How We Changed It

ThomasIFLA.doc
ThomasIFLA2.doc

We needed a tool that didn’t exist. ILS’s and blahexample (virtual reference, LIBstats) had been working well for brick and mortar’s idiosyncratic needs. [example tool not issue tracking for developers??]
There were tools to help librarians manage their local workflow and there were tools helping developers manage their digital workflow. But we didn’t yet have a a solution to manage our digital workflow from a bibliographic perspective.
The daily business of correcting errors and implementing enhancements--both internally and externally identified--had become haphazard and cumbersome. The tasks involved are often iterative and ongoing. Email and wiki pages had limitations and were all too easily forgotten or left hanging. We needed something that could both manage the entirety of the work while also being a part of the work. It seemed we were using [old technology to work on a new tech tool--there’s an analogy here, and it will underscore the 2.0 aspect]. There had to be a better way.


We considered issue trafficing software. Developers have been managing all the tasks associated with maintaining websites and building software (?) from one place for years and a few changes in language could transform the tool into a viable system.

We scanned available options (any reason to go into other options here?) to see what would best fit our needs as we identified them:
it needed to be hosted externally
it needed to be cheap
it needed to be extremely user friendly
it needed to have accessible support
it needed ??

, eventually settling on Countersoft’s web-based solution, Gemini. Working with tech team....

Changes to components
Changes to resources
Changes to type IDs


_


So, that covered how we modified Gemini. we were able to modify Gemini’s basic language to reflect bibliographic tasks related to the repository. But soon we also saw how changes to our digital library could take advantage of Gemini’s capabilities. Now that we had a way to streamline error corrections and enhancements to the digital library, we
the button committee

• the feedbackform*
• Button committee work
• 
  

the overwhelming response


so hey, it worked--
stats

User response:
Kinds of response, QA, request/gap fill, tech, praise


***
Bits to consider, where does it fit?
*Internal issue creation and management
*Going to BHL, the language of place
*open source, free contribution for All