0x009

["Pete St. Onge" <pete_st_onge@iname.com>]

Okay, folks, I think I got it. After a bunch of newless cluebie-type
errors in the HTML codes, I finally got stuff sorted out.

- The User Type is finally added (only took me, oh, nine tries! :-)

- I've put the individual sections in their own SDOC sections - makes
  it easier to see which question is where.

- Added the 'mission statement', but didn't really fill it in.

>From here:

     Should we tailor the 'how important is...' questions for each
section so that it maintains our analyical design (five options from
most +'ve to most -'ve, and a sixth 'dunno' option')?

For instance, this would be good for the hardware section:
[Bob]
For each of the following items, select the response that best
describes your feelings: must have / could use / don't care /
won't use / don't want / don't know

... but not so good for pricing, as Bob said. Tailoring the questions,
though, seems to me that it would reduce the possibility of ambiguity in
the responses. Alas, I cannot think of a good set of questions for the
pricing issue (and that's after the morning coffee...)


     I haven't yet added much to emerging technologies, other than ASDL
- I'd prefer to wait for the questions to be fleshed out a bit more.

     This is getting really interesting.

     Cheers,

     Pete

-- 
Pete St. Onge - McGill U.  Limnology - Fun with Ropes & Buckets
pete_st_onge@iname.com         http://wwp.mirabilis.com/4322052
---------------------------------------------------------------
SEUL Expert Group - Linux for All!          http://www.seul.org
Programming For Science Page        http://www.trentu.ca/~erpds