[Vision2020] IKON update (survey questions)
Tom Hansen
thansen@moscow.com
Sat, 28 Feb 2004 06:37:06 -0800
The IKON survey concerned alot more than what is presented below.
As an employee of UI, I participated in the survey. The surbey consisted of
a series of questionaires, each questionaire addressing a particular aspect
associated with publication services.
At the beginning of each queationaire, you are asked to identify yourself.
Then you are asked if you participate in that specific aspect of
publication. If you do not participate in that specific aspect, you are
given the generic "Thank you for participating in this survey . . . ". The
next week another questionaire from IKON is e-mailed to you. And so on.
And so on. And so on.
If you do participate in that particular aspect of publication, the
questionaire continues for another 20 to 40 questions. There were 4 or 5
questionaires. For a person that does not participate in any aspect of
publication services, there are about 20 questions over all. For a person
that participates in all aspects of publication services, there are about
200+ questions over all.
Tom Hansen
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On
> Behalf Of Mike Weatherford
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:09 PM
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] IKON update (survey questions)
>
>
> >4. IKON developed an on-line survey aimed at identifying areas in which
> >could be improved or made more economically efficient. [I suggest that
> >IKON, in
> >the interest of fair play release the survey questions - so the
> public at
> >large could note the nature of the survey and their transparent
> agenda to
> >secure
> >data to aid in any future bid proposals.]
>
> I recieved a copy of this survey, but had originally deleted it
> from my mail
> account. However, since Vandalmail is good enough to keep stuff like that
> around until you actually /delete/ it, I still have access to the survey.
> Without further ado, here are the IKON survey questions (a -- between
> questions indicates a new page of the test):
>
> 1) Mailstop / Name / Phone
> 2) Are You Faculty/Staff?
> --
> 3) Are you a Student?
> --
> 4) Do you have a Mailstop on campus? (If not, the survey ends)
> --
> 5) Where is it Located?
> 6) Do you recieve Newspapers / Magazines?
> --
> 7) Do you recieve direct "Junk Mail"?
> --
> 8) In the past six months are you aware of mail that you were to receive
> that has been lost or misrouted by the Student Mail Center?
> --
> 9) In the past six months are you aware of a package(s) that has been
> misrouted or lost by the Student Mail Center?
> --
> 10) Do you send outgoing mail?
> --
> 11) Do you send outgoing packages?
> --
> 12) What time of the day is your mail and package slip(s) ready
> for you at
> your mailstop?
>
>
> 7-8 AM
> 8-9 AM
> 9-10 AM
> 10-11 AM
> 11-12 PM
> 12-1 PM
> 1-2 PM
> 2-3 PM
> 3-4 PM
> 4-5 PM
> 5-6 PM
> Other, Please Specify
> (Radio Buttons, textbox for 'Other)
> 13) Is this time satisfactory for you?
> --
> 14) What are the best aspects of the current Student Mail Center?
> (comment
> text box)
> 15) What are the worst aspect of the current Student Mail Center?
> (comment
> text box)
>
> ... and that was the end of the test. No "Please review data for
> accuracy",
> no "Press 'ok' to submit your test information". Just a 'Next'
> button that
> led to a "Thanks for participating &c &c!"-style window.
>
> Now, I'm not going to say that I think that theres a few things
> wrong with
> that test, but I think theres a few things wrong with that test:
> - The phrase 'Mailstop' is not defined (that sounds nitpicky, but
> seriously.. I have no idea what that is. I left it blank, and
> only realized
> the meaning once I got into the actual meat of the test...)
>
> - It is possible to enter only one of three lines in question #1 (which
> could have been fixed by adding something like TWO LINES of code to the
> project, and makes it the saddest webform I've ever seen.)
>
> - Questions #8 and #9 feel to me like leading questions. ("Oh, not that
> you're aware of? But it /could/ have happened!")
>
> - I think they could've EASILY made it one-three pages long,
> instead of 11.
> (Personal info, questions, comment text boxes = three pages = less server
> stress, less F/U/D for the survey taker.)
>
> - They didn't even have any sort of disclaimer set up promising harsh
> retribution or a stern talking-to for entering misleading
> information. Not
> so much as a "Please don't lie to us, this is important."
>
> - I am very disappointed in the lack of a "Please check your
> answers to make
> sure that they were right" section. For longer tests, its
> exclusion could be
> understandable, but (page count notwithstanding,) 15 questions isn't too
> many to have people go over again. Espescially if their responses could
> determine a major future expenditure for the University.
>
> So yes, I accidentally submitted some information to the test. In all
> fairness to myself, I /was/ using my roommate's experience with
> the Student
> Mail Services last year as the basis for my answers. So its still more or
> less relevant information that was submitted. In a round-about
> fashion. And
> we all learned something. :-)
>
> So those are the survey questions. How 'bout that?
>
> Cheers!
> -Mike
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S.
> locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>