NAAUG 2000 Meeting
May 31-June 1, 2000
Evaluation Form
Results
33 Total Returns
The number in parenthesis represents a "vote" by a NAAUG participant. In some cases, nothing was checked; in other cases two numbers were checked. Comments as written by participants follow.
Agenda Content:
1. How informative did you find the content of the following sessions, 1 being not very informative and 5 being very informative?:
|
Wednesday, May 31, 2000: 9:15 a.m._9:45 a.m. __ Introduction to NAAUG and Overview of NAAUG 2000 |
1 (1) |
2 (2) |
3 (5) |
4 (22) |
5 (2) |
|
10:15 a.m._noon __ Future Directions for Ex Libris |
1 (1) |
2 (0) |
3 (9) |
4 (11) |
5 (12) |
|
1:30 p.m._2:00 p.m. __ Constitution and Bylaws Presentation |
1 (2) |
2 (1) |
3 (12) |
4 (16) |
5 (1) |
|
2:00 p.m._3:00 p.m. __ Constitution and Bylaws Discussion |
1 (1) |
2 (1) |
3 (8) |
4 (16) |
5 (4) |
|
Thursday, June 1, 2000: 8:15 a.m._9:45 a.m. __ Development Request Process Panel Presentation |
1 (0) |
2 (0) |
3 (4) |
4 (22) |
5 (4) |
|
10:00 a.m._11:30 a.m. __ Development Request Process Discussion |
1 (0) |
2 (1) |
3 (4) |
4 (17) |
5 (6) |
|
3:15 p.m._4:30 p.m. __ NAAUG Steering Committee Report |
1 (0) |
2 (1) |
3 (3) |
4 (12) |
5 (10) |
Session Presenters:
1. In terms of presentation pace and preparation, the presenter for each session below was:
|
Wednesday, May 31, 2000: 9:15 a.m._9:45 a.m. __ Introduction to NAAUG and Overview of NAAUG 2000 |
1 Poor (1) |
2 Fair (3) |
3 Good (21) |
4 Excellent (7) |
|
10:15 a.m._noon __ Future Directions for Ex Libris |
1 Poor (2) |
2 Fair (1) |
3 Good (21) |
4 Excellent (8) |
|
1:30 p.m._2:00 p.m. __ Constitution and Bylaws Presentation |
1 Poor (1) |
2 Fair (5) |
3 Good (20) |
4 Excellent (4) |
|
2:00 p.m._3:00 p.m. __ Constitution and Bylaws Discussion |
1 Poor (2) |
2 Fair (2) |
3 Good (19) |
4 Excellent (4) |
|
Thursday, June 1, 2000: 8:15 a.m._9:45 a.m. __ Development Request Process Panel Speaker 1 |
1 Poor (0) |
2 Fair (3) |
3 Good (23) |
4 Excellent (6) |
|
8:15 a.m._9:45 a.m. __ Development Request Process Panel Speaker 2 |
1 Poor (0) |
2 Fair (2) |
3 Good (22) |
4 Excellent (7) |
|
8:15 a.m._9:45 a.m. __ Development Request Process Panel Speaker 3 |
1 Poor (0) |
2 Fair (2) |
3 Good (21) |
4 Excellent (8) |
|
8:15 a.m._9:45 a.m. __ Development Request Process Panel Speaker 4 |
1 Poor (0) |
2 Fair (3) |
3 Good (21) |
4 Excellent (7) |
|
3:15 p.m._3:45 p.m. __ Presentation of Constitution and Bylaws |
1 Poor (0) |
2 Fair (0) |
3 Good (21) |
4 Excellent (7) |
|
3:45 p.m._4:00 p.m. __ NAAUG Steering Committee Plan for 20012002 Election |
1 Poor (0) |
2 Fair (1) |
3 Good (18) |
4 Excellent (7) |
|
4:00 p.m._4:30 p.m. __ NAAUG Steering Committee Plan for Implementing a Development Request Process |
1 Poor (0) |
2 Fair (1) |
3 Good (15) |
4 Excellent (7) |
Conference Facilities:
1. The conference facilities (CCE) supported the needs of this meeting (i.e., size and content):
|
1 Strongly Disagree |
2 Disagree |
3 Agree (4) |
4 Strongly Agree (28) |
2. The campus housing was adequate for this meeting:
na (|
1 Strongly Disagree |
2 Disagree |
3 Agree (6) |
4 Strongly Agree (13) |
General:
Please share suggestions you would make to improve future meetings of the users’ group, e.g., future session recommendations or format changes, etc.
–Just tell us what SFX does; forget about rationale; If we want it, we’ll call you.
–waste of time, mostly (re: constitution and bylaws presentation)
–good discussion facilitator; let it happen with only minor intervention; summed it at appropriate times (re: constitution and bylaws discussion)
–I do not need to know about the books the provost has written; just let him welcome us and get on. (Re: intro to NAAUG)
–it could have been shorter or given out in advance via email (re: constitution and bylaws presentation)
–allowed people to jump around to take core of related issue in constitution (re: constitution and bylaws discussion)
–obviously, a reports application roundtable discussion will be needed pronto.
