1) How useful were the pre-course readings? 1: Very useful. 2: Too unfiltered; a massive amount of data to confront with little guidance as to what to attack first. The "Gentle Introduction to SGML" gave a good introduction; the quick list of TEI tags was good to know about, but not to read. 3: Limited usefulness as advanced readings - very useful as reference resources. Advanced readings could have been more limited in scope and more introductory. 4: Very much - but could have used a hint on how many of the texts to follow (all readings were available online, which was wonderful). Of course, I could have asked, too. 5: Not especially useful. They were explained during the course, but were a mystery to the uninitiated. 7: Good! I am also glad that many were distributed in class in hard copy, as well. 8: I overlooked the reading list imbedded in my acceptance letter. 10: A bit dry and long, but an especially useful bibliography to which I'll return. 11: Useful to see. 12: I found them really useful. They gave me some clues in the fields I totally ignored. 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: Yes. I would've liked a printout of TEILITE tags and allowable attributes. 3: Yes, they will be very useful. 4: Yes. 5: Very useful material - a blizzard of materials. I don't know if I can keep up with all of them! 6: Yes, though since many were copies of Web pages it did seem a bit of a waste of paper. 7: Yes. 8: Handouts were helpful; I expect that they may be even more so once I'm home. 10-11: Yes. 12: They were useful to look at after the lectures. I think they will be a reference for me in the future, to apply my new skills in my job. 3) Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate? 1: Yes. 2: As with most computer courses I've taken, the pace was too slow and too basic until we got into the hands-on section of the course, which was great. DS's practical experience was very helpful and informative. 3: Yes. 4: Very. 5: Yes - good at finding common ground - at times a bit specialized for me, but I understood the needs by others (especially librarians involved in technical projects) for the information. 6: Seemed about right for a novice of my level. 7: Yes. 8: Just beyond my grasp. 10: Yes - right level. 11-12: Yes. 4) If your course had field trips, were they effective? 1: Yes. 2: Time at the Etext Center learning to use scanners was useful, but a little slow. 3: Yes, very much so. 4: N/A. 5: Not relevant - we traveled by Internet. 7: Very. Hands-on use of image scanning and OCR software was extremely valuable. 8: Field trips were very relevant and very interesting. 10: N/A. 11: Absolutely. 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? 1-2: Yes. 3: Yes, it did. 4: Yes. 5: Yes. Rather little time was spent on our own projects, however. I though this would form more of the course. We basically followed a script - useful, yes - but not what I expected from the requirement of a project. 6-7: Yes. 8: I believe that it did. 10-12: Yes. 6) What did you like best about the course? 1: The intensive coverage of material, practical application to real situations, hands-on experience, applicability to my own institution, the advanced technology. 2: Producing a real live electronic text - what fun! Working with a manuscript was a good experience. 3: 1) The instructor could hardly have been more knowledgeable and able to convey difficult topics. Excellent!! 2) The opportunity to meet like-minded individuals. 4: Instructor's knowledgeability and obvious passion for his work and for teaching what he knows to others. 5: Excellent command of his medium; a quick, incisive wit; a willing response to questions; a devotion to his field of study. 6: Actual time spent transcribing and tagging. 7: The expertise and teaching ability of the instructor. 8: DS's presentation, especially the Friday morning Great Parsing Adventure. It was a tour de force. 10: DS is charming, positive, and energetic - I liked his enthusiasm best of all. 11: Instructor, facility, equipment, and air-conditioning. 12: 1) Practicing TEI and HTML. 2) Manipulating images. 7) How could the course have been improved? 3: I can think of no way, offhand. 4: Just as it is. 5: Clarify the relevance of the project that we submitted - how can we use it to practice our learning? I don't mind the manuscript transcription - I learned a lot - but I need to work out for myself its relevance to my own project. 6: Maybe include 1-2 hours for open discussion/question-and-answer; time to pick DS's brain. 7: Even more hands-on practice. 8: Perhaps provide (loan) hard copies of the tag-ging guides. 9: It was great!! 10: 1) Perhaps, at the start of the course, more overview of how everything fits together. 2) Break lectures about every 20 minutes for an activity, and then resume. 11: Hold it during the winter. 12: Shorter coffee breaks and more work!! 8) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the BAP's teaching collections and of materials owned by UVa's Special Collections. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week? 2: Using scanned facsimiles of the letters was great - but it would've been nice to see the real artifacts. 3-4: N/A. 7: N/A 10: N/A. 11: None. 9) Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class, eg Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner and videos, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers,, &c. 2: Great, as always. 3: Sunday evening activities were excellent. Evening lectures were very good. Did not particpate in Bookseller Night. Spent only limited time with exhibits, although they were quite interesting. 4: Didn't participate in many of these. The lectures were excellent, as always. 5: Enjoyed the lectures. 7: Bookseller Night was the best! 8: Greer Allen's delivery (and slides) was (were) great. Ellen Dunlap's narravite was engaging and instructive. TB's information was, well, informative. 9: The evening lectures were a good end to a hectic day. 10: GA's lecture was superb, though everything was up to the usual standard. 11: Adequate. 12: Being here for the first time and new in the world of rare books, I found everything really interesting. 10) Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth? 1: I would definitely like to see an advanced version of this course to take after the introduction, and also more electronic text related courses. I know several people who would be interested in attending. 2: This is really an introductory course and really will take you along from the ground up. Well worth it. 3: Highly recommended for anyone considering creating a digital archive. Yes, very much so; worth every penny! 4: Yes! 5: I got my money's worth. The course was tougher for a professor than a librarian, for whom the teminology (and system) is more familiar. But a thoroughly enjoyable, intense experience. 6: This was quite a good introduction to etext and imaging and I will recommend it to others in my institution who wish an introduction. Perhaps one day there could be an intermediate course. 7: I definitely got my money's worth. The course should be mandatory for manuscript librarians/archivists. :-) 8: Be prepared for a demanding but ultimately rewarding hard five days. The course is an excellent launching pad. 9: It was definitely well worth the time and money. 10: Yes, I got my money's worth. It was great! 11: Tuition is a bargain; perhaps arranging meals via tickets with the cafeteria. 12: I think so. The course gives a complete and general view of what an electronic document is, from its creation to its diffusion. Number of respondents: 12 PERCENTAGES Leave Tuition Housing Travel Institution gave me leave 58% Institution paid tuition 67% Institution paid housing 67% Institution paid travel 67% I took vacation time 0% I paid tuition myself 8% I paid for my own housing 8% I paid for my own travel 17% N/A: Self-employed, retired, or had time off 42% N/A: Self-employed, retired, or exchange 25% N/A: Stayed with friends or lived at home 25% N/A: Lived nearby 17% There were twelve students: two (17%) were archivist/manuscript librarians; two (17%) were general librarians with some rare book duties; two (17%) were full-time students; two (17%) were teacher/professors; one each (8% each) was a conservator/binder/preservation librarian, had an interest in electronic document processing, was responsible for digital library projects, and was a retiree.