Re: Trial version of the questionnaire

Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> Ivan asked me to send my comments on the questionnaire to the group (I had 
> embedded them within my trial answers). So here they are (many of them 
> agree with points raised by Susie).
> 
> Question 6: the answers should be checkboxes
> 

Yep, done.

> Question 10: I don't understand this question as worded. Why do we care 
> about the survey taker's opinion on this vis a vis the actual nature of 
> who the decision markers / influencers are?
> 

I would prefer to get input from Karen & Susie before chaning anyting


> Question 10&11: I don't like the "Don't want" and "Don't mind" choices; 
> they confuse me!
> 

Yep, look at my answer to Susie's mail

> Question 15: I think this should be check boxes also (I'm a developer and 
> an IBM representative on standards committees.) Also, I would be a 
> standard committee representative; I'm not actually a committee itself.
> 

Indeed. Done (I also changed the 'standard committee' to 'standard
committee representative' here and in other questions)

> Overall I'm pleased with the questionnaire. It took me about 10 minutes to 
> fill out, though I skimped on some of the answers. I'm not too concerned 
> about being precise to the minute in terms of our time advice to the 
> questionnaire takers. 


Thanks Lee

Ivan

> 
> Lee
> 
> Susie Stephens wrote on 12/15/2006 04:03:02 PM:
> 
> 
>>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".
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>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".
>>
>>I think it's looking really good. :-)
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>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