Talk:FUDCon survey

Bruno: Feedback on the survey
 * For the Relationship with Fedora question, I think using Fedora should have been a separate item, not combined with other relationships. I didn't think either of the two relationships that included use of Fedora applied to me. Either it should be dropped or added as separate category (maybe a few categories indicating how it was used).
 * I am not sure why question 14 on would you attend in the future was limited to only one response. People might want to both attend in person and attend remotely in the future. For example in my case I would only attend in person if it was fairly close to where I live, but would attend remotely in the future if it wasn't.
 * Some of the technologies mentioned could have had links to web pages describing the technologies. For example I am not sure what exactly Fedora Live is. I knew there was going to be live irc notes posted and some limited amount of live audio and perhaps some limited use of fedora talk conference calls, but I didn't remember running across the term Fedora Live. I knew what gooby was, but wasn't sure if a whiteboard was more than an on site whiteboard. Apparently not though, as otherwise it would make sense to ask about it in the remote participation part of the survey.
 * I didn't notice a link from the survey back to where the results were going to be reported so that the link could easily be bookmarked for later use.
 * I didn't see a link a to page describing how the results were going to be published. Was just aggregate data going to be made public, the uncorrelated (as much as made sense) answers to questions with fill in the blank type responses, individual complete survey responses, inappropriately filled out responses or whatever.
 * Peeves (you can safely ignore these)
 * "Anonymous" - Normally I don't participate in surveys where someone claims they are anonymous (even if being identified isn't really a problem) as the people that say that don't know what they are talking about. Typically the caller or whoever writes the paper/web survey is told to say that to increase participation. As far as a I could tell in this case it was a standard disclaimer from limequery, not something requested by Fedora. Though the email announcement mentioned the same thing. This particular claim followed up with some data flow explanation, but it wasn't complete and it was a bit misleading with the generic warning about the survey itself might ask for identifying information without a more complete warning that even filling out questions that aren't obviously identifying can result in identification.
 * limequery - Why aren't we doing this within the Fedora Project?
 * javascript - While this might actually be a good use of javascript (hiding inapplicable questions), it would be nice if the survey actually worked without it being enabled. Enabling javascript is a security risk and it should be possible to complete the survey with it disabled (even if you see some irrelevant questions).
 * Not a single page - Why isn't the survey a single web page? It's a lot easier to scroll around than to hit next buttons that keep you from looking back at the earlier part of the survey. I think my survey response was partially broken by this since I don't remember seeing some of the questions on this page that seemed like I should have been.
 * When going back to double check some bogus alt tags (see next peeve) the survey site wouldn't let me start a new survey. Apparently it is tracking IP addresses as well as cookies. This could be a problem for people in the same household who have their browsers set to clear cookies at exit.
 * The alt tag examples on this page are bogus. But when I rechecked the survey site I didn't see them. So it is probably an artefact of the way the mock up was done. The alt tags are supposed to describe the image. The ones for the check boxes were set to describe the answer, but that information is covered by the text enclosed by the checkbox tags.