[Koha-bugs] [Bug 7611] Show the NOT_LOAN authorised values for item status in XSLT OPAC search results

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7611

--- Comment #30 from Katrin Fischer <katrin.fischer at bsz-bw.de> ---
(In reply to Nick Clemens from comment #27)
> Okay, I reviewed this, what it does is that:
> Available doesn't change
> Items marked 'not for loan' at itemtype level go into 'Available for
> reference'
> Items marked 'not for loan' individually, whether negative or positive, are
> displayed in the 'unavailable' section with the description of the 'not for
> loan' status showing.
> 
> If you have several not for loan statuses with the same description, e.g.
> 'Available for reference' then they will be displayed together in the
> unavailable section
> 
> It also adds some classes and styling to allow for the end user to adjust
> using css/jquery
> 
> I am attaching a smaple record as described in the test plan which you can
> import if using the default database. You will need to add a 'NOT_LOAN'
> value of 4 with opac description 'Ordered' to see it in operation

Hi Nick, 

first: thank you for the summary! Second: I am sorry, it just doesn't feel
quite right yet to me :( I am trying to put into words, but please feel free to
get others opinions as well.

>Items marked 'not for loan' at itemtype level go into 'Available for reference'
>Items marked 'not for loan' individually, whether negative or positive, are displayed in the 'unavailable' section with the >description of the 'not for loan' status showing

1) We have built on the fact that the not-for-loan works the same on item type
as on individual level and I think this change might be controversial. With the
patch, itype level 'not for loan' is green, but individual show red = different
messages. Koha defines available as 'on the shelf' not as 'loanable' in my
understanding - so green seems the better default choice.

2) The display with the extra break looks like we are missing a label (I think
it's intended, but that's the impression I get):

Availability: Items available for loan: Midway (1).
Centerville Staff Collection (1).

Or with some more items:

Availability: Items available for loan: Centerville (1). Items available for
reference: Centerville (1).
Centerville Staff Collection (1). Damaged (1). 

I think I'd opt for removing the line break and always displaying the "Itmes
available for reference:" when there is at least one item with a not for loan
value. That would mean the first example would look like this:

Availability: Items available for loan: Midway (1). Items available for
reference: Centerville Staff Collection (1).

And the second could be like this, using a comma between different values:

Availability: Items available for loan: Centerville (1). Items available for
reference: Centerville (1),
Centerville Staff Collection (1). Damaged (1). 



Just notes (no lockers at all): 

I see that you use individual CSS classes on the items, I like that. Just
wondering: currently we use the description, so a description change will mean
the CSS needs to change as well. On the other side: not for loan values are
numeric and we are grouping the onces with the same name and I like that - so
that's probably the best way.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.