Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
> With multiple-choice answers for the first question, along the lines you
> proposed in an earlier note.
Yes.
> (maybe also "other"?)
Yes, good idea. Maybe we're missing something big. If we are, we'll be
able to better tune the *next* survey. After we implement the results of
this survey.
I like the way this is headed. We make a page. Take a survey. Use what we
learned to make improvements. Take another survey. And so on. That's a
good recipe for a dynamic, ever-improving website.
> The second question could be yes/no.
I thought about this. How about multiple choice?
Q2: How easy was it to find this information?
a. Very easy.
b. Easy.
c. A bit hard.
d. Very hard.
e. Could not find the information.
We want to encourage the distinction between "it is *possible* to do xyz"
versus "the page is well designed to do xyz".
> Here's an important message:
> Daniel does know what he's talking about when it comes to usability. Please
> listen to him.
+1 :-D
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | There is no urge so great as for one man to
Join OOoAuthors today! | edit another man's work.
http://www.oooauthors.org | -- Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
