Sekundäre Reiter
3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Eingabe #59
Die Seite Tabelle zeigt allgemeine Informationen und Daten einer Eingabe in Tabellenform an. Video ansehen
Informationen über die Eingabe
Eingabennummer: 59
Eingaben-ID: 678
UUID der Webformular-Eingabe: 81155220-40a9-4d7f-b1ab-03c21b86f27f
URI der Webformular-Eingabe: /de/projects/waterverse/waterverse_pilots_feedback_long_submit
Erstellt: Mi., 26.06.2024 - 14:47
Abgeschlossen: Mi., 26.06.2024 - 15:23
Geändert: Mi., 26.06.2024 - 15:23
Remote-IP-Adresse: 163.116.181.28
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: | Javier Haro |
| Date of consent: | Mi., 06/26/2024 - 00:00 |
| Pilot site/country | Spain |
| I participate in this pilot exercise with the role: | Operator (user of WATERVERSE WDME) at the water organisation |
| Affiliated Organisation | HIDRALIA |
| Type of affiliated organisation: | Water utility |
| Email [optional]: | javier.haro@hidralia-sa.es |
| Telephone [optional]: | |
| The functionality of the tool with regards to the user requirements is complete. | 2 |
| 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. | 4 |
| The component/tool satisfied user needs for using it under normal operation. | 3 |
| I felt that the component/tool’s functionality was giving expected results and at expected time. | 3 |
| Low frequency of breaks of the component/tool. | 4 |
| Low degree of appearance of failures/faults during the testing/evaluation period. | 4 |
| 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 |
| Within a reasonable time of training, I felt confident in using the tool with effectiveness, efficiency, freedom from risk and satisfaction in the specified context of use. | 3 |
| The component/tool offers features that make it easy to operate and control. | 3 |
| I am able to control the tool and its operation is within my expectations. | 3 |
| The component/tool has sufficient attractiveness of the user interface. | 4 |
| 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. | 4 |
| usability_average | 3 |
| Satisfactory response time of the functionality. | 1 |
| Throughput of the operations close to the specified requirements. | 2 |
| performance_efficiency_average | 2 |
| maintainability_average | 0 |
| portability_average | 0 |
| Sufficient use of standard application programming interfaces. | 3 |
| Sufficient openness and ease of use of the interfaces. | 3 |
| compatibility_average | 3 |
| security_average | 0 |
Funding Support Agencies