Evaluation and Testing Applied to ENRICH WP5

 

!!! Comments and suggestions of users

 

The M-Tool can be accessed online.
Additional information about evaluating M-Tool.
The M-Tool User's Manual can be accessed as a PDF.

 

  • 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: 5.1.1 a), b) means - WP 5, the Task 5.1, 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Scholar, researcher in historical documents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.
 

Task 5.1: On-line tools for structuring of existing metadata and data related to manuscripts (m3-m16). Task leader: AIP.

 

5.1.1. Evaluate the tools used for structuring existing metadata / newly created digitized documents and their implementation into Manuscriptorium structures.

Set of tools provided in the frame of Manuscriptorium was:

  • The individual Connector prepared according to the metadata properties in large- scale digitization projects;
  • M-Tool (off-line or on-line version): an application which enables to create the descriptive and structural metadata;
  • M-Can: on-line application which enables upload of the metadata into the Manuscriptorium environment, check of correctness and subsequently transfer for import

     

Evaluate the tool(s) and process you have used in respect of Criteria /categories indicated:

The Content/Associated Partners are kindly asked to answer the questions below by ticking "Yes" or "No". The resulting score of the corresponding criteria, assigned by you to that item - the sum of yours "Yes", will be shown automatically in the next line after those questions.

 

M-Tool: Usability (corresponding to the Task 5.1.1 - a)

Yes

No
1. Have you encountered no fatal errors causing loosing work in process?

2. Have you encountered no browser error alerts or display difficulties?

3. Javascript dependancy: it was no dependancy on Javascript, affecting negatively your work with the M-Tool?

4. Is the interface intutive / user friendly enough?

   
 

Failed

      

Excellent
Resulting evaluation of the USABILITY / Tools:


0


1


2


3


4
 

 

M-Tool: Adaptibility of Tools (corresponding to the Task 5.1.1 - b)

Yes

No
1. Are the bibliographic description forms well adapted to documents in your collection?

2. Is the M-tool well adapted to properties of digital documents in your collection?

3. Is the documentation of the M-Tool well designed and helpfull?

4. Is the single (English) language interface sufficient for your needs?

   
 

Failed

      

Excellent
Resulting evaluation of the ADAPTABILITY / Tools:


0


1


2


3


4

 

 

M-Tool: Process (corresponding to the Task 5.1.1 - c)

Yes

No
1. Are the responses of the service satisfying (no time demanding delays experienced)?

2. Is the built-in check of descriptive metadata sufficient?

3. Is the built-in check of structural metadata and data availability sufficient?

4. Is the usage of (saving/re-opening and updating) with XML files well resolved?

   
 

Failed

      

Excellent
Resulting evaluation of the USABILITY / 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
USABILITY / Tools


0


1


2


3


4
ADAPTABILITY / Tools


0


1


2


3


4
USABILITY / 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: *


Your free comments / suggestions:


See statistics...

 

Evaluation and Testing Applied to ENRICH WP 3, WP 4, WP 5, and WP 6

 

The all project partners have to participate in evaluation process. Thank you for your efforts in evaluating the first results derived in WPs until December 2008.

 

Home