From a librarian point of view, I think that the intranet side should be different.  Librarians want to see more information when searching than the general public would.  I agree that the staff search results need to change - but I don't know if making it the same as the OPAC is what we need.

This is what I've heard from catalogers and it's what I (as a librarian) feel as well.


---

Nicole C. Engard
Open Source Evangelist, LibLime
(888) Koha ILS (564-2457) ext. 714
nce@liblime.com
AIM/Y!/Skype: nengard

http://liblime.com
http://blogs.liblime.com/open-sesame/


On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Henri-Damien LAURENT <laurenthdl@alinto.com> wrote:
MJ Ray a écrit :
> Paul POULAIN <paul.poulain@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> One of our libraries bugs me to have exactly the same look the the
>> biblio summary in the list result.
>> atm, the differences I can see are :
>> - in staff, title/author are on 2 lines, in OPAC, they are on 1 line,
>> separated by 'by'
>> - in staff, publisher is after author, in OPAC it's on line 2, before pubyer
>>
>> Is there an explanation for those 2 diffs, or can I modify the staff to
>> have exactly the same look as OPAC ?
>>
>
> I've been told that there are also differences in how the series title
> is displayed in the two interfaces.
>
> I think we should try for both interfaces to look similar, as far as
> possible, because it confuses library staff.  I'm not familiar with
> the display code.  Can we drive both displays from the same
> code/templates?
>
> Thanks,
>
Unfortunately, in that regard, Koha is designed to have a real
disconnection between OPAC and intranet
so having the same include would not be possible. (unless we decide to
enable links in apache configuration, which is BAD).
+ it wouldnot be really efficient since OPAC's API is different from
staff's :
cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail.pl is cgi-bin/koha/catalogue/detail.pl at staff.
We could write a translator from staff to OPAC display (there is
something like that in ISBDdetail.pl if i don't mind.)
But then there would still be the problem of template separation.
This raises also the problem of features : for instance, basket is not
provided at intranet, but is really useful also for staff members.

Should we change and unify Koha's scripts and naming ?

Should this be an RFC for 3.4 ?
for Koha 4.0  ?

Any other comment ?

--
Henri-Damien LAURENT
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
Koha-devel@lists.koha.org
http://lists.koha.org/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel