Versions Compared

Old Version 13

changes.mady.by.user Lydia Tang

Saved on

compared with

New Version 14

changes.mady.by.user Maggie Hughes

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Item

Who

Notes

Decision

Announcements?

  • Lydia and Maggie submitted a draft of the survey to the program team.


Old business

Terra

  1. ANW-149

    1. yes

    2. yes

    3. not sure/phydesc imported fine for me.

  2. ANW-170

    1. yes

    2. yes

    3. no (works correctly in sandbox). But, I agree about maybe changing date picker, so it doesn’t block ‘date expression’ field.

  3. ANW-365

    1. yes

    2. yes

    3. ask Christine if updated based on other ticket updates.

  4. ANW-369

    1. yes

    2. no? higher priority re: accessibility?

    3. yes

  1. ANW-149 - yes

  2. ANW-170 - no

  3. ANW-365 - yes, but leave comment that might be good for someone with significant accessibility experience.

    1. Lora will leave comment on ticket re some of the unintended consequences that might arise when working on this.

  4. ANW-369 - no for now

    1. Laney will leave note that this ticket should be reevaluated after bootstrap 4.

    2. Then we can consider it for Community Dev.

Alicia

  1. ANW-347

    1. yes, most likely

    2. Was able to replicate issue in 2.4.1; workaround exists, minor priority

  2. ANW-234

    1. yes, but is part of larger issues with import/export

    2. didn’t try to replicate but likely still an issue; minor priority is ok

  3. ANW-251

    1. not sure, depends how complicated it is to change error messaging?

    2. tooltips have already been updated to indicate that MM/DD are required; minor priority is ok

  4. ANW-262

    1. no?

    2. Still an issue, agree a high priority as gives misleading search results; see

      Jira Legacy
      serverSystem JIRA
      serverId36c489e2-4fb0-353a-985b-64038401be2f
      keyANW-323
      for similar issues

  5. ANW-261

    1. no?

    2. Same issue as above

  1. ANW-347 - yes; for adding a scroll bar. Alicia will leave comment relating to the typeahead problem here with link to new ticket.

    1. Alicia will create a new ticket for search/index problem.

  2. ANW-234 - yes

  3. ANW-251 - yes

  4. ANW-262 - no

  5. ANW-261 - no

Lydia

  1. ANW-323

    1. this is a catchall for issues on a theme. Most of those issues are resolved and the rest are in ready for implementation. Close this ticket?

  2. ANW-604

    1. seems to be resolved. Close?

  3. ANW-425

    1. no? Perhaps too complex

    2. major priority, major UX/accessibility issue

  4. ANW-635

    1. need to investigate more

  5. ANW-652

    1. it seems like improvement has been done but that it didn’t help Cory’s particular issue. Should we close this and ask him to file a new ticket?

  6. ANW-664

    1. need to investigate more

  7. ANW-665

    1. maybe? It could be a simple fix, but I’m not sure how complicated it would be.

  8. ANW-691

    1. need to investigate more

  1. ANW-323 - close

  2. ANW-604 - Lora will fix this after the call and close the ticket!

  3. ANW-425 - no

  4. ANW-635 - no; lower priority to ‘Major’

  5. ANW-652 - no

  6. ANW-664 -

  7. ANW-665 - no

  8. ANW-691 -

William

  1. ANW-616

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  2. ANW-215

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  3. ANW-453

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  4. ANW-468

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  5. ANW-332

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  6. ANW-340

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

Edgar

  1. ANW-400 - Review and revise EAC import and export for agent records READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

    1. No - Not for Community Developer

    2. This is a high priority touching importing, otherwise should be ready it seems

  2. ANW-386 - Provide a CSV importer for resourcesREADY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

    1. This one’s a weird one… I would simply say no to Community Developer due to it also being an importer, but I am unsure what direction this issue is headed. aspace-import-excel plugin exists and I believe supports up to the current version, but I am also unsure how well supported the plugin is or will continue to be. This feature should really be in the core code and maintained internally, but if it remains a separate plugin at Harvard, perhaps Community Developers could assist in maintaining it there, if Harvard requires it.

  3. ANW-330 - Ensure all interfaces comply with WCAG 2.0 AA, and not AAA READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

    1. No

    2. It appears that Mark Custer wanted to have an outside entity review the new PUI before release and provide suggested fixes. Does this make the issue out of scope now? Should a separate audit ticket be created with a plan after the fact since the new PUI is released? This ticket could be reworded and reused but this isn’t work that would be done by devs, it requires some management-like work.

  4. ANW-540 - As a staff user I would like to set default sort preferences when browsingREADY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

    1. Yes

  5. ANW-455 - As a developer, I want to see links to parent schemas on documentation for a given schema.READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

    1. Yes

    2. This seems like something a Community Developer could modify/investigate/fix. The parent schema is within the source of the generated doc. It might require some investigation into yard.

  6. ANW-490 - Calendar view not helpful for most archival descriptionREADY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

    1. Yes, a Community Developer should be able to implement this

    2. Has a different date picker been selected? More information might be required for a Community Developer to be able to pick this ticket up.

