Re: Trial version of the questionnaire

One, maybe a bit late, suggestion for extending Q 6...  Would it be
interesting to ask:

6A:   How/where does your org. use SW?     =   we have this one now

followed by

6B:   If you checked research, pilot or production in Q6A, could you
identify the source(s) of funding?
       (  )   don't know / don't want to answer
       (  )   public funds (e.g. NSF, EC)
       (  )   internal resources
       (  )   other external investment (e.g. private equity)
       (  )   other (pls. specify)



Then, in Q11 we use phrase "standard committee rep" -- do we mean
"standards" in general? Maybe this one could be re-worded to make it
clearer, e.g. "QA / standards dept."? Something similar for "architect",
making it "system architect" or "software architect"? But these are just
minor and probably unimportant tweakings...

And one observation re point, which is probably beyond ours and Ivan's
control -- the question headings do not wrap, but the actual choices do
adjust to the screen size, which makes some questions nicely "boxed" and
others look "open/unboxed" (e.g. 5, 11)... at least in Mozilla


Best,

Martin




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
To: "Susie Stephens" <susie.stephens@oracle.com>
Cc: "W3C SWEO IG" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>; "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Sent: 19 December 2006 09:47
Subject: Re: Trial version of the questionnaire

I have made all pending changes (commented below). I have also
re-numbered the questions (remember that yesterday I split question #8
to #8a and #8b to avoid confusions while we had pending issues).

I am not aware of any pending issues at the moment. But the floor is
still open until tomorrow's meeting:-)

Thanks to all

Ivan

Susie Stephens wrote:
>
>>
>> Lee:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
> The goal of the question is to get a better understanding as to who
> exactly the decision makers / influencers are. That way we can tailor
> our collateral to the key people. Lee: Does this answer your question?
>

In a subsequent mail Lee agreed that the answer possibilities were not
really appropriate and the question was o.k. I have deleted the 'old'
ranking widget and replaced it with the 'importance' widget. This may
solve the issue.


>> Danny:
>>
>> "4. Are you familiar with the use of Semantic Web technologies in the
>> following areas"
>> I didn't understand what was intended by the option
>> Regulation/compliance - interpretations could perhaps be network access
>> control; quality control; XML validation...
>>
>>
>
> Perhaps we should change the description to 'Compliance, Governance and
> Audit'. There are increasing business pressures around the traceability
> and verifiability of data movement and data relationships. The Semantic
> Web provides benefits in this area because it provide an approach that
> is flexible, precise, repeatable, and intelligent.
>

I have changed the entry to what you propose. I have also changed
question #5 where the same term was used.


>> "9. How do customers perceive your usage of Semantic Web technologies?"
>> could be tricky for non customer-facing respondees.
>>
>
> We thought this question would work for vendors, and also for IT people
> who consider the business people within their company to be customers.
> Danny: Should we add an 'If applicable' at the beginning?
>

I was a bit more verbose and I added the following to the question:

<p>(If you are not at a customer related organization, for example a
research institution, you can skip this question.)</p>


>> "10. Which individuals in your organization are most likely to make
>> decisions about whether to use Semantic Web technologies?"
>>  - is totally confusing (I skipped, and on looking back I realise I'd
>> inadvertently skipped 11 as well)
>>
>
> Ivan has changed the ranking for this question, so hopefully that helps.
>

Yep.

>>
>> Ivan

Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2006 15:09:54 UTC