Evaluate This Tutorial

Your e-mail address:
(e.g., abc3@cornell.edu)

Thank you for evaluating this on-line tutorial. Its intent is to offer base-level information on the use of digital preservation. We conceived of this tutorial as a prerequisite to attending Cornell's Weeklong workshop so that participants can devote more time to developing critical thinking skills and less time to learning basic information. The tutorial is also intended as a standalone product, and it is in this capacity that we ask you to review it.

We seek your input in two areas: content and interface design/functionality. Some of you will feel more prepared to comment in one area over the other, but we are hoping that your evaluation can encompass both. We ask you put yourself into the shoes of a potential user of this tutorial in completing your evaluation. Assume this user works in a cultural institution (library, archives, museum) and would have some familiarity with the language and concepts of digital preservation but no real experience or expertise.

Content:

1. How would you rate this tutorial overall (on a scale 1-5, with 1 being not helpful and 5 being extremely helpful).

Scale from 1 - 5

2. Is the tutorial pitched at the right level for the intended audience?

Yes
No - check the description that is most applicable:
      too elemental
      too advanced

3. Did the content seem accurate and up to date?

Yes
No - indicate sections that need updating/correcting.

4. Was the content relevant?

Yes
No - indicate sections that we could reduce or eliminate.

5. Was the content understandable?

Yes
No - indicate portions that need to be reviewed.

6. Was the coverage fairly consistent across the sections?

Yes
No - suggest sections that need more attention.

7. There is some built-in redundancy in the tutorial. Did you find this helpful?

Yes
No - suggest areas to eliminate redundancies.

8. Is there information missing that you would have expected to be covered?

Yes (please describe)
No

9. Rank in terms of information value the various sections of the tutorial (on a scale 1-5, with 1 being not important and 5 being extremely helpful).
1. Setting the Stage & Timeline
2. Terms and Concepts
3. Obsolescence and Chamber of Horrors
4. Foundations
5. Challenges
6. Program Elements
    Conclusion & Additional Reading

10. Rank in terms of information value the following characteristics of the tutorial (on a scale 1-5, with 1 being not important and 5 being extremely helpful).
basic text
illustrations
examples
breakouts by organizational , resource ($$$$) and technical (0101) dimensions
links to other sources
additional readings

11. Because there is a lot of general information available on Digital Preservation, we chose to orient the tutorial around Foundation Documents (Trusted Digital Repositories and OAIS Reference Model) Did you find this framework helpful?

Yes
No

12. Are there other means for presenting information that should be included (e.g., help screens, glossary, search feature, programmable formulas)
Yes - please list
No

Interface Design and Functionality

13. Rank the overall look and feel of the tutorial on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being poor, 5 being excellent.

Scale from 1 - 5
Comments:

14. Were the means for navigating through the tutorial flexible and intuitive? Could you get where you wanted to go without any difficulty? Did you find the navigation bars helpful? Were you able to page forward and backward easily? To move between sections smoothly? Please comment:

15. Were you able to keep a sense of context/direction as you progressed through the tutorial?

Yes
No - what would improve this?

16. Was the interface too cluttered? (e.g., were there too many objects onscreen?)

Yes
No

17. Were the images of sufficient quality to illustrate their point?

Yes
No - which images need to be redone?

18. Was the text easily legible?

Yes
No

19. Did you like the text layout?

Yes
No - Comment where appropriate on the fonts used, font size, use of italics, bold, uppercase, etc. in terms of conveying a consistency, structure, and level of importance of the text.

20. Were the various components of the pages clear and distinguishable from each other?

Yes
No

21. Did the full page width appear on your screen?

Yes
No

22. Were any of the “pages” too long? (e.g., should certain pages be further subdivided?)

Yes - which ones?
No

23. What suggestions do you have for improving the interface?

24. Was there a problem with download time?

Yes - how long did the page take to retrieve?
   
No

25. Did the links you chose work?
Yes
No - please list:

26. Was reviewing the tutorial on-screen comfortable? Did you experience eye strain?

27. Were there sections you printed out for study? If so, which one(s):

Comments: