David Seaman No. 45: Introduction to Electronic Texts 5-9 August 1996

1. How useful were the pre-course readings? 2: The readings were helpful in preparing for the course, the SGML more so than the imaging. 3: Useful. 4: OK for a startsome more general, big picture overview material would help eliminate many questions (e.g., relationship of SGML, TEI, HTML, Teilite). All was cleared up on Day 1, but some advance reading on this would help one's confidence. 5: Very. 6: Helped me get my feet wet. Did not read in depth, but browsed.7: The readings were useful, as they gave me an idea of what to expect, but perhaps should not be called readings in the future (nobody reads SGML manuals). 8: I did not have time to read the materialI did not feel disadvantaged not having read the assignments. 9: Gave a good familiarity with materials later covered in depth. I thought that it was particularly appropriate that the majority were online documents. 10: They were useful for providing an overview. 11: Very useful. I felt I had a grasp on the concepts and the terminology when I arrived. 12: OKa little intimidating to try to read those that were about code, but those meant for the tenderfoot were useful.

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, the handouts were full of useful information. Of course much of the necessary information is also on the Web. 2: Yesyes. 3: Usefulexpect they will continue to be. 4: Yes, certainly. 5: Yes, very. 6-7: Yes.8: Very. 9-10: Yes. 11: DefinitelyI know I'll refer to the readings for reference/guidance. 12: Yes, especially after I return home!

3. Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: Yes. 2: Yes, the information passed on and the questions generated were helpful in thinking about how to apply this course to my own situation. 3-5: Yes. 6: It was a perfect fit to my interest and to the subject matter. Everything seemed right on target. 7: Yes. 8: Very. 9: Yes, which given the inevitably varied background/experiences inherent in such a course, made it an even more laudatory effort. 10: The level was appropriate and engaging. 11: Very much so. Usually computing is taught in scary abstract techno babblethis was pitched for smart people in the humanities instead of techno peasants. 12: Yes indeed.

4. If your course had field trips, were they effective? 2: I would have rather spent time in marking up my document than going to the Etext Center to use a scanner. This was not helpful for me personally, but probably helpful to others. 3: The visit to the Etext Center was interesting. 5: Yes. Actually, I would have liked spending more time in the Etext Center learning more about scanning. 7: Yes. We visited the Etext Center to scan sample documents. 9: NA (except for relocating to another computer lab due to the unfortunate effects of the missing scratch-and-sniff book).

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, my expectations were well satisfied. 4-5: Yes. 6: YES! 7: Yes. 8: Yes, excellent course. 9: Yes! Exceeded expectations (hard to do for an RBS course). 10: There was a good correlation between the description and the actual course. 11: Yup. I had a fabulous time, and learned fascinating but practical stuff. 12: Yes.

6. What did you like best about the course? 1: The happy mixture of subject matter and instructorDS really knows his material and presents it in an interesting way. He is a patient instructor and the step-by-step instruction on marking up text was invaluable. PS: Did I mention that the class was fun? 2: The actual marking up of text. 3: The practical aspects, thorough explanations, great presentation. 4: The instructor's energy and enthusiasm (in its c20, not c18 construction) for the subject matter. DS is clearly in the vanguard of humanities-based computingit's been great to see him in action. 5: The scanning information. 6: The presentation was seamless. 7: The instructor was very good. He explained everything carefully and easily accommodated different levels of students' expertise. 8: Dealing with (ie, marking up) a manuscript in the collection and knowing that our work had a useful purpose other than for instruction alone. 9: Judicious mix of the practi-cal/hands-on with the theoretical; good background on previous, current, and possible future developments and applications. 10: The opportunity to carry a real, though small, project relevant to professional interests. DS's enthusiasm and willingness to entertain questions and discussion were very much appreciated. 11: The instructor. DS is a very skilled, patient, and gifted teacher. We were eased into new concepts and processes that could have been quite bewildering if not presented well. 12: Actually creating products for the Web, the quality of the materials to choose from for the projects, DS's humor, knowledge, energy. Fellow participants.

7. How could the course have been improved? 1: The course was perfect and could not have been improved. 2: A printed copy of my document to be marked up would have been helpful. 3: Perhaps a bit more time actually working on the documentstranscribing and marking up. Suggest dropping one or both of the guest speakers. 4: The improvements I'd like to see aren't really possible, that is, I'd like clippings of articles and evaluative essays and whatnotbut the field is so rapidly changing that I can see that such a packet of material would be obsolete once prepared. 5: More information on scanning, maybe some information on copyright issues and other SGML DTDhow and why other people are using them. I'm not totally convinced that the TEI guidelines are as good as DS thinks they are. 6: By follow-up courses on related topics in upcoming RBS's. 7: I would recommend a sign-up list that would enable students to select and process their texts more efficiently (rather than calling out the names of documents). More discussion of applications of SGML and its benefits over OCR would be useful. 8: Instructor had covered much of the material presented by the guest lecturers, so their visit was a bit redundant. 9: ? 10: Perhaps less time could be devoted to the general policy concerns of electronic texts and more to the intricacies of creating them. 12: Overhead projectors are always noisy, I know. The two visitors were only OK.

8. Please comment at will 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, Bookseller Night, tour of the Etext Center or Electronic Classroom, printing demonstrations, evening lectures, &c. 2: One was great fun and the other was not. 3: Poor. 4: J. Kevin Graffagnino was not enjoyable. Brett Charbeneau's and TB's were very much so. 5: I'm not a rare book person, so for me they really weren't applicable. 6: ENTERTAINING and informative. Just the right length. 7: The lectures were enjoyable and humorous. Following a long day of class, they were quite welcome. 8: Did not attend any lecturesfelt rebellious this year. 9: Excellent. 10: The lectures were variable; JKG's seemed an ode to mediocrity. 11: Great funparticularly TB's on the state of the neighborhood (instead of the nation). 12: BC was greatnice balance of humor and information.

9. Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year? Did you get your money's worth? 1: Everyone concerned with providing information to others should take this course. The future of information technology is exciting! 2: Yes, I got my money's worth! 3: Yes. 4: Yes! This was my second RBS courseI'm looking forward to my third! Use of the town and the Rotunda make the RBS experience very special and appropriate to the UVa setting. 5: Definitely worth the money. I thought the price (and housing costs) were quite reasonable. 6: YES! I found the presentation of the information like slicing butter with a hot knife. I came to the course with many questions about my local situationthe course helped me focus these thoughts, exposed me to new ideas and technical developments, and perhaps provided me with a strategy for future developments at home. 7: Students will probably get more out of class if they have a specific project in mind. Yes [I got my money's worth]. 8: Absolutely. 9: Worth the time, money, and effort: highly recommended. 10: I would highly recommend this course. 11: I got more than my money's worth. (I sort of feel like I've committed larceny of a sortI got too much out of this for tuition that I paid.) 12: Yes.

Number of respondents: 12

PERCENTAGES Leave Tuition Housing Travel Institution gave me leave Institution paid tuition Institution paid housing Institution paid travel 79% 76% 59% 65% I took vac- tion time I paid tui- tion myself I paid for my own housing I paid my own travel 8% 16% 33% 27% N/A: self- employed, re- tired, or had summers off N/A: self employed, retired, or exchange N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home N/A: lived nearby 17% 8% 8% 8%

There were twelve students, two conservator/binder/preservation librarians (18%), two general librarians with some rare book duties (18%), one administrative assistant (8%), one administrative assistant with some rare book duties (8%), one antiquarian bookseller (8%), one editor/manager of a press (8%), one rare book librarian (8%), one full-time student (8%), one systems librarian (8%), and one teacher/professor (8%).