Re: [Bodington-developers] Questionnaire Functionality

[Jon M. <jo...@te...>]

A difficulty is that if you use the functionality frequently enough 
either one or zero names will be dropped from the list compared to 
previous time. All changes to the results can then be attributed to that 
person.  The 'less than 50%' restriction protects the anonymity of the 
first 50% of users but not the last 50%.

The answer is (I think) to allow access to the tool at any time but when 
it's run the first thing to do is choose a date. The tool will list 
users who hadn't yet completed the questionnaire at midnight on that 
date. The date is chosen so that if the command was run at some unknown 
point in the past either the same list will be returned as was returned 
then or a list with at least N more names. The user will be told the 
date when the list is output and will be told the number (but not names) 
of people on the list who have now completed the questionnaire.

Jon


Alexis O'Connor wrote:

> M Thomas wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>>
>> Hope you are all well.
>>
>> Could I get your opinion(s) on a piece of functionality that Melandra 
>> are working on for Leeds. I've copied the original text from the 
>> Library docs, see below:
>>
>> Library's current questionnaire work package
>> Objective : Provide a mechanism to monitor completion of module 
>> feedback questionnaires without infringing anonymous submission.
>>
>> Overview
>> Allow a deadline to be set after which the owner can view a standard 
>> HTML list of all the students that have access to the questionnaire 
>> who have not completed it. This list will not be displayed if less 
>> than 50% of the students who have record access have not completed it.
>> _________
>>
>> I understand why this functionality has been requested, but in it's 
>> current state I feel that it will not work particularly well.
>>
>> I believe the rules, that determine when the function is enabled are 
>> to simplistic (see Overview). This could allow tutors to infringe on 
>> the anonymous submission.
>>
>> I have discussed some possible solutions with Peter Crowther, but I'd 
>> appreciate your ideas on the issue.
>>
>> -- 
>> m.cha3l
>
>
> After having a quick think about this with Matthew, we came up with 
> the following rules of thumb:
>
> - *1* respondent is always a special case; *never* release who did not 
> respond.
> - until everyone has responded or a deadline is reached, do not 
> release the results. (A deadline is required when one or more 
> respondents really is knocked over by a bus. You need some kind of 
> termination point to release the results!).
>
> I appreciate that the way I've done it at the moment is dumb - :-[ - 
> (return respondents >=2 ) but that was just intended as a 
> placeholder(!) Clearly that will leak anonymity over time. It'll be 
> good to see what other people think.
>
> Alexis
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting 
> language
> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live 
> webcast
> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding 
> territory!
> http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> Bodington-developers mailing list
> Bod...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bodington-developers
>