Solapas secundarias
3. Pilot Feedback - Long [WATERVERSE Project Pilots]: Submission #14
The Table page displays a submission's general information and data using tabular layout. Ver vídeo
Información del envío
Número del envío: 14
ID del envío: 386
Submission UUID: 8986a31f-abdf-4b73-83f2-325831897826
Submission URI: /es/projects/waterverse/waterverse_pilots_feedback_long_submit
Creado: Vie, 01/03/2024 - 12:48
Completado: Vie, 01/03/2024 - 12:50
Modificado: Lun, 15/04/2024 - 20:47
Remote IP address: 89.205.137.184
Enviado por: Anónimo
Idioma: English
Is draft: No
Página actual: Completo
| I have read the above statements and I hereby provided my explicit consent. | Sí |
|---|---|
| [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. | Sí |
| Full name: | Dave Ebbelaar |
| Date of consent: | Mié, 02/28/2024 - 00:00 |
| Pilot site/country | Netherlands |
| I participate in this pilot exercise with the role: | IT personnel at the water organisation |
| Affiliated Organisation | PWN |
| Type of affiliated organisation: | Water utility |
| Email [optional]: | |
| Telephone [optional]: | |
| The functionality of the tool with regards to the user requirements is complete. | 4 |
| The implementation of data and information transfers through the interface functions is correct. | 4 |
| Low frequency of failures to exchange data between the component and other involved components/tools. | 4 |
| No deviation between the actual and reasonably expected results. | 4 |
| Low frequency of encountering inaccurate results/behaviour. | 4 |
| functional_suitability_average | 4 |
| The component/tool was operational and available when required for use. | 4 |
| When a failure occurred, no much time was required before gradual start-up of the component/tool. | 4 |
| Sufficient capability of the involved functionality in restoring itself after an abnormal event or at request. | 4 |
| reliability_average | 4 |
| I am able to recognise whether the component/tool is appropriate for fulfilling my requirements. | 4 |
| 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. | 2 |
| The component/tool offered sufficient support in avoiding errors when using its functionality. | 2 |
| usability_average | 3 |
| Satisfactory response time of the functionality. | 4 |
| Throughput of the operations close to the specified requirements. | 4 |
| Proper utilisation of memory resources (did you, for example, encounter “low memory” problems?). | 4 |
| 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 | 4 |
| maintainability_average | 0 |
| portability_average | 0 |
| Sufficient use of standard application programming interfaces. | 4 |
| Sufficient openness and ease of use of the interfaces. | 4 |
| compatibility_average | 4 |
| 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. | 4 |
| The software verifies and ensures the true identity of subjects or resources within the system. | 4 |
| security_average | 3 |
Funding Support Agencies