Maybe this was said but if the web interface is not incorporated in the xulrunner client, would the old screens continue to be available in the xulrunner client?
Tim Spindler C/W MARS On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:12 PM, McCanna, Terran < tmcca...@georgialibraries.org> wrote: > Every system has a few. "The Closers" is fantastic. For our users, I plan > on recommending that the staff members that have trouble switching back and > forth and that are intimidated by the new interface should just stick with > the existing staff client when they are busy and practice using the web > interface when they are not so busy until they get used to it. Any sort of > change is going to require a certain amount of training, and I feel that > this approach gives libraries more control over how and when they get their > staff up to speed. > > And, depending on how workflow is set up at a branch, sometimes you will > find yourself doing a simple repeated task over and over a hundred times > and there won't be a lot of switching back and forth (checking in books > from a holiday weekend, routing holds, etc.) > > > > > Terran McCanna > PINES Program Manager > Georgia Public Library Service > 1800 Century Place, Suite 150 > Atlanta, GA 30345 > 404-235-7138 > tmcca...@georgialibraries.org > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Wells" <d...@calvin.edu> > To: "Evergreen Development Discussion List" < > open-ils-...@list.georgialibraries.org>, "Evergreen Discussion Group" < > open-ils-general@list.georgialibraries.org> > Sent: Monday, April 7, 2014 5:32:12 PM > Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] browser staff feedback > request / integration > > > > > I'm fine with the decision and consensus, but want to add one thing. I've > met a fair number of users who have a difficult time managing multiple > windows in an ongoing way (call them "the closers"). We obviously don't > have any such folks responding to this thread, but I think we should be > open to such feedback (should it come) and possibly reconsider this > decision if necessary. > > > > Dan > > > > > > > Daniel Wells > > Library Programmer/Analyst > > Hekman Library, Calvin College > > 616.526.7133 > > > > From: open-ils-dev-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org [mailto: > open-ils-dev-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Bill Erickson > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 1:20 PM > To: Evergreen Discussion Group > Cc: Evergreen Development Discussion List > Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] browser staff feedback > request / integration > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed on "fleshing out modules on a workflow-by-workflow basis as much as > possible". This is one area where user testing early in the process can > really pay off. > > > > > > So, I think it's safe to say we have a consensus on avoiding the XUL/mixed > integration path entirely. From a development perspective, this is > certainly a relief. > > > > > > -b > > > > > -- > > > > Bill Erickson > > > | Senior Software Developer > > > | phone: 877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457) > > > | email: ber...@esilibrary.com > > > | web: http://esilibrary.com > > > | Equinox Software, Inc. / The Open Source Experts > > > -- Tim Spindler tjspind...@gmail.com *P** Go Green - **Save a tree! Please don't print this e-mail unless it's really necessary.*
