Re: 0x009

[Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>]

In message <35E19023.271E4B7D@iname.com>, pete_st_onge@iname.com writes:
>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! :-)

After 'User Type' should be the demographics section, as per
http://www.seul.org/archives/seul/research/Jul-1998/msg00060.html
(which still needs a good bit of work)

Or maybe we should rename 'User Type' to 'Demographics' and merge them,
I dunno.

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

excellent

>- 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')?

I think that tailoring the questions to suit a single scale is the
best way to go, in terms of keeping the survey simple. 

Er, the pricing section makes the previous descriptions of the scale
that I presented sound pretty dumb, doesn't it. I should remove
reference to 'feature' and similar:

Rank the following in terms of importance -- how this issue would influence
your decision to use a computer system for all of your tasks.
Crucial, important, xx, relevant, unimportant

Crucial: This issue is one of the most important things I consider in
  evaluating a computer system
important: This issue is very important to me in evaluating a computer system
xx: This issue is important, but I am willing to compromise for more important
  issues
relevant: I consider this issue when I evaluate a computer system, when all
  else appears equal
unimportant: This issue is not relevant for/to me

This makes 'unsure' not very useful, so I left it out. I think those
descriptions could still use a lot of massaging; hopefully they will be
more generic, though.

Is this a better spectrum? Comments?

--Roger