5th Annual Hong Kong Innovative Users Group Meeting
Results of Programme Evaluation
|
|
Programme organization
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
37 |
39% |
 |
 |
50 |
52% |
 |
 |
9 |
9% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 96 |
|
Programme publicity
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
18 |
19% |
 |
 |
53 |
56% |
 |
 |
22 |
23% |
 |
 |
1 |
1% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 94 |
|
Days for the programme
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
9 |
9% |
 |
 |
32 |
33% |
 |
 |
50 |
52% |
 |
 |
3 |
3% |
 |
 |
2 |
2% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 96 |
|
Time for presentations by individual libraries
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
8 |
9% |
 |
 |
28 |
31% |
 |
 |
48 |
54% |
 |
 |
3 |
3% |
 |
 |
2 |
2% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 89 |
|
Time for presentations by III
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
6 |
7% |
 |
 |
39 |
46% |
 |
 |
34 |
40% |
 |
 |
4 |
5% |
 |
 |
1 |
1% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 84 |
|
Time for group discussions
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
4 |
5% |
 |
 |
14 |
18% |
 |
 |
44 |
56% |
 |
 |
12 |
15% |
 |
 |
5 |
6% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 79 |
|
Presentations by individual libraries
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
21 |
24% |
 |
 |
48 |
55% |
 |
 |
19 |
22% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 88 |
|
Presentations by III
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
7 |
9% |
 |
 |
43 |
52% |
 |
 |
29 |
35% |
 |
 |
3 |
4% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 82 |
|
Group discussions
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
12 |
16% |
 |
 |
33 |
43% |
 |
 |
26 |
34% |
 |
 |
4 |
5% |
 |
 |
1 |
1% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 76 |
|
Registration
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
56 |
58% |
 |
 |
34 |
35% |
 |
 |
6 |
6% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 96 |
|
Venue facilities
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
49 |
51% |
 |
 |
41 |
43% |
 |
 |
4 |
4% |
 |
 |
2 |
2% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 96 |
|
Conference lunch
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
48 |
56% |
 |
 |
30 |
35% |
 |
 |
5 |
6% |
 |
 |
2 |
2% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 85 |
|
Refreshments
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
41 |
43% |
 |
 |
48 |
51% |
 |
 |
5 |
5% |
 |
 |
1 |
1% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 95 |
|
Comments on group discussions
-
All we know Innovative Users
face so many problems that III provided little or no help but stay on how
the system is designed. We may spend sometime to opt for the major ones &
tackle the problems with III one by one!
-
HKIUG should do follow up for
the questions/requests raised each year. The issues raised in 03/04 were not
summarized and then sent out. Any plan to press III from the joint effort of
HK and China?
-
I didn't attend day 1's
programme so I can't comment on III's presentation or any of the group
discussion sessions.
-
I only attended the afternoon of
the second day, so cannot evaluate the III presentations
I was in the Cataloging section. It was very helpful for III's product
manager sitting there to answer our questions. However, for questions that
III already said "the function is there", the concerned libraries should be
encouraged to find out the operational steps, from system librarian or
colleagues of other libraries, before the meeting. Or, find somebody with
better skills to note down the operational steps. This time we have to spend
time to listen to III's explanation on some issues that most attendants
already know how, which is not worth.
-
N.A. I only attended the
conference on the second day.
-
Need some more time for group
discussions.
-
Thank you for inviting us to
attend your meeting. As a first time exhibitor I found the organization of
the event excellent and you should be congratulated!
-
There should be more channels to
collect questions for group discussions, apart from through the HKIUG
liaison.
-
Time is not sufficient to host
two major operations (ACQ and SER) in one discussion group. The group is too
large and there is almost no time for discussion. It's better to split ACQ
and SER into two discussion groups.
-
Time too short for group
discussion
General comments and
suggestions for improvement
-
I attended only the first day. I
like the presentation on FRBR best. Thank you for doing this survey.
-
I hope we are invited to attend
next year! Kind regards. David Harling Dawson Books
I'd like to have memo pads to write notes.
-
If restricted the programs to
two days, I would like to suggest to have fewer presentations so as to allow
a little bit more time for the presentations, the questions and answers and
the discussions.
-
III had too many sessions on
cataloguing related features. Should spread their presentations evenly to
other topics.
-
It's good to invite non-local
libraries to share their experience with us.
-
Maybe we need time for technical
people on our side to meet with technical people on their side.
-
There are NOT enough
presentations this year.
|