  7. ANW-473 - EAD to PDF exporter needs to be able to have additional fonts addedREADY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

    1. No

    2. This is a major priority and might require more information to be completed.

  8. ANW-539 - As a repository manager, I would like additional key board shortcuts as itemized below.READY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

    1. Yes, a Community Developer should be able to work on this task

      1. Should Priority be lowered from Major? To Minor?

  1. ANW-400 - no

  2. ANW-386 - no

    1. Lydia will copy over some of Edgar’s comments to the ticket.

  3. ANW-330 - no

  4. ANW-540 - yes

  5. ANW-455 - yes; change priority to ‘Trivial’

  6. ANW-490 - no

    1. Lydia will comment that it is dependent on the update to Bootstrap

  7. ANW-473 - no

  8. ANW-539 - yes; priority changed to ‘Minor’

Terra

  1. ANW-532

    1. yes

    2. maybe not major priority.

  2. ANW-550

    1. yes

    2. ANW-462 asking for the same feature

  3. ANW-517

    1. no--already done?

    2. close ticket

  4. ANW-443

    1. yes

    2. I agree!

  5. ANW-462

    1. yes

    2. same request as ANW-550

  1. ANW-532 - yes

    1. Lora will leave comment that work needs to be done on the staff interface side.

  2. ANW-550 - no

    1. Lora will work on ANW-462 soon and will do ANW-550 at the same time.

  3. ANW-517 - yes

  4. ANW-443 - yes

  5. ANW-462 - no; see ANW-550

Lydia

  1. ANW-214

    1. no - not for a community developer

    2. is there enough info. What should an unpublished archival object look like?

    3. Priority is ok at low.

  2. ANW-538

    1. no - not for a community developer - I don’t know if a community developer would know how to do this.

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority is low because of existing workarounds

  3. ANW-349

    1. possibly, but I don’t know if a community developer would know how to do this

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority is low and could be trivial instead

  4. ANW-97

    1. no - not for a community developer - I don’t know if a community developer would know how to do this, particularly if it automatically strips permissions (which would be helpful)

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority minor ok

  5. ANW-553

    1. no - not for a community developer, it sounds like the datepicker currently used is part of a larger discussion

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority minor ok

  6. ANW-348

    1. no - sounds complex

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority minor ok

  7. ANW-559

    1. no - this involves some architecture planning that probably the program team only knows

    2. a nice usability feature

    3. priority minor ok

  8. ANW-564

    1. Close this ticket. This ticket was in response to an older method of reorder. I can’t currently think of another pressing need for an “undo” function.

  1. ANW-214

  2. ANW-538

  3. ANW-349

  4. ANW-97

  5. ANW-553

  6. ANW-348

  7. ANW-559

  8. ANW-564

Julia

  1. ANW-255

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  2. ANW-256

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  3. ANW-277

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  4. ANW-273

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  5. ANW-615

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  6. ANW-601

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  7. ANW-638

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

  8. ANW-658

    1. y/n to community developer?

    2. priority/other comments?

Maggie

  1. ANW-534

    1. yes

  2. ANW-528

    1. yes?

    2. Laney left comments about how this could be executed – is that enough detail?

  3. ANW-442

    1. yes?

    2. can use “make authoritative” as a model

  4. ANW-489

    1. yes

  5. ANW-445

    1. no

    2. too complicated?

  1. ANW-534 - no, out of security concerns

  2. ANW-528 - no, this is a high level of interest but would need to be done extremely thoughtfully and carefully. Perhaps a project for a community to create a spec.

  3. ANW-442 - yes

  4. ANW-489 - yes

  5. ANW-445

Extras (Lydia took them)

  1. ANW-738

    1. no - too complex for community dev.

    2. worthwhile project - is spec ok?

    3. minor priority seems ok

  2. ANW-759

    1. no - too complex for community dev.

    2. worthwhile project - is spec ok?

    3. minor priority seems ok

  3. ANW-808

    1. unsure if this is still an issue, could possibly close?

  4. ANW-799

    1. no - unsure if community developers would have access to this security area, otherwise seems relatively straightforward to find the right code to fix.

  5. ANW-806

    1. maybe? It sounds like an HM plugin for adapting the Staff Interface might be able to be copied to the PUI, but I don’t know if it’s that easy.

  6. ANW-809

    1. no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

    2. priority of major is good because of accessibility being protected by law.

  7. ANW-816

    1. no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

  8. ANW-843

    1. no? not sure how complex it would be to fix

    2. priority major, not sure it should be minor, but it would be a helpful function

  9. ANW-908

    1. maybe? I’m not sure how difficult it would be to copy code from the Resource record template and also map the data when it is spawned into a Resource.

    2. priority minor seems ok

  1. ANW-738

  2. ANW-759

  3. ANW-808

  4. ANW-799

  5. ANW-806

  6. ANW-809

  7. ANW-816

  8. ANW-843

  9. ANW-908

...