GO survey 2009/10: Difference between revisions

From GO Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 91: Line 91:
We also need to know more about who the users are. It might be important to find out what aspect of biology they are working in? are they a student or a PI? are they an informaticaian for a wet lab or working directly at the bench, are they working on high throughput projects or single genes? which organism do they work on mainly? There is a big differnece between someone complaining that the pombe coverage isn't good enough to someone working on "frog". If we don't know who the users are, then we won't be able to interpret the answers.
We also need to know more about who the users are. It might be important to find out what aspect of biology they are working in? are they a student or a PI? are they an informaticaian for a wet lab or working directly at the bench, are they working on high throughput projects or single genes? which organism do they work on mainly? There is a big differnece between someone complaining that the pombe coverage isn't good enough to someone working on "frog". If we don't know who the users are, then we won't be able to interpret the answers.


Might also want to know what their main exposure to GO is through (model organims database, public database (uniprot Ensembl), etc. We can't assume that the users main use of GO is though the comsortium website, and this may affect their perception of the annotation and the coverage, and the tools)


Also, fewer questions with free text answers (I had 3 in my last survey and that was a nightmare to collate, mainly because people complained about the same thing in every box!). Just give people the opportunity at the end to mention any problem which was not covered by the survey which will give you a good indiaction where your "holes are"
 
Fewer questions with free text answers (I had 3 in my last survey and that was a nightmare to collate, mainly because people complained about the same thing in every box!). Just give people the opportunity at the end to mention any problem which was not covered by the survey which will give you a good indication where your "holes are"

Revision as of 12:23, 13 October 2009

We need to perform a survey for the next GO grant application. This page is for collecting ideas and recording progress.

Personnel

Jane, Val and Jennifer

Ideas

  • The discussion of this at the 2009 Cambridge GOC meeting is in the meeting minutes
  • Short - maybe 15 questions or less? [Jane]
  • Stick to a small number of topics, namely: [Jane]
    1. Their perceptions of GO
    2. How they use GO
    3. What they'd like wrt tools
  • Ask what their priorities would be for GO [Jen]

Recipients

  • Send to two groups separately:
    1. People who have submitted a q to gohelp
    2. A group of random bench biologists (I've contacted EBI outreach for advice on how to contact a group like this)


Jen's first thoughts:


1) Have you used GO?

Yes - go to rest of questionnaire
No- questionnaire ends (here you should have a stub to find out why they haven't used it, never heard of it or  not relevent to their work-val)

2) Were you entirely satisfied with it?

Yes - end (I would put Q 2 before 3, this way you know what the main use is for the people who are satisfied-val)
no - continue

3) What do you use GO for?

options and text box (here I would have a list of the most common uses (selct as many as apply) and an "other", easier to collate val)

4) How would you prioritise the work that needs done to make the GO better?

(if this question is aimed at biologists, it will need to be much more explicit, but probably not so detailed, only "superusers" will be able to distiunguish between some of these val)

Add ontology coverage. 
Fix ontology errors.
Add annotation coverage.
Fix annotation errors.
Improve Consortium tools (AmiGO or OBO-Edit).
Improve documentation and help guides. 
Provide easier feedback options.

(Put numbers 1 - 6 alongside to indicate priorities.)

5) Please note any particular areas of biology that you feel need improvement in the ontology structure.

text box (Ask them to supply the GO ID which most closely relates to the area which needs work, eg. translation (GO:0006412), heart development (GO:0007507) 

6) Please note any aspect of annotation coverage or quality that you feel needs attention. 

text box

(I would merge 5&6, a biologist will not be able to distinguish between deficiencies in annotations or ontology at this level)


7) Please note any features that you feel are lacking from AmiGO or OBO-Edit. 

(I doubt that a single biologist has used OBO edit, I think we should only ask about the web tools- val)

text box

8) Which areas of documentation do feel most urgently need improved?

text box

9) Are you aware of the following and their uses:

a) The 'NOT' qualifier
b) GO slims
c) [other hard stuff that we want to check awareness on...]

10) Do you use any other ontologies or ontology tools?

text box


Vals first thoughts. I think we should first figure out exactly what we want to know from our users. I have a feeling the questions need to be muuch more general.

We also need to know more about who the users are. It might be important to find out what aspect of biology they are working in? are they a student or a PI? are they an informaticaian for a wet lab or working directly at the bench, are they working on high throughput projects or single genes? which organism do they work on mainly? There is a big differnece between someone complaining that the pombe coverage isn't good enough to someone working on "frog". If we don't know who the users are, then we won't be able to interpret the answers.

Might also want to know what their main exposure to GO is through (model organims database, public database (uniprot Ensembl), etc. We can't assume that the users main use of GO is though the comsortium website, and this may affect their perception of the annotation and the coverage, and the tools)


Fewer questions with free text answers (I had 3 in my last survey and that was a nightmare to collate, mainly because people complained about the same thing in every box!). Just give people the opportunity at the end to mention any problem which was not covered by the survey which will give you a good indication where your "holes are"