Application Evaluation.

[Jane Weideman]

Hello Edubuntu Listers.

I have found myself in the rare position of having time to go through
some of the old post on the lists to see if they have been addressed
adequately, and I cam across this message from the Flint.

I do think the application evaluation process remains critical, and
while we have to make some autocratic (while trying to be as democratic
as time allows) selection for edubuntu 1.0, obviously we want to and
will need a more refined and defined process for handling this in
future.

Your input on the matter will be appreciated.

On Mon, 2005-06-13 at 08:38 -0400, flint at flint.com wrote:
> ... moving forward with the Edubuntu
> > release for October. We need to start looking at the various packages
> > available and evaluating them, as well as classifying them in 3-4
> > categories such as Junior Primary (6-8), Senior Primary (9-11), Junior
> > High (12-14) and Senior High (15-17) etc.
> >
> 
> This process of evaluation is critical.  As a member of the Arlington
> County Public Schools Advisory Council on Instructional Technology, (ACI-
> Tech) this is the most discussed need for the educational change agent.
> 
> My own feeling is that rather than looking for packages and evaluating
> them, it would be wiser and more effective to build a mechanism that
> allows all the educators out there to evaluate packages and our job
> becomes tabulating and displaying the evaluations.  This is a paramount
> importance to the educational community, basically because all they really
> do is to evaluate, it is the stuff of their daily lives (ever get a bad
> grade? :^).  Essentially, no evaluation methodology, no edubuntu.  
> 
> What we may need is a mechanism similar to what has been built to evaluate
> installs.  I talked some about this and I feel that this evaluation
> capability should be somewhat user intrusive, but should allow three
> general goals:
> 
> 1. You can tell it to buzz-off and you never see it again.
> 2. You can tell it what you think on a casual user basis.
> 3. You can get seriously medieval.
> 
> The result can be a successful evaluation which is communicated in the
> same way as the install evaluations.  The same mechanism is used (actually
> re-used :^), to get this information back to the evaluation process which
> in turn updates the evaluation web site (and yadda-yadda).
> 

> Kindest Regards,
> 
> Paul Flint

-- 
JaneW
_____________
Jane Weideman
mobile: +27 83 779 7800
Canonical Ltd.