8th
Annual Hong Kong Innovative Users Group Meeting
Results of Programme Evaluation
|
| |
| 1. Programme organization |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
15 |
58% |
 |
 |
10 |
38% |
 |
 |
1 |
4% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
 |
0 |
0% |
 |
| Total Number of Responses: 26
|
| 2. Programme publicity |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
12 |
46% |
|
|
13 |
50% |
|
|
1 |
4% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 26
|
| 3. Days for the programme |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
 |
4 |
15% |
|
 |
8 |
31% |
|
 |
10 |
38% |
|
 |
4 |
15% |
|
 |
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 26
|
| 4. Time for presentations by individual libraries
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
3 |
12% |
|
|
10 |
38% |
|
|
13 |
50% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 26
|
| 5. Time for presentations by III |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
1 |
4% |
|
|
12 |
48% |
|
|
10 |
40% |
|
|
2 |
8% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 25
|
| 6. Time for III concurrent sessions |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
4 |
17% |
|
|
7 |
29% |
|
|
6 |
25% |
|
|
7 |
29% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 24
|
| 7. Presentations by individual libraries
|
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
12 |
46% |
|
|
9 |
35% |
|
|
5 |
19% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 26
|
| 8. Presentations by III |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
4 |
16% |
|
|
16 |
64% |
|
|
5 |
20% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 25
|
| 9. III concurrent sessions |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
2 |
8% |
|
|
11 |
46% |
|
|
8 |
33% |
|
|
3 |
13% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 24
|
| 10. Registration |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
16 |
62% |
|
|
8 |
31% |
|
|
1 |
4% |
|
|
1 |
4% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 26
|
| 11. Venue facilities |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
17 |
65% |
|
|
8 |
31% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
|
1 |
4% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 26
|
| 12. Conference lunch |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
10 |
43% |
|
|
9 |
39% |
|
|
3 |
13% |
|
|
1 |
4% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
| Total Number of Responses: 23
|
| 13. Refreshments |
| Grade |
Responses |
Percent |
Graph |
|
13 |
52% |
|
|
9 |
36% |
|
|
3 |
12% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
|
0 |
0% |
|
|
Total Number of Responses:
25
|
Comments
on III concurrent sessions:
- Need more time for discussion.
- Good panel members. Attended OPAC session,the venue should be smaller, so we could easier to talk to the stage.
- Too short.
General comments and suggestions for improvement:
- The best local presentations ever. Keep on.
- Very good.
- The topics presented by some libraries are alike. A more compact schedule is preferred, if there are not many presentations, it is better to shorten the duration to 1 day or 1 1/2 day.
- Good Conference. However, there is no need to hold HKIUG very year. It seems that not many local libraries are interested in participating. It could be held say every two years instead. Some contents are not related to INNOPAC.
|