CIRCA:Viral Analytics interview Results
From CIRCA
(Difference between revisions)
AshleyMoroz (Talk | contribs) |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | This is out of 8 people. | ||
+ | |||
* 5 people liked Cirrus. | * 5 people liked Cirrus. | ||
* 5 people liked Frequency Grid. | * 5 people liked Frequency Grid. | ||
- | * 4 people thought | + | * 4 people thought Links was useful, while one person did not like Links. |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
* 3 people thought Summary was good and 1 person thought it was not useful. | * 3 people thought Summary was good and 1 person thought it was not useful. | ||
+ | * 2 people liked Reader. | ||
+ | * 2 people thought Reader was not effective since it was too small. | ||
* 2 people thought the window was too small. | * 2 people thought the window was too small. | ||
* One person liked that you could scrape particular issues in an article. | * One person liked that you could scrape particular issues in an article. | ||
Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
+ | * 5 people would like searchability or link ability for articles. | ||
* 2 people would find a concordance useful. | * 2 people would find a concordance useful. | ||
- | * One person would like the Links to navigate between articles | + | * One person would like the Links to navigate between articles in the entire journal. |
- | + | ||
* One person would like a tool to conduct text analysis on all articles in journal. | * One person would like a tool to conduct text analysis on all articles in journal. | ||
* One person would like a trend list to find trends in a particular field. | * One person would like a trend list to find trends in a particular field. | ||
Line 25: | Line 27: | ||
+ | * 2 people would like the visualizations to bring all 6 tools together. | ||
* One person said readers are suspicious of text analysis since it is seen as a bibliographical searching. | * One person said readers are suspicious of text analysis since it is seen as a bibliographical searching. | ||
* One person said there are too many options that will overwhelm users. | * One person said there are too many options that will overwhelm users. | ||
* One person said it was good for quantitative research. | * One person said it was good for quantitative research. | ||
* One person said it would be better if based in the cloud. | * One person said it would be better if based in the cloud. | ||
- | * One person said it needs more robust digitization | + | * One person said it needs more robust digitization tools. |
- | + |
Current revision as of 14:45, 11 February 2011
This is out of 8 people.
- 5 people liked Cirrus.
- 5 people liked Frequency Grid.
- 4 people thought Links was useful, while one person did not like Links.
- 3 people thought Summary was good and 1 person thought it was not useful.
- 2 people liked Reader.
- 2 people thought Reader was not effective since it was too small.
- 2 people thought the window was too small.
- One person liked that you could scrape particular issues in an article.
- One person did not like the diffusion of tools.
- One person found it hard to see the functionality of the tool.
- 5 people would like searchability or link ability for articles.
- 2 people would find a concordance useful.
- One person would like the Links to navigate between articles in the entire journal.
- One person would like a tool to conduct text analysis on all articles in journal.
- One person would like a trend list to find trends in a particular field.
- One person would like summary to link to an article.
- One person would like collocates.
- One person would like Voyeur on Omeca.
- One person would like more visualizations.
- One person would like link analysis.
- One person would like a TEI wrapper.
- One person would like a personography/placeography markup.
- 2 people would like the visualizations to bring all 6 tools together.
- One person said readers are suspicious of text analysis since it is seen as a bibliographical searching.
- One person said there are too many options that will overwhelm users.
- One person said it was good for quantitative research.
- One person said it would be better if based in the cloud.
- One person said it needs more robust digitization tools.