Frankly, I worry this is starting to get into the territory of "let's add another permission (or YAOUS) for every eventuality no matter how obscure."
Some features I think in the long run complicate our lives (documentation, testing, development) more than they improve functionality. On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Kathy Lussier <kluss...@masslnc.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I wanted to seek some feedback on Launchpad bug 1350377 > https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/1350377. > > The bug seeks an additional permission to be used with the "Transfer All > Title Holds" option in the client. However, I was wondering if there would > be any support from removing that option from the client altogether. > > Here's the issue: > > When you are in a bib record in the staff client, you have the option to > transfer *all* title holds to another bib record. You first need to mark > the other bib record as a holds transfer destination. > > However, you also have the option to transfer one or any number of > selected holds to the marked bib record from the holds view of the bib > record. You could transfer just one hold here or you could select them all > if you really needed to transfer all holds. The benefit of using this > option is that the user must actively select the holds that will be > transferred. > > I personally think providing a blanket "Transfer All Title Holds" option > in the client is dangerous, even if there were a separate permission for > it, and unnecessary since there are other methods available in the staff > client to accomplish the same task. Making it even more dangerous is the > fact that the "Actions for this Record" menu that contains this option to > transfer all holds is still available in the holds view of the bib record, > which is where you go to transfer selected holds (see the screencast at > http://www.screencast.com/t/ifHhJHNqq). It is very easy to mistakenly > select this option when you are trying just to transfer just one hold. In > fact, I accidentally selected it when I was just testing out the transfer > holds scenario a few minutes ago. > > During a brief discussion in IRC on this issue, it was mentioned that > possible use cases for the "transfer all title holds" option are: > > 1. When staff are manually merging bib records. The client bib merge > option automatically merges holds, but there may be reasons staff merge the > records without using that option. > 2. In cases where there are orphaned holds on a record that no longer has > copies to fill the hold. > > Since I think both of these use cases could be accommodated by using the > option where you transfer selected holds, I wanted to see if others would > support removing the "Transfer All Title Holds" option. Is there anyone who > uses this option with some frequency who thinks it should continue to be > available? > > Thanks! > Kathy > > -- > Kathy Lussier > Project Coordinator > Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative > (508) 343-0128 > kluss...@masslnc.org > Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier > > -- Rogan Hamby, MLS, CCNP, MIA Managers Headquarters Library and Reference Services, York County Library System “You can never get a cup of tea large enough or a book long enough to suit me.” ― C.S. Lewis <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/1069006.C_S_Lewis>