Evaluation and Testing Applied to ENRICH WP4

 

Hereafter you can find three sets of questions to evaluate two main functionalities developed within WP4 activities. The first functionality concerns the possibility for the end-user which enters Manuscriptorium to create personalized thematic collections and the second one allows the end-user to produce new virtual documents by merging different parts coming from diverse contents. All the features are available in the Manuscriptorium Digital Library environment directly. The virtual documents have to be created using the M-Tool application and then later these can be sent to the Manuscriptorium Digital Library for publication/use. Please read the user guides: User Guide to the Personal Library features and User Guide for digital facsimile browsing.

 

• The main part of this questionnaire consists of questions, concerning results achieved in WPs during the first year work in the project. Please consider each one carefully and choose "Yes" or "No". Then fix your rating of the Criteria evaluated in resulting to 5-point scale (from 0 - failed to 4 - excellent) by submitting your opinion.

• The numeration of the questions below is strictly related to the Tasks formulated in ENRICH WPs, Description of Work. For example: 4.1.1 a), b) means - WP 4, the Task 4.1, the first sub task of it considered in respect of two different aspects a) and b).

• If respondents feel that they cannot evaluate a particular item, they should read carefully the Checklist for Evaluation Criteria which will help you to deliver a reliable evaluation.

• After completing the questionnaire, please press the SUBMIT button at the bottom of this page to submit your responses. The information you provide is kept completely confidential.

 

Your evaluation will be more successful if you read Recommendations for Respondents and The Checklist for Evaluation Criteria. First of all identify yourself as belonging to one of four user's classes specified below.

 

Please tick the appropriate box indicating that your opinions are based on the experience of:

 

Content provider, information manager
Technical personnel, supporting staff
Scholar, researcher in historical documents
End-user having general interests

 

General scale from 0 to 4 has to be used for any approach of evaluation applied (your personal opinion or according the check list added separately)

The metrics used for evaluation means: 0 - Failed or feature does not exist 1 - Has poor support and/or it can be done but with significant effort 2 - Fair support but needs modification to reach the desired level of support 3 - Good support and needs a minimal amount of effort 4 - Excellent support and meets the criteria, minimal effort.

 

Adaptability / Object	Yes No
1. Is the extent of descriptive information that can be created for virtual documents adequate for such feature?
2. Is the possibility to add images and textual information (no audio/video support) adequate for virtual documents?
3. Is the extent of descriptive information that can be created for personal collections adequate for such feature?
4. Do the two ways of how to create collection contents cover all your collection related needs when creating a collection?
	Failed       Excellent
Resulting evaluation of the Adaptability / Object:	0 1 2 3 4

 

 

Adaptability / Tool	Yes No
1. Is the personal collections interface well adapted to your needs?
2. Is the virtual documents interface well adapted to your needs?
3. Is the possibility to share personal collections and virtual documents (eg. possibility to include links of collections into your documents, website etc..) well adapted to your needs?
4. Is the documentation of the personal collections and virtual documents features well designed and helpful?
	Failed       Excellent
Resulting evaluation of the Adaptability / Tool:	0 1 2 3 4

 

 

Security / Process	Yes No
1. Is the authentication procedure based on username/password adequate?
2. Do you agree that a system upgrade leading to a more secure authentication (e.g. using HTTPS protocol to encrypt sent/received information) is not necessary?
3. Do you find existing regular daily server-side backup of content of your virtual docs and personal collections to be adequate your needs?
4. Do you find the maximum inaccessibility time of three days needed due recovery from complete server system crashdown to be adequate?
	Failed       Excellent
Resulting evaluation of the Security / Process:	0 1 2 3 4

 

Are you satisfied with your evaluation? The rating is from 0 = <failled/feature don't exist> to 4 = <Excellent>:

 

	Failed       Excellent
Adaptability / Object	0 1 2 3 4
Adaptability / Tools	0 1 2 3 4
Security / Process	0 1 2 3 4

 

If the results seems acceptable, please click on <Submit>, if not, return back to the questions.

You were invited to evaluate results by: *
Select one: NKP CCP AIP OUCS KU BNCF MICF IMI VUL SYS ULW SAM UZK DSP NULI BNE BUTE PSNC other

Your free comments / suggestions:

Enter the code:

See statistics...

 

Evaluation and Testing Applied to ENRICH WP 3, WP4, WP 5, and WP 6

 

The all project partners have to participate in evaluation process. Thank you for your efforts in evaluating the results derived in WPs.

• Evaluation of WP 3 results. (Task leader - OUCS)
• Evaluation of WP 4 results. (Task leader - MICF)
• Evaluation of WP 5 results. (Task leader - AIP)
• Evaluation of WP 5 results. NEW (Task leader - AIP)
• Evaluation of WP 6 results. (Task leader - SYS)
• Additional information:.
  • Recommendations for Respondents
  • Checklist for Evaluation Criteria
  • The Summary Table - Relationships of WPs and Quality Criteria
• Evaluation of Usability in the ENRICH Website (done May- August 2008 as the System Usability Score - SUS)

 

Home