UM-BBD User Survey Results5

UM-BBD User Survey Results
April 20, 2000

[BBD Main Menu] [Search] [About the UM-BBD] [What's New] [Guest Book] [Contributors] [Guided Tour] [Publications] [Useful Internet Resources] [Acknowledgements] [Use Statistics]

The Fifth Annual User Survey was sent to 460 members of the UM-BBD e-mail user list on April 20, 2000. 50 responded as of May 17, 2000 for an 11% response rate, about the same as last year.

Where responders chose two or more items in a question, their vote was divided by the number of choices they made, e.g. 2 choices each were counted as 0.5. User comments are reported on a separate page.


1. Professional Affiliation (choose one)

 10    20%  Industry 
 
 29    58%  Academic 

  9    18%  Government 

  2     4%  Other affiliations
===== ====
 50   100%
About the same as last year.


2. Priority for UM-BBD development (choose one)

 33    66%  More breadth (more pathways, reactions, and/or compounds)
  
 17    34%  More depth (more information on each pathway, reaction
            and/or compound, or more features, such as search options)
===== ====
 50   100%
Two respondents selected both. For the fourth year in a row, uses feel we most need more breath (more pathways).


3. What additional feature, format, or type of information would 
    be most helpful?  (choose one)

  6    12%  More higher-level pathways (metapathways) which 
            summarize information from several UM-BBD pathways.

 15    30%  Ability to enter a compound structure and see structurally
            similar UM-BBD compounds

 28.5  57%  Ability to predict biodegradation pathway(s) for 
            compounds not in the UM-BBD

  0.5   6%  UM-BBD on a CD-ROM
===== ====
 50   100%
Users would find predictive ability and structure searching most useful. Few gave priority to metapathways or UM-BBD on a CD-ROM.


4.  What additional feature, format, or type of information
    would you or your institution or organization be most 
    willing to pay to use?  (choose one)

  22   47%  Nothing

   2    4%  More higher-level pathways (metapathways) which 
            summarize information from several UM-BBD pathways.

   4    9%  Ability to enter a compound structure and see structurally
            similar UM-BBD compounds

   9   19%  Ability to predict biodegradation pathway(s) for 
            compounds not in the UM-BBD

  10   21%  UM-BBD on a CD-ROM
===== ====
  47  100%
Almost half of users would not pay for additional functions. The others would be most willing to pay for predictive ability or a UM-BBD CD-ROM.


5.  What is the most useful type of UM-BBD information for you? 
    (choose one)

 20.8  41.6%  Pathways and Metapathways (text, graphics, significance 
              statements, links to organism information, dynamic pathway 
              generation) 

 20.3  40.6%  Reaction (text, graphics, links to literature, sequences, 
              enzymes)

  3     6%    Compound (text, graphics, formula, CAS Reg. Number, links)

  5.8  11.6%  Useful Internet Resources page
===== ====
 50   100%
Pathway and reaction information remain most useful.


6. What is your primary use for the database now? (choose one)

 13  26%  Research   

  7  14%  Research and Development

  0   0%  Development 

  3   6%  Development and Education

  2   4%  Education  

 29  38%  Research and Education

  6  12%  Other use 
=== ====
 50 100%
As in past years, research is the major use.


7. Any other comments, suggestions for pathways to include, etc.


[BBD Main Menu] [Search] [About the UM-BBD] [What's New] [Guest Book] [Contributors] [Guided Tour] [Publications] [Useful Internet Resources] [Acknowledgements] [Use Statistics]

Page Author(s): Lynda Ellis

Contact Us
© 2024, EAWAG. All rights reserved.

http://eawag-bbd.ethz.ch/stats3/results5.html