Re: 0x010

[Roger Dingledine <arma@mit.edu>]

In message <71cbb61.35e84d02@aol.com>>, eamorical@aol.com writes:
>If I understand correctly Roger will write an Introduction
>section which I assume will replace the Mission Statement.

Ung. Yeah, I'm going to give this a go. I've been pondering it,
and I actually have no idea what the beginning of the survey is
supposed to say. I want to provide some background material, some
motivation, some definitions and explanations, all without
influencing how the survey itself works. I'll probably post an
outline or draft or something, and go from there.

>User Demographics
>A. 'Choose all  that apply' Ok I pick 1,2,3 and 4. As I answer
>the questions I switch hats depending on how I feel about
>the question. How do you know  what I am doing. Don't we

It's "pick a primary", then "tick others that apply as well".
Thus, you should be looking at questions based on the primary
user-type you chose.
Er, that doesn't seem to have gotten into 0x010. Whoops.

>need something that defines the point of view of the survey
>taker. I tend to agree with Pete's comments. In other words
>don't ask anything one doesn,t have to.
>B. Windows 95/98

good call

>C. Should group 3 and group 4 be interchanged so that 'Do
>multiple people use this system' follows 'How many people
>use the computer'

Hrm. The "home:" and "business:" that I prepended to some of
those questions is now moot, because I don't get to pick
different questions depending on earlier answers. Which just
means we'll have to merge the two and ask both at once:

How many computers do you have? (If home user, consider your
entire household; if business user, consider only those computers
which you personally have) 0 1 2 3 4 5+

Then the "How many people use these computers?" question doesn't
make sense for business users. Is there a simple solution for this?

This section needs some more help, apparently. Thanks for pointing
that out.

>Ok 'foo,bar,baz,quux,squee,unsure' I feel for now leave 'unsure'.
>It doesn't affect anything so it can be left until the very last
>decision to leave it or toss it. Roger has suggested:
>essential / nearly essential / preferred / slightly prefered / unimportant
>and
>crucial / important / xx / relevant / unimportant
>I just wanted to check. I see these as 5,4,3,2,1. This is what you
>want as opposed to 2,1,0,-1,-2 where the middle one is the null one.

Yes, this is what I want. People keep proposing scales with "absolutely
do not want" at one end of them. I'm assuming that since all of our
questions are features or abilities, people aren't going to say "no, I
absolutely cannot have SMP support in my OS".

>In any case the Pricing questions can be reworded to fit. At this point
>I'm not as concerned about the wording of the questions (that's easy
>to fix) as I am about what questions we want to ask. Last thought
>eventually should all the questions start out with the same wording
>for consistancy and ease of matching foo,bar,etc. or all different
>to be artistic.

It would be nice if similar questions were worded the same. I'm not
worried that people will get bored by our word choice. We want to
choose exact words for their clarity, not their fun. :)

>Agreed (OS) stability and application stability should be together.
>Again not particularily concerned at this point.
>Ok I want  to go back over 0x010 before I go on.
>To be continued.
>
>Bob

Thanks,
--Roger