As a staff user I would like additional options when setting preferences for browsing different record types in the staff interface

Here is my take on this, based on the Staff Interface Enhancement Working Group’s recommendations and my own assessment of practicality. Ideally, anything that can be selectable for display can also be selectable for sort.

Defaults are noted by a *. I decided to only do this for the three main record types and multi. Anything else we can work to define defaults a little later on, but they probably don’t need to be customizable in the preferences View.

Accession
• title*
• identifier*
• accession date*
• acquisition type
• resource type
• restrictions apply
• publish
• access restrictions
• use restrictions
• dates*
o the date displayed should be the collection level inclusive dates (or single, or bulk if inclusive dates do not exist)
• extents*
o the extent displayed should be the collection level Whole extent only
o If there is no single Whole, then include all parts so the entire extent is listed [this is the Staff Interface group’s recommendation – may need more evaluation]
• processing priority
• processors
• audit info
• Is language now here too? – if so language (will be a sub-record with Lora’s changes)

Resource
• Title*
• identifier*
• level of description*
• resource type
• language (will be a sub-record with Lora’s changes)
• publish
• restrictions apply
• dates*
o the date displayed should be the collection level inclusive dates (or single, or bulk if inclusive dates do not exist)
• extents*
o the extent displayed should be the collection level Whole extent only
o If there is no single Whole, then include all parts so the entire extent is listed [this is the Staff Interface group’s recommendation – may need more evaluation]
• ead_id
• finding aid status
• processing priority
• processors
• audit info

Digital Object
• title*
• identifier*
• publish
• VRA Core level
• digital object type
• language (will be a sub-record with Lora’s changes)
• restrictions
• dates
o the date displayed should be the collection level inclusive dates (or single, or bulk if inclusive dates do not exist)
• extents
o the extent displayed should be the collection level Whole extent only
o If there is no single Whole, then include all parts so the entire extent is listed [this is the Staff Interface group’s recommendation – may need more evaluation]
• audit info

Multi
• record type*
• title*
• found in*
• identifier* (some nuance needed with this, i.e. if it’s an archival object, what identifier shows?)
• audit info
• dates*
o for resources, accessions, digital objects, the date displayed should be the collection level inclusive dates (or single, or bulk if inclusive dates do not exist); for archival objects digital object components, this should follow a similar pattern, but localized to the object
• extents
o for resources, accessions, digital objects, the extent displayed should be the collection level Whole extent only
o If there is no single Whole, then include all parts so the entire extent is listed