–have people go to microphone when speaking so everyone can hear or instruct individuals to speak clearly and loudly.
–customers present functional presentations about using Aleph
–invite Ex Libris to share development changes in upcoming releases of Aleph and invite them to make presentations on additional products or services as the planning committeeSC deems appropriate.
–set aside "exhibits" area for Ex Libris to demo new products that would also include space for third party vendors to be available to meet with customers on Aleph-related projects.
–flesh out agenda for participants and speakers, so that intention of the sessions is well-known.
–I was only able to attend 1 day and not many of the presentations.
–Roundtable (OPAC) was very helpful.
–I’d also like to let you know that lunch on Thursday was without question the best vegetarian mail I’ve ever had at a conference – thank you!
– The facilities and services were outstanding. Kudos to the conference planners.
– Shorter roundtable discussing, with topics repeated, so it is possible to attend more than two.
– Session of foreign language cataloging or Hebrew cataloging.
–Could have been more on new Aleph developments vs. SFX and metalib.
–Include email address on roster and departmental or title or job function. Also depttitlejob function on name tag.
– Facility - request additional trash receptacles for near auditorium.
– Be sure the "on-the-fly" presentations are readable in respect to font size. The PowerPoint slice were hard to follow.
– More roundtable discussion duplication.
– Be more specific about agenda topics and outcomes expected.
– Have some topical presentations.
– Two full days too long.
– Food only average.
– Do not have mikes if folks do not have to use them.
– More meetings with Ex Libris face-to-face.
– Sessions for new users, experienced users, potential users.
– Presentations by users in functional areas.
– More application roundtable discussions.
– You have a beautiful conference centre; it seems perfect for a meeting of this size.
– Thank you for a very well-run meeting.
– The vendor should not participate in NAAUG procedural meetings.
– Roundtable idea is good, but needs fine tuning to make it more effective.
– Ex Libris did not have enough time to present everything.
– Perhaps limit number of participants from a particular library.
– Great organization! Terrific inaugural meeting!
NAAUG 2000 Meeting
Application Roundtable Discussions
Acquisitions Discussion Evaluation Form
RESULTS
6 Total Returns
|
1. The open, informal format of the discussion was appropriate, inviting all participants to share ideas and ask questions. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(0) |
4 Strongly Agree (6) |
|
2. The facilitator effectively managed the discussion. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(2) |
4 Strongly Agree (4) |
|
3. The issues raised by the facilitator or participants were of interest to me. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(1) |
4 Strongly Agree (5) |
|
4. Application Roundtable Discussions should be scheduled at the next users’ group meeting. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(0) |
4 Strongly Agree (6) |
No additional comments were written on the Acquisitions evaluations.
5. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the format of the Application Roundtable Discussions:
6. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the role of the facilitator:
7. Please share any suggestions you have for future acquisitions discussion topics:
8. Please share any suggestions you have for additional Application Roundtable Discussions, e.g., ILL, course reserves, bindery, etc.
NAAUG 2000 Meeting
Application Roundtable Discussions
Cataloging Discussion Evaluation Form
RESULTS
12 Total Returns
|
1. The open, informal format of the discussion was appropriate, inviting all participants to share ideas and ask questions. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(2) |
4 Strongly Agree (10) |
|
2. The facilitator effectively managed the discussion. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(7) |
4 Strongly Agree (5) |
|
3. The issues raised by the facilitator or participants were of interest to me. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(6) |
4 Strongly Agree (6) |
|
4. Application Roundtable Discussions should be scheduled at the next users’ group meeting. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(3) |
4 Strongly Agree (9) |
5. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the format of the Application Roundtable Discussions:
– Decide whether the discussion from day two are going to build on day one.
– Best practices
– Helpful to have somewhat more focused topics shared a head of time
6. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the role of the facilitator:
– In future, put out suggestions ahead of time.
– Facilitator is wonderful
7. Please share any suggestions you have for future acquisitions discussion topics:
– Batch loading (CAT-ME, Authority Vendors)
– Best practices
– Workflow changes
– Global change for authority work
– CJK when implemented at Iowa
– Workflow
8. Please share any suggestions you have for additional Application Roundtable Discussions, e.g., ILL, course reserves, bindery, etc.
-- Reserves and E-Reserves
– Non-Roman Language Group
– Character sets, Non-Roman, etc.
– Bindery
– Holdings standards for serials and monographs
– Non-Roman scripts
NAAUG 2000 Meeting
Application Roundtable Discussions
OPAC Discussion Evaluation Form
RESULTS
18 Total Returns
|
1. The open, informal format of the discussion was appropriate, inviting all participants to share ideas and ask questions. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(3) |
4 Strongly Agree (15 |
|
2. The facilitator effectively managed the discussion. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(5) |
4 Strongly Agree (13) |
|
3. The issues raised by the facilitator or participants were of interest to me. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(7) |
4 Strongly Agree (11) |
|
4. Application Roundtable Discussions should be scheduled at the next users’ group meeting. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(5) |
4 Strongly Agree (13) |
5. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the format of the Application Roundtable Discussions:
– Choose a smaller room; hard to hear.
