Related material improvements #1900
Conversation
Adds level of decription, refcode, and draft status to existing related descriptions following autocomplete title format.
Linked draft material descriptions now only visible to authenticated users
Adds level of description, refcode, and draft status to related materials titles.
|
Hi @mInnes-archives - thanks for your contribution! As the Contributor Success Specialist, I wanted to update you on this PR. I have notified Enterprise services about this and they will be contacting you in the new year to move forward. I will also discuss this further with the AtoM Maintainers. If you have any additional questions, feel free to contact me or the Community Team at contributors@artefactual.com |
|
Thanks for the update @sarah-mason.
Assuming I'm understanding this correctly, I'd like to provide some clarification to avoid some confusion - if Enterprise Services is to contact whomever our point of contact is at BC Archives, it's unlikely that they will know anything about this PR. I'm just an Archivist who works for BC Archives at the moment. I only mentioned my place of work to give some real world justification since some of this is motivated by conversations I've had with some of the other Archivists regarding why we aren't using this field. This is more in line with the stuff I've done in the past as an independent community contributor for AtoM. It's more of a hobby. |
|
Thank you for the additional context - if Enterprise does contact want to anyone about it, I have recommended they contact you first. We welcome all to contribute and having user experience of AtoM's and its features (and its bugs) can be useful for deciding what to tackle with development. I am bringing this to the AtoM Maintenance team to discuss as well, so we will be in contact further by the new year. |
PR adds some small improvements to how related materials are listed in descriptions and in relevant edit forms:
With regards to the second point, given that titles can be fairly generic in an archival context, just having the title alone ends up being really unclear and unhelpful at times. At BC Archives we have been avoiding using the 'Related materials' field because of how it displays. We've just been using the 'Associated materials' field instead, which technically isn't what it's intended for. Hopefully this can help get us using the appropriate field in the future and benefit from having reciprocal links. I imagine there are others who might be avoiding it or finding it not as clear as it could be for users for similar reasons.