Atlassian uses cookies to improve your browsing experience, perform analytics and research, and conduct advertising. Accept all cookies to indicate that you agree to our use of cookies on your device. Atlassian cookies and tracking notice, (opens new window)
The fix DevPri recommended in May did not work at my institution. Asked on the listserv for other experiences and haven’t had any responses yet. Recommend reopening
Confirmed bug. I don’t have access to the logs so I can’t see what the error reporting might be.
I could not reproduce this ticket. The issue may have been resolved in one of the releases of ArchivesSpace since this ticket was last updated. Recommend closing.
I confirmed that what the reporter is suggesting is best practice for accessibility. Recommend passing.
General community feedback was that the use case in the original ticket is too narrow to warrant moving the Instances module. However, there was significant support for a config or preferences option to set an order for all Resource modules. There is already a ticket that is ready for implementation that is suggesting the same behavior for the PUI (https://archivesspace.atlassian.net/browse/ANW-1064 ). I recommend creating a new ticket for options to rearrange resource modules and linking it to ANW-106.
Would like to discuss with the group. I could see the usefulness of this feature, but I am unsure how big of a development ask this is. An ability to sort by date seems like a natural fit alongside this if it passes.
Could not reproduce on 4.1 sandbox. The requestor was working in 4.0 so this appears to be resolved with the recent release.
Will rewrite ticket to better describe requirements to accomplish reordering as described.
2. User wants to browse accessions filtered to accession records with a processing status of “new” sorted by accession date with the accession identifier column visible. This is currently not (completely) possible by browsing accessions or browsing collections management. It is possible to get this information from a custom report.
Would like to discuss this as a group. There is some difference between how disambiguation and container indicators display in SUI versus PUI. Wary of the desired solution about not allowing “identical container instances” since this might make data migration more difficult and impact local practices.
Pass. Clarify in pass message about scope of language handling.
Formatting issue identified by a commenter - appears that no action is need, perhaps a documentation update.
Relates to PUI; but is currently technically possible (uncheck “publish”. Has 1 upvote. Seems similar to past desire for object level coll. dev. notes. Has also previously been added and then removed as a feature. Worth discussing.
ANW-2450 - Confirmed issue. It seems like certain Date types trigger additional text, while others do not. It would make sense that all date types trigger additional text (Particularly if multiple dates are present). ie Inclusive and Single Date do not have additional text, but bulk includes “Majority of material found within.” Recommend passing
ANW-2492: Confirmed many of the issues though honestly was overwhelmed by this query (so many acronyms!). Below are my responses to their three bullet points:
Re: Reflow - I’m not entirely sure how to confirm their test of reflow that is their first and most adamant bullet point.
Re: Langauge - In the test instance of 4.1.1 there is a label for language.
Re: page numbers and screen readers - I was unsure of the best way to test this
Re: Issue with Filter and Screen Reader - I was again unsure of the best way to test this.
This ticket is relatively new and given the importance of accessibility to LOC, I feel like we should try to address their recommendations given they were found with the most recent version?
I’m concerned that this will break multilingual imports. I do agree with the reporter that there should be a way for users to add importable extent types, but I believe the proposed solution will cause other issues.