Survey Report
on the ICPDR Information System
November, 2002
Alexander Höbart
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project,
Component 2.4 "Reinforcement of ICPDR Information System (Danubis)"
Survey Report
Contents
Summary.................................................................................................................................... 3
Set-up and implementation .................................................................................................... 3
Results.................................................................................................................................... 4
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 6
Hardware ............................................................................................................................ 6
Network Connection ........................................................................................................... 6
Training ............................................................................................................................... 6
Development....................................................................................................................... 7
More recommendations ...................................................................................................... 7
Detailed Results ......................................................................................................................... 9
Survey Participation ............................................................................................................... 9
Survey participation in total................................................................................................. 9
Survey participation by country .......................................................................................... 9
Survey participation by group ........................................................................................... 10
Survey participation by part of survey .............................................................................. 10
Part 1: Hardware .................................................................................................................. 11
Q1.2 Access to computer ................................................................................................. 11
Q1.3 Computer type ......................................................................................................... 11
Q1.10 Processor clock speed (MHz)................................................................................ 11
Q1.11 Memory Size (RAM) in MB .................................................................................... 11
Q1.12 Hard disk size ........................................................................................................ 12
Q1.4 Monitor screen size.................................................................................................. 12
Q1.13 Screen resolution (hor. x vert. pixels) .................................................................... 12
Q1.14 Color depth ............................................................................................................ 12
Q1.05 Printer type............................................................................................................. 13
Q1.15 Operating System .................................................................................................. 13
Q1.09 Installed Software .................................................................................................. 13
Used Browser Versions .................................................................................................... 13
Q1.08 System Administrator available ............................................................................. 14
Part 2: Connection Speed .................................................................................................... 15
Q1.6 Internet connection type .......................................................................................... 15
Connection speed............................................................................................................. 15
Connection speed by country ........................................................................................... 15
Connection speed by group.............................................................................................. 16
Part 3: Information System................................................................................................... 17
Q3.2 How long have you been using a computer? .......................................................... 17
Q3.3 How long have you been using the Internet? .......................................................... 17
Q3.4 How often do you use the Internet?......................................................................... 17
Q3.5 For which purpose do you use the Internet? ........................................................... 17
Q3.6 How often do you use the ICPDR IS approximately?.............................................. 18
Q3.7 How much time do you typically spend in the ICPDR IS (per visit)? ....................... 18
Q3.8 How important is the IS to your work within the ICPDR currently? ......................... 18
Q3.9 How important do you expect the IS to be to your work within the ICPDR within the
next 5 years? .................................................................................................................... 18
Q3.10 Agreement on statements a,h................................................................................ 19
Q3.10 Agreement on statements b,c................................................................................ 19
Q3.10 Agreement on statements d,i................................................................................. 19
Q3.10 Agreement on statements e,f................................................................................. 19
Q3.10 Agreement on statements g,j................................................................................. 19
Q3.11 Importance of different aspects of the ICPDR IS................................................... 20
Q3.11 Satisfaction with differenct aspects of the ICPDR IS............................................. 20
1
Q3.11 Importance-Satisfaction Gap ................................................................................. 20
Q3.12 Importance of using the ICPDR IS for different tasks............................................ 21
Q3.12 Satisfaction with using the ICPDR IS for different tasks........................................ 21
Q3.12 Tasks: Importance-Satisfaction Gap...................................................................... 22
Q3.13 What would help you in better using the IS for tasks mentioned above?.............. 22
Q3.14 Which important content is not covered by the IS? ............................................... 23
Q3.15 Which important task/function is not covered by the IS?....................................... 23
