I received confirmation from Airtable that they do not support arbitrary markup in forms. So I put in separator questions between each of section.
At this point the survey is ready to publish. I recognize that there are many more questions that could be asked, but they’ll have to wait until next year. Thank you all for your feedback! I look forward to sharing the results with you in a couple weeks. In the meantime, if there’s anything I can do for you, please let me know. > On Oct 29, 2018, at 7:38 PM, Taylor Fausak <tay...@fausak.me> wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback! > > - I would like to separate the survey into sections, but Airtable does not > provide that functionality. I have sent a message to their support asking if > I’m just missing it. Worst case scenario I can put some bogus questions in to > act as dividers. I’ve put an example of such a divider question at the top of > the survey. > > - The “Add an option” questions allow you to select multiple answers rather > than choosing a single one. I’ve updated the questions to make that clearer > by adding this help text: “Select all that apply." > > - I’ve added a followup question to the one about GHC’s new release schedule: > "Why do you feel the way that you do about the new GHC release schedule?” I’m > open to better wording there. > > - I have added follow up questions of the form “What would you change about > X?” where X is the language, compiler, build tool, or package repository. > Hopefully that will provide meaningful guidance about how to improve those > things without overwhelming the user with questions. > > - For information about using Haskell at work, I think that is covered by > existing questions. Last year’s survey asked if people used Haskell at work, > and this year’s added some followup questions to that. Company size is > covered by the demographic questions at the end. The only missing piece is > asking about the size of the team of Haskell programmers. Is that worth > asking about separately? > > - I have removed “Official” from the title of the survey. > > - I changed the Haskell Prime question to ask about importance rather than > interest: “How important do you feel it would be to have a new version of the > Haskell standard?” It uses the answer scale from here: > https://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Likert-Scales > <https://help.surveymonkey.com/articles/en_US/kb/Likert-Scales> > > - I split academic and commercial conferences in the question about > interacting with the Haskell community. > > - For the question about which type of Haskell software is developed at the > respondents company, would it suffice to ask if the software is used > internally by other employees and/or externally by customers? Another > question already covers the type of software (web, CLI, GUI, …). > > - I like the idea of drilling down into performance bottlenecks. How do you > feel about phrasing it like this: “Which performance bottlenecks does your > Haskell software typically hit?” With answer choices: CPU, RAM, disk, > network, other, none.(I’m not sure what you mean by “bound by serialization.” > Can you expand on that?) > > - I think the way that the software runs is covered by another question about > the type of software (web, CLI, GUI, …). Is it worth it to have a separate > question? > > I hope that addresses all the feedback so far. If not, please let me know! > Thanks again! > >> On Oct 29, 2018, at 1:14 PM, Gershom B <gersh...@gmail.com >> <mailto:gersh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> HI Taylor. >> >> A few thoughts. First, even with joint sponsorship, I don't think >> saying "Official" in the name of the survey is a good idea. Everything >> is "official" from whatever group supports it, but that seems besides >> the point. I think that the intended meaning here is a bit slippery >> since it can be interpreted as "approved by some body" but is often >> used to mean "authoritative" and as we've discussed, you can't really >> be authoritative with things like this, just "better". Ok, that said, >> on to some other points: >> >> "Are you interested in a new version of the Haskell standard?" >> >> Interested is a very vague thing to ask. I'd want something more >> specific like "how important do you feel it would be to have a new >> version..." >> >> On "Where do you interact with the Haskell community?" I think that we >> should distinguish between "conferences (academic)" and "conferences >> (commercial)" because ICFP and HaskellX, for example, are very >> different sorts of things. >> >> I'd also like a question, as I mentioned earlier, like "What sort of >> Haskell software is developed at your company" with options for >> "in-house" "binaries deployed to customers" and "webapps used by >> customers" among maybe other options. Also perhaps "is the software >> you work on A) bound by memory B) bound by processor utilization C) >> bound by wire/disk speed D) bound by serialization E) not running >> against any performance limits at this time" and additionally is the >> software intended A) for continuous (server) operation or B) batched >> operation or C) interactive user-driven operation. >> >> Cheers, >> Gershom >> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 4:06 PM Francesco Ariis <fa...@ariis.it >> <mailto:fa...@ariis.it>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello Taylor, >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 02:42:16PM -0400, Taylor Fausak wrote: >>>> Please > take a look at the survey to make sure that you're happy >>>> with it! Let me know if there are any questions that you would like >>>> to be added, removed, or changed. You can view the survey here: >>>> https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf >>>> <https://airtable.com/shr8G4RBPD9T6tnDf> >>>> You can deliver feedback to me either in this thread or on GitHub: >>>> https://github.com/haskellweekly/haskellweekly.github.io/issues/206 >>> >>> Suggestions: >>> - state under which specific one of the "permissive license"s the >>> results will be available; >>> - if it not mission critical, axe the last question. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Haskell-community mailing list >>> Haskell-community@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org> >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-community mailing list >> Haskell-community@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org> >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
