[kde-community] Final review for the KDE Mission survey

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

On 13.06.2016 22:42, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> A few comments:
>
> I think the questions should be pointing a bit more toward the future path,
> i.e. instead  "How useful is it or would it be for KDE's ..."
> maybe "How useful is it for KDE's future to..." ?
The way the questions and answers were written, they focus more on what to /do 
now/ in order to /achieve our vision in the future/.
Changing that fundamentally would mean having to rewrite the whole survey, and I 
don't think the added benefit is worth that.
>
> First page, "How useful is it or would it be for KDE's products to..."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> All good, but:
> except one point all offered options are "positive", I doubt there will be a
> lot of variation in the answers. I mean, who would object to "support open
> standards" or "work well with assistive technologies".
The idea is to get which should be prioritized. If everything gets high scores, 
we'll include everything in the Mission.
> The only one which stands out a bit as negative is "integrate well with
> popular services, even if they don't share our values".
> Maybe those two simply be merged into one point "integrate well with online
> services", since on the next page at the bottom there is already the question
> which kind of services should take priority.
>
I have now:
- ...integrate well with existing online services
- ...use new online services created by KDE for areas where no freedom- and 
privacy-respecting services exist

because I still want to know whether KDE contributors would be in favor of 
creating online services.
> Second page
> -----------
>
> "offer a desktop workspace with a familiar default user interface"
> I don't know what that means, "familiar". Familiar for people used to KDE1..4
> ? Or familiar for people used to Windows ?
Your original vision/mission draft mentioned a "classic desktop", which Martin 
found offensive, so I tried to word it differently.
Since it doesn't look like I can find a wording which works for everyone, I'll 
just remove this point since we have the question about desktop as supported 
device class anyway.
> Third page
> -----------
>
> "How important are the following aspects..:"
>
> How about a point "provide a stable and reliable software" ?
Ok, will add that.
> "How much do you agree to the following statements"
>
> Did you intentionally put "adhere to the design guidelines..." and "prefer a
> consistent look and feel ... across platforms" that far apart ?
> To me they are opposites, and I would expect them directly next to each other.
>
> The same for "cover our users' most common tasks" vs. "treat equally, common
> or niche".
The answer options are randomized for each participant to avoid sequence effects.
Unfortunately that also separates opposites, but that is okay from a research 
perspective, especially because opposite questions elicit more honest answers if 
they are not immediately recognized as such.
Yes, it looks weird, but it avoids bias so I'd like to keep it that way.
> Fifth page, target groups
> -------------------------
>
> Maybe make the statement a bit stronger, so participants don't feel bad when
> not checking some of the boxes:
> "...should KDE focus on" -> "...should KDE focus on most"
>
> Or turn this into three levels ?
> "How important do you consider these groups of users for the future success of
> KDE ?"
> Very important - Normal - Not important
I'll do the latter.
> And as a last point, I suggest you publish that survey also on kde-core-devel
> (and maybe frameworks-devel), so most core-contributors see it too.
> (I guess you'll post it anyway also to the eV -list, right ?).
>
My plan was to send it to
- community
- eV
- devel
- core-devel

And write a Dot article.

I hope to reach most contributors that way.

Thank you for the feedback,
Thomas