W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > September 2012

Re: updates to implementation questionnaire

From: Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:25:13 -0600
Cc: "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6D37F549-9542-45A0-83AB-018400515C12@rpi.edu>
To: Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com>

On Sep 7, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback Eric.
> 
> On Sep 6, 2012, at 2:09 PM, Eric Stephan <ericphb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Stephan,
>> 
>> The first page of the survey looks straight forward, easy to read and
>> user friendly.
>> 
>> The second page is a bit daunting (but understandable) it might take a
>> bit more work but at some point it might be nice to categorize
>> different chunks of  the vocabulary (e.g. core vocabulary), and I
>> noticed if entire second page remained blank the survey was still
>> accepted.  It seems as through a warning letting user know about this
>> might be a good thing.
> 
> The survey contains 3 possible second pages, determined by whether you select the implementation  type as a language api / application / service (branch 1), a vocabulary extension (branch 2), or a constraints validator implementation (branch 3).  The survey is complete after you fill out the 2nd page so you will only see one of the 3 possible branches on any traversal of the survey.
> 
> Do you remember which second page option you looked at?
> 
> Also, the branching nature of the 2nd page is why the survey questions were not required.  I was not sure if making a question required in a branch the user did not see would make the survey un-submittable.  I will look into setting questions on the branching 2nd pages as required.

I was able to update the survey so that questions about coverage of terms in the branches are required.  I tested the form and it is still submittable even though required questions are on untraversed branches.

> 
>> 
>> One final note, would it be possible to send an email back to survey
>> author just so they can get a confirmation of their responses and you
>> can validate their email address?
> 
> Good idea.  I will look into this.

I looked into both sending an email to the survey owner (myself) as well as the person that filled out the survey.  I was able to get the former to work but not the later.

For the survey taker I updated the form submit confirmation page to show a summary of user selections.

Regarding notifications to survey owner/editor, I was able to set a notification rule so that I as an editor get a digest email of any submissions to the form.  It is up to each editor of the form/spreadsheet to setup their own notifications.

From the spreadsheet view, select Tools->Notification Rules.

--Stephan

> 
> --Stephan
> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Eric
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Stephan Zednik <zednis@rpi.edu> wrote:
>>> I have made updates to the implementation questionnaire. The questionnaire
>>> is now multi-page with the second page loading based on the implementation
>>> type (language or constraints implementation or vocabulary extension).
>>> Also, I added a section for coverage of constraints from constraint
>>> validator implementations.
>>> 
>>> The published form is viewable at
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGM4cXZYMk0xaFBDT2VyRV92YkY5WkE6MQ
>>> 
>>> The source spreadsheet is available at
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aon9DSj-WtGqdGM4cXZYMk0xaFBDT2VyRV92YkY5WkE#gid=0
>>> 
>>> Please take a run through the form and send feedback/suggestions.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> --Stephan
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 20:25:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 20:25:38 GMT