– Only one is necessary.
– Cut down on technical discussion.
– Longer period of time – this was the most useful part of the 2-day meeting.
– Ex Libris staff member present to take feedback back to the company.
– Have all facilitators distribute possible questions/agendas via the NAAUG list before the meeting.
– Have key issues submitted or listed for coverage during sessions.
6. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the role of the facilitator:
– Sacha was good!
– None. He was excellent.
– None. To keep conversation going was correct role.
7. Please share any suggestions you have for future acquisitions discussion topics:
– ILL
– Z39.50
– Multibase tutorial
– content of a "basic" orientation/training package, manual for distribution and modification by local sites
8. Please share any suggestions you have for additional Application Roundtable Discussions, e.g., ILL, course reserves, bindery, etc.
– User Training Group
– Have redundancy sessions. Since the system is integrated, we may need to be in several roundtables.
NAAUG 2000 Meeting
Application Roundtable Discussions
Systems Discussion Evaluation Form
RESULTS
19 Total Returns
|
1. The open, informal format of the discussion was appropriate, inviting all participants to share ideas and ask questions. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(4) |
4 Strongly Agree (15) |
|
2. The facilitator effectively managed the discussion. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(10) |
4 Strongly Agree (9) |
|
3. The issues raised by the facilitator or participants were of interest to me. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(7) |
4 Strongly Agree (12) |
|
4. Application Roundtable Discussions should be scheduled at the next users’ group meeting. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(5) |
4 Strongly Agree (14) |
5. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the format of the Application Roundtable Discussions:
– Very help discussions.
– Distribute session agenda, if any, in advance whenever possible
– Provide roster sheet for each breakout session or suggest to each facilitator
– Make them one hour each, so we can attend more different sessions
– The format was acceptable as is.
6. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the role of the facilitator:
– Our facilitator was very hands-on. Worked well for our group.
– Ask for distribution in advance of discussion guidelines
7. Please share any suggestions you have for future acquisitions discussion topics:
– Web server management
– Use of PHP and scripting tools
– SQL reports - share what you’ve done
– Procedural, tasks
8. Please share any suggestions you have for additional Application Roundtable Discussions, e.g., ILL, course reserves, bindery, etc.
– Please share the handouts from all the sessions.
– Staff training
– Hebrew cataloging
– Staff training
NAAUG 2000 Meeting
Application Roundtable Discussions
Circulation Discussion Evaluation Form
RESULTS
5 Total Returns
|
1. The open, informal format of the discussion was appropriate, inviting all participants to share ideas and ask questions. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(0) |
4 Strongly Agree (5) |
|
2. The facilitator effectively managed the discussion. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(2) |
4 Strongly Agree (3) |
|
3. The issues raised by the facilitator or participants were of interest to me. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(0) |
4 Strongly Agree (5) |
|
4. Application Roundtable Discussions should be scheduled at the next users’ group meeting. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(0) |
4 Strongly Agree (5) |
5. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the format of the Application Roundtable Discussions:
– More time.
– I think it was fine as is; my only suggestion would be to add more sessions (which I’m assuming will be possible, since we should not have so much steering committee work to deal with).
– Longer discussions.
6. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the role of the facilitator:
– Sue did well.
7. Please share any suggestions you have for future acquisitions discussion topics:
– Renewal, recall, proxy
8. Please share any suggestions you have for additional Application Roundtable Discussions, e.g., ILL, course reserves, bindery, etc.
– No. Same people need to go to circulation, ILL, reserve.
NAAUG 2000 Meeting
Application Roundtable Discussions
Serials Discussion Evaluation Form
RESULTS
9 Total Returns
|
1. The open, informal format of the discussion was appropriate, inviting all participants to share ideas and ask questions. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(4) |
4 Strongly Agree (5) |
|
2. The facilitator effectively managed the discussion. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(6) |
4 Strongly Agree (3) |
|
3. The issues raised by the facilitator or participants were of interest to me. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(7) |
4 Strongly Agree (2) |
|
4. Application Roundtable Discussions should be scheduled at the next users’ group meeting. |
1 Strongly Disagree (0) |
2 Disagree
(0) |
3 Agree
(5) |
4 Strongly Agree (4) |
5. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the format of the Application Roundtable Discussions:
–Need to do breakout sessions, so people can attend at different times.
6. Please share any suggestions you have to improve the role of the facilitator:
– Give list hot topics
7. Please share any suggestions you have for future acquisitions discussion topics:
– EDI
– Issue labels
8. Please share any suggestions you have for additional Application Roundtable Discussions, e.g., ILL, course reserves, bindery, etc.
– Report functionality