Bug 7653 - make OPAC subscriptions view clearer
Summary: make OPAC subscriptions view clearer
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: OPAC (show other bugs)
Version: 3.6
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Koha Team University Lyon 3
QA Contact: Ian Walls
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-03-06 12:16 UTC by Koha Team University Lyon 3
Modified: 2017-06-14 22:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments
make OPAC subscriptions view clearer (2.21 KB, patch)
2012-03-06 12:16 UTC, Koha Team University Lyon 3
Details | Diff | Splinter Review
Bug 7563 [ENH] - Silent print slips using Firefox PlugIn jsPrintSetup and new staff client preference (6.10 KB, patch)
2012-06-10 13:23 UTC, Chris Cormack
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Koha Team University Lyon 3 2012-03-06 12:16:19 UTC
Created attachment 8031 [details] [review]
make OPAC subscriptions view clearer

On a subscription tab of a serial detailed notice at the OPAC , the labels 'At Library' or 'At Branch' seem  redundant since the notion of Library (or Center) is usually already part of the Library's name. 
Else, there are 3 zones from the subscription data where we can pick the same kind of information (serial collection ) : the histstartdate/histenddate one, the opac note along with public note/subscriptionnote) theeses ones that are seamingly in double. May be one of the three would be enough(two at the most).
I suggest, to make it all clearer, deleting the redundant parts.
Comment 1 Jared Camins-Esakov 2012-03-11 15:38:01 UTC
I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. This patch removes information that is not duplicated (the subscription period), and makes it harder to read the page (because "This is a serial" and "Main library" are at the same level in the markup). Could you explain a bit more why this change is worthwhile?
Comment 2 Katrin Fischer 2012-03-11 15:58:01 UTC
I think I agree with Jared. We have trained our libaries to use those fields - removing them from the display makes no sense to me. Sorry. 
Perhaps it could wrapped in an IF clause, so that when the history start date is not provided, the text does not show up. Removing it totally will break existing functionality.
Comment 3 Katrin Fischer 2012-03-11 15:59:01 UTC
Another option would be to use css classes and ids here. It would make it easy to hide information a library does not want to show up.
Comment 4 Katrin Fischer 2012-03-30 09:21:44 UTC
Hi, I think this status to "Signed off" was perhaps by mistake - there is no new patch and no new comment. I am changing it back to "Failed QA".
Comment 5 Chris Cormack 2012-06-10 13:23:38 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)