Webmail Evaluation - Spring 2000 - Meetings

April 5, 2000 - Agenda

• Andy Diller's revisions to I/O diagrams
• Reporting to SUG and IT Roundtable on 4/10/2000
• Updates on product installs
  WorldPilot installation script
• Review test forms
  Test form - user portion
  Test form - admin protion
  Is it necessary to identify those questions that are qualitative, i.e., some of the questions can be answered with more than a Yes/No answer and instead of asking if a product can do a certain function, should we be asking how well a product does a certain function? If the answer to the question is "yes", on what basis do we rank?
• Go to Standards Lab on 2nd floor, Sansom West.
  Denise McCole has set up an NT server. People can start to do their test installs of server software. Depending on the outcome of the above discussion on ranking, people can also start doing some user testing if there is time.

Minutes

• I/O Diagram: new copy (very nice!)
• Reporting to SUG and IT Roundtable on 4/10
• Updates on product installs
• Review Test forms
  • User Script test form
  • Admin script test form
• NT admin installs testing
• post-meeting notes:

SUG / IT Roundtable

• Peggy and Janet will be presenting; noted that it would be worth referring to the diagram in both sessions.

Updates on Products

• Andy Diller ran the WorldPilot install (Solaris) and submitted the test script for this. (Installation was faster than writing up the script results). Noted later that this install was with the proprietary web server that comes with [either Zope or WorldPilot]. Andy will work at installing WorldPilot on Solaris with Apache as the web server.
• Sam has done the TWIG and IMP installs on Tru64, will write up scripts soon
• Andy has requested more info(code) on SilkyMail but says it may be end of April before this is available. Hasn't received response to query whether we can get it sooner. Question outstanding: is the end of April too late to include this product in the evaluation?

Review Test Forms

1. Review of test script of user interface

• discussed need for rating each item (1-5 rating ease/quality rating) but noted that it is more appropriate on some of the criteria, less appropriate on others of the criteria. Action: Janet and/or Peggy will work on this to suggest which are appropriate candidates
• people would like to have comment options on user script similar to admin script (perhaps one comment on each main criteria point (1-35) but not on each sub-point.
• we decided we want to weight the questions, but feel that it would be more worthwhile to do this as a group effort after we have done some of the user testing. Mark suggested we might want to do this as a group face-to-face rather than just by e-mail.

2.  Admin test script

• admin script looks good, prefer comments to rating, so tentative decision not to do a qualitative rating for these criteria
• work on weighting after installs

Testing

• chaos reigned in the standards lab . . .

Noted afterward

• nobody has sent a message to PC-net or NT security lists with the survey of web server preferences. Who was going to do this?