|
|
No. 46: Introduction to Electronic Texts and Images (Session II). 4 August - 8 August 1997 |
|
1. How useful were the pre-course readings?
1: Useful. 2: The readings helped me understand the scope of the course. They were useful as references and helped in understanding the work we did in class. 3: Very useful, although intimidating and long. 4: The readings were very helpful and informative for me. They helped me get a grip on the subject matter. 5: The pre-course readings went into far more detail than was covered in the course. I'm especially not sure why The definitive guide to HTML was there. 6: Not very. 7: Readings were useful and appropriate. 8: Useful to an extent, but some were well out of context until the course. 9: Somewhat, although being largely technical documentation, they will be more useful now that the course is over. 10: Very useful as preliminary orientation in an abstract topic. |
|
2. Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: Yes. 2: Having almost all the material available online before coming to RBS was the best. It has always been hard to obtain items on the reading lists, and by having them electronic, I can also have a hard copy. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, all the materials were useful and will be when I get home. It is also wonderful that the web now has work I did which I can use to illustrate the kind of work I hope we can do. 5-6: Yes. 7: Yes Most useful was the "Summary of References" (virtual bibliography) listing hyperlinks to a variety of URLs. It would not hurt to make this even more comprehensive - such a list is what I will make use of after I return. 8-9: Yes. 10: Yes. Yes. |
|
3.Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?
1: When the course dealt with larger issues of etext centers, it was helpful. For me, the SGML was largely too basic. The exercise in tagging was helpful, though. The course was jam-packed with information. I am glad to have this as a resource. 2: The course was very challenging and more than just an interdiction. 3: Yes. 4: Yes. I thought that DS did a great job of pitching the course to the level of the participants. 5: Yes. 6: Yes, definitely. 7: Yes, challenging, not dumbed down. Of course, the experience of the students helps. 8-9: Yes. 10: For me, yes. |
|
4. If your course had field trips, were they effective?
1: It was good to see the scanning set up, but we dealt with issues of scanning at a largely superficial level. Good information on scanning was provided, however. 2: We went to the etext center/scanner room and spent part of the afternoon. I wish we could have repeated the afternoon at least once so we could do additional specific exercises that apply to our own jobs. 3: The trip to the etext center was pretty good, although it's too bad that image manipulations can't also be done in the 4th Floor classroom. 4: N/A. 5: The visit to the etext/imaging center was very worthwhile. 7-9: N/A. |
|
5. Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations?
1: I thought this would go more deeply into SGML, but there were many other important issues that we dealt with. 2: The course content did correspond to the course description and generally did meet my expectations. I can see how this course is evolving, and our expectations will be changing because of technology. 3: Yes. In fact, it went beyond the description since so many smart people challenged DS . 4: Yes - it did correspond to the description and it more than met my expectations. 5: Yes, it did. 6: Yes. 7: Very much. I learned a great deal. 8: Yes. 9: Yes, to brochure corresponding; not totally to expectations - I would have liked more discussion of how to arrange for access, and less on actual marking up. 10: Yes. |
|
6. What did you like best about the course?
1: The instructor, his energy, and his willingness to address individual questions. 2: I liked the course organization. It was helpful to go through the TEI tag process and step-by-step process of HTML and SGML. DS was very organized and thorough in his presentations. 3: DS. Unlimited web time. DS's organization, especially the materials on the web. 4: DS gave good clear explanations and conveyed a genuine excitement about the information being covered. 5: I liked being given a practical exercise to work on. The instructor was also top notch. 6: The hands-on experience of writing SGML, TEI header, and working with the primary document. 7: The instructor, the materials (John Booker letters) used and published. It was nice actually to publish our work in the end - very gratifying to see it online! 8: The obvious knowledge of and command of the subject matter by DS. He obviously loves sharing what he knows and shares it in understandable ways. 9: Hands-on. Pace of instruction. Ability (and willingness) of instructor to answer all questions with equal enthusiasm. 10: How well the instructor kept our attention and interest in the material. |
|
7. How could the course have been improved?
1: It would be good to have an advanced SGML/etext course that dealt with even more nuts and bolts. 2: More time with the scanners. 3: Adobe Photoshop on the classroom machines. Perhaps a visit to Special Collections to see their digitization hardware and project. 4: I think the course was well planned out - I can't think of any changes there will have to be due to the changing electronic environment. 6: Perhaps even more hands-on. 7: Room was cold! 8: More time. 9: More scanning. More on access/searching issues. 10: No way that I can see. |
|
8. Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class, e.g. Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner and videos, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, printing demonstrations, &c.
1: Sunday afternoon tour - helpful. Evening lectures - tolerable. Printing demonstration - fun and educational. Brett Charbeneau has the ability to invite participants at all skill levels. 2: The lectures were good, especially BC. 3: Evening lectures were very nice. Booksellers Night was wonderful - I'd never done this. I missed the videos - any possibility of arranging a replay? 4: All of these are most enjoyable, and I would encourage you to have them again. 5: To the extent that I participated, I found them enjoyable. 6: Sunday night dinner and the videos were good. 7: All quite good. Though I love goldfish and peanuts, they became a bit predictable during breaks (a petty complaint). 8: I enjoyed the lectures very much. Clemons 201 could be improved on, couldn't it? 9: I found the overall atmosphere of RBS sort of patronizing and chauvinistic. 10: I thought it rather nice of RBS to create evening amusements for guests. An organized trip to Monticello would be nice! |
|
9. Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth?
1: You need to decide: is this a course for people with no SGML experience, or with a little. There is a difference. 2: Thanks again. Please have name tags include SCT (short course title). 3: Hot coffee at the 3pm break, please! I feel my employers got their money's worth for an area of study which is hard to research and integrate. 4: You definitely get your money's worth. The courses are intensive, but you go away with great information and understanding. 5: It was very worthwhile. I'm glad I came! 6: The food available in restaurants around the Corner is very good in general. Staying on the Lawn was exquisite û especially experiencing the results of living in that architectural setting û The Rotunda is a transcendent space. 7: It might be good to have an email list where class members could post responses to questions as follow-up to the course. It would be nice to see how problems are solved by others, how all this is implemented under varying situations after we've returned to the workplace. 8: RBS is well worth attending. This course in particular was very much worth taking. 10: Definitely has been worth my and my institution's time and money. In credibly enjoyable, informative, + applicable! Thanks, DS! |
| Number of respondents: 10 |
|
| There were ten students: three antiquarian booksellers (30%), two archivist/manuscript librarians (20%), two conservator/binder/preservation librarians (20%), and one each a general librarian with no rare book duties, a network administrator/website manager, and a rare book librarian (10% each). |