Bug 23302 - Allow faster access to Card and MARC view in Z3950 search results
Summary: Allow faster access to Card and MARC view in Z3950 search results
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Cataloging (show other bugs)
Version: master
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Bugs List
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2019-07-11 12:52 UTC by Marcel de Rooy
Modified: 2019-07-17 14:51 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Who signed the patch off:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments
Example screenshot (58.41 KB, image/png)
2019-07-11 18:31 UTC, Owen Leonard
Details
screenshot (114.20 KB, image/jpeg)
2019-07-11 22:23 UTC, Paul A.
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marcel de Rooy 2019-07-11 12:52:02 UTC
In older versions it was possible to click Card view or MARC view directly. Now we must click twice (open menu first). When comparing different records, our users click Card or MARC repeatedly and would love to need only one click.

What are our options to achieve that? ;)
Comment 1 Marcel de Rooy 2019-07-11 12:55:00 UTC
Instead of reverting to three buttons/links:

Could we add a Default action left to the dropdown menu like addbooks shows New Z3950 search and a menu?
And perhaps remember which we action (Card or MARC) we chose last and offer that as default action again ?

Any ideas? Owen ?
Comment 2 Marcel de Rooy 2019-07-11 13:14:33 UTC
From IRC:

[14:57] <oleonard> marcelr: That interface has been contentious for a long time now. I think the core of the problem might be the small size of the window leading to solutions to conserve space
[14:58] <marcelr> what about a default button?
[14:58] <marcelr> instead of showing Actions?
[14:58] <marcelr> the caret does not take much space
[14:58] <oleonard> We had a discussion about default buttons in another context and there was no agreement about which should be the default
[14:59] <marcelr> default could be governed by js and cookie ?
[15:00] <oleonard> I wonder if we shouldn't just go back to individual buttons and try to address the space problem
[15:00] <marcelr> that would be fine for us; i am doing that in our staff version now
[15:00] <marcelr> bit uglier but it works
[15:01] <marcelr> Card Marc Import are just short words ;)
[15:01] <oleonard> I don't know if there is any consensus on it though... It would be worth taking to the Koha mailing list
Comment 3 Marcel de Rooy 2019-07-11 13:37:40 UTC
(In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #2)
> [15:01] <oleonard> I don't know if there is any consensus on it though... It
> would be worth taking to the Koha mailing list

Sent a mail to the general list now.
Comment 4 Paul A. 2019-07-11 15:00:50 UTC
Excluding spiders, our logs show very few requests for 'cards' but many more for 'MARC'. I can only guess that at item level the data is more complete. Was there a good reason to remove this functionality?
Comment 5 Owen Leonard 2019-07-11 15:14:07 UTC
(In reply to Paul A. from comment #4)
> Was there a good reason to remove this functionality?

I don't understand this question. No functionality was removed. The question is whether the actions should be grouped in a dropdown menu or displayed as individual buttons.

Generally speaking, groups of three or more "actions" in a table like this are grouped into a dropdown menu in order to conserve horizontal space and make it easier to see the data in the table. That can be reversed in this case if there is enough call for it.
Comment 6 Paul A. 2019-07-11 18:15:18 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 7 Paul A. 2019-07-11 18:15:48 UTC Comment hidden (obsolete)
Comment 8 Paul A. 2019-07-11 18:16:27 UTC
In reply to Owen L.

Apologies -- bad wording, "functionality" was misleading, maybe "two clicks instead of one"? User friendliness? Ease of a GUI?

The *line* "Normal view MARC view ISBD view" (I don't see it as a *table*) is extremely short, appears without breaks even on very small tablets rotated vertically upright.  A "drop-down" might save a tad of horizontal screen space (but is probably, pixel-wise, a little taller than a text line), but is less explanatory unless you click it or know ahead of time what you're looking for. That's my (lame) excuse for misusing "functionality."

I totally agree that "longer" lists of choices should be "drop down" -- just questioning the user experience of deciding "three textually short" options should be visually, quasi-hidden. At some point (intrinsically if a small screen can't get them all on one line), let's go for it.... Just not at all sure that it's required here.
Comment 9 Owen Leonard 2019-07-11 18:31:32 UTC
Created attachment 91468 [details]
Example screenshot

(In reply to Paul A. from comment #8)
> The *line* "Normal view MARC view ISBD view" (I don't see it as a *table*)
> is extremely short, appears without breaks even on very small tablets
> rotated vertically upright. 

This attachment shows what the Z39.50 popup looks like on my test system, Firefox on Windows 10.
Comment 10 Paul A. 2019-07-11 22:23:57 UTC
Created attachment 91470 [details]
screenshot

Here is mine in Firefox 60.7.0esr (Ubuntu 18.04)
Comment 11 Katrin Fischer 2019-07-13 13:57:04 UTC
Our most common use case is: search by union catalog ID (controlnumber) and import as only one result is returned. But I am aware that most of the time there will be a number of result that requires you to take a closer look.

I'd vote for bringing back the 3 separate links/butons.


I am not opposed to get rid of the pop-up. It often causes issues.

An example: People ask why the pop-up no longer appears, not realizing there have minified it before and it's just still open.


We have also hidden column in this view in the past. Maybe column configuration would be nice to have here.
Comment 12 Marcel de Rooy 2019-07-15 13:56:48 UTC
(In reply to Paul A. from comment #4)
> Excluding spiders, our logs show very few requests for 'cards' but many more
> for 'MARC'. I can only guess that at item level the data is more complete.

Some of our users find it helpful to look at Card first, since the MARC preview is much more detailed, lengthy and not always sorted. After that they may not pick the record, or in another case look at MARC after all.
Comment 13 Paul A. 2019-07-15 17:50:19 UTC
(In reply to Marcel de Rooy from comment #12)
The comment covered the case of using a "drop-down" box, instead of 3 short html tags which "save a click" -- user ergonomics, office efficiency, GUI ease, whatever. So we're probably not disagreeing, whether it's Z39-50, staff or opac, as it has nothing to do with the user's final choice, just how she gets there. Your users go for "cards", mine for "MARC" -- they'll all be clicking twice instead of once.
My suggestion is (if there is reasonable screen space) that the lower limit of "drop-down" choices should be above three (I'm not certain of an exact, immutable value -- it is surely a fairly low number.)  Maybe there are logical | practical exceptions, but this is IMHO not one of them.