It appears that many librarians find the language for the default sort order system preferences ambiguous and confusing.
Created attachment 37962 [details] [review] Bug 14005 - Fix working of previousIssuesDefaultSortOrder and todaysIssuesDefaultSortOrder It appears that many librarians find the language for the default sort order system preferences ambiguous and confusing. Test Plan: 1) Apply this patch 2) View the system preferences previousIssuesDefaultSortOrder and todaysIssuesDefaultSortOrder 3) Verify the new language is sensible and describes each sort order correctly
Created attachment 37963 [details] [review] Bug 14005 - Fix wording of previousIssuesDefaultSortOrder and todaysIssuesDefaultSortOrder It appears that many librarians find the language for the default sort order system preferences ambiguous and confusing. Test Plan: 1) Apply this patch 2) View the system preferences previousIssuesDefaultSortOrder and todaysIssuesDefaultSortOrder 3) Verify the new language is sensible and describes each sort order correctly
Unfortunately I think that the new language used is more confusing. Especially previousIssuesDefaultSortOrder. For me "due most recently" and "due earliest" is pretty much the same thing. Also todaysIssuesDefaultSortOrder's second option states to sort from "first item checked out today to latest checked item out" due date. Shouldn't it read "...latest checked out item"?
I am pretty sure that the todaysIssuesDefaultSortOrder preference is actually reversed in meaning. Latest to earliest (according to the preference) Today's checkouts 10/06/2015 14:29 10/06/2015 14:30 10/06/2015 14:36 10/06/2015 14:39 Earliest to latest 10/06/2015 14:39 10/06/2015 14:36 10/06/2015 14:30 10/06/2015 14:29 This doesn't seem right to me?
(In reply to Liz Rea from comment #4) > I am pretty sure that the todaysIssuesDefaultSortOrder preference is > actually reversed in meaning. > > Latest to earliest (according to the preference) > Today's checkouts > 10/06/2015 14:29 > 10/06/2015 14:30 > 10/06/2015 14:36 > 10/06/2015 14:39 > > Earliest to latest > 10/06/2015 14:39 > 10/06/2015 14:36 > 10/06/2015 14:30 > 10/06/2015 14:29 > > This doesn't seem right to me? It's the ambiguity of the terms. It's like looking at that image that's either a face or a lamp! I suggested with do with "Most recently issued to least recently issued" and "Least recently issued to most recently issued". What do you think?