Re: Trial version of the questionnaire

Susie Stephens wrote:
> 
> Hi Ivan,
> 
> I've just had a go at filling out the questionnaire, and the process
> went fairly smoothly. It took me 10 minutes to complete, so the time
> guide does seem reasonable. Here are some thoughts as to where we can
> make a few tweaks.
> 
> 1. Instead of saying "It is intended that it will take less than 10
> minutes for you to complete the survey.", we should say "It is intended
> that it will take about 10 minutes for you to complete the survey".
> 

Sure. Done.

> 2. In Q6, people should be able to select multiple radio buttons, for
> example, I wanted to select that Oracle sells SW products and are using
> SW in production.
> 

Done.

> 3. For question 8, would it be possible to have separate dialogue boxes
> for advantages and disadvantages. I think separate boxes will encourage
> people to enter both types of information.
> 

What I did was to separate this into two questions. For now, I labelled
them 8a and 8b, to avoid being mixed up with the comments. Actually, we
can leave it that to show that these questions are related (or I can
renumber the questions later).


> 4. In questions 10 and 11, is it possible to remove the responses "don't
> mind" and "don't want", as they aren't appropriate answers to the
> questions? It would also be nice if there was an option that states "no
> influence", otherwise people are forced to rank entries when none of
> them apply. For example, in question 10, we could potential loose the
> fact that only IT management influences technology selection.
> 

Unfortunately, this is generated by the WBS system, not under my
control. I will ask Ian explicitly (in case he missed this mail), but I
am afraid I cannot do that. :-(

*However* I have looked at other possibilities. Using another goody of
WBS, I have added an alternative to both questions (labelled 10a and
11a). These are not ranking of the items among themselves, but rather
ranking each individual entry separately. I did have difficulty with
ranking (for example, is scalability more important that ease of use? I
would rank them on the same level)... I may prefer these alternatives.
The possible ranking labels (no opinion, lowest, etc) as well as the
'Importance of' added to the option are all automatically generated by
WBS. Ie, I cannot change those. But I think I still prefer this version
than the old one.

Just tell me which one I should keep, deleting a question is easy.


> 5. In question 12, I think the subheading should become the main
> heading. There could be a subheading in brackets that says "Please
> select all that apply".
> 

Done.

> I think it's looking really good. :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> 

Cheers back:-)

Ivan

> Susie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We have now a 'trial' version of the questionnaire ready at:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39572/qtest/
>>
>> this version can only be accessed by the SWEO IG, it is really to see
>> how it looks like, and to experiment with it. You can all try to fill
>> the form, the results of the form can then be seen at:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/39572/qtest/results
>>
>> We would like to get all comments in by next week Wednesday, 20th of
>> December. We can then make a copy of the questionnaire, this time
>> accessible to the public. Susie can then send out the URI to the
>> contacts we will have collected.
>>
>> Thanks for all comments
>>
>> Susie & Karen & Ivan
>>
>>   
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf