Sekundäre Reiter
3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Eingabe #51
Die Seite Tabelle zeigt allgemeine Informationen und Daten einer Eingabe in Tabellenform an. Video ansehen
Informationen über die Eingabe
Eingabennummer: 51
Eingaben-ID: 646
UUID der Webformular-Eingabe: fb56c157-5e8d-43b1-a811-e68cf86e6630
URI der Webformular-Eingabe: /de/projects/waterverse/waterverse_pilots_feedback_long_submit
Erstellt: Mi., 26.06.2024 - 14:35
Abgeschlossen: Mi., 26.06.2024 - 14:37
Geändert: Mi., 26.06.2024 - 14:37
Remote-IP-Adresse: 163.116.243.47
Erstellt von: Gast
Sprache: English
Ist Entwurf: Nein
Aktuelle Seite: Vollständig
Webformular: 3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]
| I have read the above statements and I hereby provided my explicit consent. | Ja |
|---|---|
| [Optional] I agree that my personal data can be used for contacting me in the context of inviting me in future events of interest, related to the WATERVERSE. | Nein |
| Full name: | Sergi Baena-Miret |
| Date of consent: | Mi., 06/26/2024 - 00:00 |
| Pilot site/country | Spain |
| I participate in this pilot exercise with the role: | Technology developer (partner) |
| Affiliated Organisation | Cetaqua |
| Type of affiliated organisation: | Research Centre |
| Email [optional]: | sergio.baena@cetaqua.com |
| Telephone [optional]: | |
| The functionality of the tool with regards to the user requirements is complete. | 3 |
| The implementation of data and information transfers through the interface functions is correct. | 3 |
| Low frequency of failures to exchange data between the component and other involved components/tools. | 3 |
| No deviation between the actual and reasonably expected results. | 3 |
| Low frequency of encountering inaccurate results/behaviour. | 3 |
| functional_suitability_average | 3 |
| The component/tool was operational and available when required for use. | 3 |
| When a failure occurred, no much time was required before gradual start-up of the component/tool. | 3 |
| Sufficient capability of the involved functionality in restoring itself after an abnormal event or at request. | 3 |
| reliability_average | 3 |
| I am able to recognise whether the component/tool is appropriate for fulfilling my requirements. | 2 |
| The component/tool has sufficient attractiveness of the user interface. | 2 |
| A sufficiently high proportion of the user interface elements could be customised to my satisfaction. | 3 |
| The component/tool offered sufficient support in avoiding errors when using its functionality. | 3 |
| usability_average | 3 |
| Satisfactory response time of the functionality. | 3 |
| Throughput of the operations close to the specified requirements. | 3 |
| Proper utilisation of memory resources (did you, for example, encounter “low memory” problems?). | 3 |
| Ability for the system to remain operational when pushed to its limits in terms of number of users, frequency of requests, etc. | 3 |
| performance_efficiency_average | 3 |
| Sufficiently easy to analyse a failure occurrence. | 3 |
| Sufficiently easy to find the cause of a failure. | 3 |
| Sufficient ability of recording individual activities during operation of the involved services/functions. | 3 |
| Sufficient ability to monitoring the execution status. | 3 |
| Sufficient readiness of services to accept parameterisation. | 3 |
| Sufficient availability of the appropriate mechanisms to be ready for changes at any time. | 3 |
| Sufficient ability to decompose the service/functionality into smaller pieces, without affecting the operation of the others. | 3 |
| Sufficient ability to keeping the effect of the modification of the involved tool/functionality local. | 3 |
| Sufficient availability of information on the tool/component functionality, in order to perform the testing. | 3 |
| Acceptable time needed for testing after a failure resolution. | 3 |
| Sufficient ability to take pieces of the tool/component and use it in another context. | 3 |
| maintainability_average | 3 |
| Good adaptability of the tool/component to several hardware and software operation environments and network facilities. | 3 |
| Good adaptability of the tool/component to other infrastructures of water organisations. | 3 |
| Low level of effort required for the tool/component to be adapted to a specific operational environment. | 3 |
| Sufficient documentation for the installation process. | 3 |
| Sufficnent ease and flexibility of installation process. | 3 |
| Sufficient ease of performing subsequent installations. | 3 |
| Sufficient ease of maintaining the tool/component when replacements of other parts of the system happen. | 3 |
| Sufficient ease of maintaining the continuation of the data flows at replacement requests. | 3 |
| portability_average | 3 |
| Sufficient ability to operate within a shared integration environment, together with other tools/components. | 3 |
| Low degree of customisation required when the tool/component needs to co-exist in a specific integration environment. | 3 |
| Sufficient use of standard application programming interfaces. | 3 |
| Sufficient openness and ease of use of the interfaces. | 3 |
| compatibility_average | 3 |
| The software ensures that only authorised individuals have access to sensitive data. | 3 |
| The software prevents unauthorised access or modification of data, ensuring data accuracy and consistency. | 3 |
| The software provides evidence of actions or events, making it difficult for involved parties to deny their involvement. | 3 |
| The software traces actions and activities to specific entities, ensuring clear accountability. | 3 |
| The software verifies and ensures the true identity of subjects or resources within the system. | 3 |
| security_average | 3 |
Funding Support Agencies