CAUL Electronic Information Resources Committee (CEIRC)
Market Day Evaluation

Updated 7 December, 1998

Please fax/email this form to the CAUL Office before cob (AEST) Friday 18 December, 1998 - one form per product. (Word 6.0 version available for downloading)

Your response will:

• indicate to the CEIRC committee the importance you place on each product which you choose to evaluate;
• provide questions to the vendors for the committee to follow up on your behalf;
• indicate to the CEIRC committee the importance you place on various terms and conditions of access to electronic products;
• indicate to the CEIRC committee the importance you place on Market Day.

INSTITUTION:

NAME OF PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM:

CONTACT DETAILS (PHONE & EMAIL):

PRODUCT NAME:

(This product may be any listed in the Market Day proposals, whether or not it was available for trial e.g. Australian Standards Online (Standards Australia) was not chosen for trial, but you may wish to have it taken up by the committee, in which case you should complete an evaluation form.)

1. Likelihood of purchasing this product in the next two years:
   
   Likely y/n Unlikely y/n Highly unlikely y/n
   

If your responses to Q.2 to Q.13 are the same for all products, please indicate here: y/n

(if yes, please answer these questions on the first form, then skip for each subsequent form, otherwise please complete each form fully)

1. Importance of availability of limited site licence (e.g. institution-wide access but limited by number of simultaneous users):
   
   Very important y/n Important y/n Unimportant y/n
   
2. Importance of being able to subscribe independently of print products:
   
   Very important y/n Important y/n Unimportant y/n
   
3. Importance of access to archive when subscription ceases:
   
   Very important y/n Important y/n Unimportant y/n
   
4. Preferred authentication method (please number all items, beginning with '1' for most preferred option):
   1. IP address only;
   2. Username/Password only;
   3. Combination of (i) and (ii).
      
5. Importance of direct access to individual titles (e.g. from library catalogue)
   
   Very important y/n Important y/n Unimportant y/n
   
6. Importance of usage statistics at institution level:
   
   Very important y/n Important y/n Unimportant y/n
   
7. Importance of usage statistics at title level:
   
   Very important y/n Important y/n Unimportant y/n
   
8. Importance of access via the web:
   
   Very important y/n Important y/n Unimportant y/n
   
9. Preferred options for sharing the consortium cost among institutions (please number all items, beginning with '1' for most preferred option):
   1. Equal shares;
   2. Proportional to EFTSU;
   3. Proportional to usage;
   4. Proportional to library materials budget;
   5. 50% equal share + proportional to EFTSU;
   6. 50% equal share + proportional to usage;
   7. 50% equal share + proportional to library materials budget;
   8. 33% equal share + 33% proportional to EFTSU + 33% proportional to usage;
   9. 33% equal share + 33% proportional to EFTSU + 33% proportional to budget;
   10. 33% equal share + 33% proportional to usage + 33% proportional to budget.
       
10. Preferred method of payment for archival access (please number all items, beginning with '1' for most preferred option):
    1. Annual administration fee;
    2. Pay per view/download;
    3. Pay for one-off delivery of archive for local mounting (e.g. CDROM or tape).
       
11. Importance of Market Day (testing a wide range of electronic products in a restricted time-frame):
    
    Very important y/n Important y/n Unimportant y/n
    
12. Preferred timing for product trials (all trials, including Market Day trials) (please number all items, beginning with '1' for most preferred option):
    1. January/February;
    2. post-Easter;
    3. June/July;
    4. July/August;
    5. August/September;
    6. September/October;
    7. October/November;
    8. November/December.
       

QUESTIONS FOR VENDORS ON:

1. Content.
   
   
2. Access/Response:
   
   
3. Ease of use/Functionality:
   
   
4. Licence conditions/Vendor proposal:
   
   
5. Cost:
   
   
6. Other:
   
   

YOUR COMMENTS ON MARKET DAY (if you have completed this section on a previous form, you may skip this section):

For vendors:

For CEIRC committee:

PRODUCT EVALUATION FROM THE INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE (optional):

1. Applicability to institution's courses:
   
2. Coverage (comprehensiveness, relevance, currency):
   
3. Content/Format:
   
4. Functionality/Ease of use:
   
   1. Searching:
      
   2. Search results:
      
   3. Help screens:
      
5. Software required (e.g. web browser, Acrobat, other):
   
6. System accessibility/Response time:
   
7. Quality of images:
   
8. Other.

Please fax/email this form to the CAUL Office before cob (AEST) Friday 18 December, 1998 - one form per product.

Fax +612 6248 8571

diane.costello@anu.edu.au

\evaluati.doc

Send comments/suggestions/requests about this site ....

This site is written, compiled and maintained by Diane Costello, Executive Officer, CAUL.