Agreed. When explaining this to others, I've had several people ask if Koha was going to revoke the patron's license to practice law. "Restricted" or "suspended" would be much clearer than "debarred", at least for Americans. Cheers, -Ian On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Owen Leonard <oleonard@myacpl.org> wrote:
Nicole writes in Bug 4947 (http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=4947):
In the patron management and overdue notice settings you can 'debar' a patron, but when you do that the patron record says they're 'restricted' - we should use the same language so that it's clear that this is why the patron cannot check out
"Debar" is the term Koha originally used. When we were working on 3.0 we were doing an "audit" on librarian-speak and trying to come up with more user-friendly terms. "Restricted" was chosen for the staff client because it seemed to be a more commonly understood term. To make matters more confusing for us, the term "frozen" is used in the OPAC.
In my opinion as a speaker of American English, "Restrict" is better and we should be working to eliminate "debar." I don't mind that the patrons see "frozen" because I think that best reflects their status from their point of view.
What does everyone else think?
-- Owen
-- Web Developer Athens County Public Libraries http://www.myacpl.org _______________________________________________ Koha mailing list Koha@lists.katipo.co.nz http://lists.katipo.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/koha
-- Ian Walls Lead Development Specialist ByWater Solutions Phone # (888) 900-8944 http://bywatersolutions.com ian.walls@bywatersolutions.com Twitter: @sekjal