2020-06-24 Meeting notes

Retrospective

any comments or feedback?

@Lori Dedeyan (Unlicensed)

1. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-279

2. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-971

3. https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-934

1. and 2. Same request- display the component unique identifier along with other component information in the tree within a resource record (staff interface). Close ANW-279; retain ANW-971, which has other linked issues. Since there are at least three separate tickets with this specific request, I recommend passing it.

3. My understanding is that the conditions governing use/access elements are better suited to conveying such information externally to users, whereas the rights subrecord is meant to be much more granular and machine-actionable, and its complexity may be difficult to translate to the PUI. This type of request has come up in the user group listserv as well. Historically this has been discussed a lot, though somewhat inconclusively for our purposes.

1. close ANW-279
   (similar to ANW-971)

2. pass ANW-971 (supported by others) - plugin currently available

3. Investigating - Need more information

@Alicia Detelich

1. Agree that being able to reorder user records by name, and to view the user’s full name, would be useful; however, not sure if bulk deleting user records is necessary or advisable. Question: if user records are deleted what if anything happens to the created_by and last_modified_by fields in the db?

2. This is the same as the reordering part of ANW 325. Pass with low priority

3. There is a lot to work out in this ticket. Agree that this issue should be resolved but it needs more information to proceed

1. close - concern re: loosing audit trail w/delete

2. pass low (similar to ANW-325 minus bulk delete)

3. Need more information - Send to Usability (request feedback from community).

@Edgar Garcia (Unlicensed)

1. I have confirmed that both location_title and location_url are added at the archival object level. My archival team would agree that this could pose a security risk and the gathering of this data should happen on the controller/server side before submitting, so an added step to build the request properly and securely. I say pass.

2. As this is a feature that once existed, I vote to pass this issue. I’d even almost suggest this could be a community ticket if not for the involvement of search and our criteria for community tickets. Pass.

3. It appears that now more than one language code is allowed and this particular piece of code needs to be updated to handle this, as its own comment suggested. The reported, Mark Custer, even provided a code snippet that might work, unit tests would be needed otherwise this is an easy pass.

1. Pass - Remove exposed data in hidden fields

2. Pass

3. Pass

@Maggie Hughes

1. Date range parameters (and others) are possible for at least some of the reports. Ability to select sort method seems low-level need. Ticket is very generally phrased. Rec: close.

2. Seems reasonable to move publish button up on Accession record. Rec: pass.

3. Original accessions specification link doesn’t work. Any reason not to add to DO records? Remove from CSV accessions import or just change the label so that it no longer says “not populated by imports”? Recommend adding that when an accession record is spawned, the Repository Processing Note field should populate in the Resource rec. Rec: pass.

1. Close

2. Ready for community developer

3. Close - concern re: workflows that have been developed since ticket submitted - Note open new ticket

@Randy Kuehn

1. Recommendation:
   Community development /Send to Usability
   Possibly add mode similar to "Enable Reorder Mode" to incorporate a "publish selected" option

2. Recommendation:
   Correct ordered list display in PUI & PDFs
   Findings:
   (general note tested v2.7.1)
   Ordered & unordered lists appear as unordered lists in PUI
   Ordered list does not appear as ordered or unordered list in PDF
   Unordered list appears properly in PDF
   Related to

3. Recommendation:
   Need more information
   Questions:
   Is there a specific reason the related links need to be associated with a note?
   Would the addition of a "Related Resources" field similar to the "Related Accessions" field resolve the issue?

1. Send to Usability

2. Pass - change to “list”, add enum
   Close ANW-275

3. Note - Larger discussion is necessary

@Daniel Michelson

1. The submitter and I discussed this in the comments earlier this year and found that the correct order of the subfields varies depending on content. Since there is no encoding to indicate this, he agreed that the ticket should be closed.

2. The silent omission of finding aid notes that are in the “Additional Description” category from the collection organization view is a serious flaw in the current PUI. I recommend increasing the priority to critical and passing for ready for implementation. While I strongly support eliminating the “Additional Description” category, that would have a major impact on other views, so until then, making the notes display would be sufficient.

3. This ticket asks for the ability to have different controlled value lists for individual repositories. If we take this to mean only customizing the display of options, rather than the values, I think this would be a useful, if not particularly important, feature. I’m imagining something like the existing ability to suppress values, but scoped to an individual repository. If this is technically feasible, passing it with a priority of trivial seems reasonable.

1. Close

2. Awaiting more information, pending the feedback on the Usability team’s report

3.  

@Lydia Tang (Unlicensed)

1. This ticket has a lot of viewers (5). Selfishly, I would like this ticket to pass. I don’t think the community really engages in the Jira system, so we haven’t received any interaction on this ticket, besides these watchers, but I do think that this is getting at a desire to be able to compile records created or updated by a certain person. I’m not sure how it would work if a record is updated by someone else (if it would also stop showing up as “stats” for the earlier person, for example).

2. Selfishly, I would like this to pass, but I don’t know how this would work with multiple languages.

3. Update 6/10: it looks like it is half-fixed so far. You still have to click specifically on the textured side area for the particular archival object (do we want that or not?), but now you can click and drag-and-drop it anywhere. If clicking only in the textured area is ok (is that accessible, I’m not sure), than it could be closed. If it would preferable to be able to click anywhere on the AO line to select it, than we should pass it (in my opinion).

1. Need more information - specification for dashboard

2. Waiting more information - more definition

3. Lydia will add more info (possibly Pass Community Developer - Note click anywhere on line, accessibility issue)