content presented in the context menu. Can you tell us more about what you don't like, or what changes would make you appreciate this feature more?

Cheers,

Dan Gillean, MAS, MLIS
AtoM Program Manager
Artefactual Systems, Inc.
604-527-2056

@accesstomemory

he / him

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AtoM Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ica-atom-user...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ica-atom-users/9695f9ee-cee3-4038-bdf7-7761730c1882n%40googlegroups.com.

Toni Schoenbuchner

unread,

Jun 29, 2021, 10:18:42 AM6/29/21

to AtoM Users

Hey Dan,

as always thanks for your help. My current guess is that this link has somehow been hidden in the old 2.5 instance. Maybe just with a little snippet of CSS. I will check that again.

The user feedback (hopefully translated understandable)

There is no such thing with other groups.

Reference is incorrect, does not apply to the fund but to the entire group.

So to me, it looks as this was hidden before, there is confusion about where this suddenly comes from and also maybe about the amount of information given.
In case I know more about the actual problem (must admit don't understand it yet) I will come back with hopefully more detailed feedback.