Q3.16 Importance of Support/Service .............................................................................. 23
Q3.17 Importance of future enhancements ...................................................................... 24
Q3.18 What one thing would you change about this IS? ................................................. 25
Q3.19 Any further comments............................................................................................ 25
Individual Results ................................................................................................................. 26
Survey participation by user ............................................................................................. 26
Hardware Equipment Priority List 1 .................................................................................. 29
Hardware Equipment Priority List 2 .................................................................................. 30
Hardware Equipment Priority List 3 .................................................................................. 31
Hardware Equipment Priority List 4 .................................................................................. 32
Hardware Equipment Priority List 5 .................................................................................. 33
Hardware Equipment Reference List................................................................................ 33
Hardware Assessment Bosnia&Herzegowina .................................................................. 34
Hardware Assessment Bulgaria ....................................................................................... 35
Hardware Assessment Czech Republic ........................................................................... 36
Hardware Assessment Croatia ......................................................................................... 37
Hardware Assessment Hungary....................................................................................... 38
Hardware Assessment Moldova....................................................................................... 39
Hardware Assessment Romania ...................................................................................... 40
Hardware Assessment Slovenia....................................................................................... 41
Hardware Assessment Slovakia....................................................................................... 42
Hardware Assessment Ukraine ........................................................................................ 43
Hardware Assessment FR Yugoslavia ............................................................................. 44
Part 2: Users with slow internet connections.................................................................... 45
Q3.16a User indicating Training as (very) important........................................................ 46
Q3.16b User indicating Workshops as (very) important................................................... 47
Q3.16h Users indicating web space for own (national) presentation as (very) important 48
Observations during the survey............................................................................................ 49
2
Summary
Set-up and implementation
The survey was carried out among the users of the ICPDR Information System in order to
assess the hardware and software equipment, network connection and the users' experience
with computers, the internet and the ICPDR Information System.
The survey consisted of two electronic questionnaires and two automated system tests. The
survey results were collected in the database of the ICPDR Information System. The analysis
was also generated from the database.
Part 1: Hardware/Software:
a) Questionnaire (Word Form)
b) Online test, instructions provided as PDF document
Part 2: Internet Connection Speed:
Online test at ICPDR website, instructions provided as PDF document
Part 3: Information System:
Questionnaire (Word Form)
The survey was distributed by email on 12 June 2002 among all Heads of Delegations,
Representatives of Participating States and Expert Group Members of the ICPDR.
The deadline for submitting results was set to the end of August 2002. After this, reminders
were sent out and further results have been collected.
The questionnaires (part 1a and 3) were prepared as forms with MS Word. This way, the
users could answer most questions by choosing an option from a drop-down list or clicking on
a checkbox. Additionally, some text fields for open questions were included.
The completed questionnaires were sent back. The form data was saved directly into comma-
delimited text files which in turn were imported into the database.
Information on the hardware (part 1b) was collected using a free online test
(http://www.pcpitstop.com). The users carried out this test from their workplace PC and
mailed the result page back. The relevant figures of the result page have been manually
entered into an Excel sheet which was then imported into the database.
The online connection test (part 2) was hosted on the ICPDR web server to test the speed of
the connection between each user's PC and the ICPDR server. For this purpose, a specific
application was developed which measures the download time of a file and stores the result in
the database automatically. Users carried out the test several times to examine how
download times differ over time. The test can be used again at any time and is accessible at
this location: http://www.icpdr.org/speedtest
The analysis of the survey was defined as database queries of the survey data, which are
also stored in the database. A special application was developed which uses the survey data
and the stored analytical queries to generate the tables and charts shown in the following
chapters. By separating data, logic and presentation like this, it was possible to work on the
survey analysis and presentation already in paral el to the collection of survey data.
Furthermore, it was possible to combine the survey data with other data in the Information
System (like user information, access logs). This framework can also serve as a tool for a
repeated survey or other surveys.
3
Results
Participation
The survey was sent to 128 users. 56 users (44%) responded to the survey, this is more than
60% of the active users of the Information System. Participation varied considerably from
country to country, from 0 to nearly 80%. But on group-level the participation was more even,
at least 6 users of each Expert Group participated.
Hard- and Software equipment
The average user has exclusive access to a Desktop PC, which is equipped with a 500 MHz
processor, 128 MB memory, 10 GB hard disk, a 17" monitor with a screen resolution of
800x600 pixels, as well as a b/w laser printer. The most common operating system is
Windows 98, and Internet Explorer, Acrobat Reader, MS Office and a ZIP utility are installed.
This is not a state-of-the art system, but fairly enough for working with a web-based system.
However, several users having inferior systems need new equipment.
Internet connection
Most users connect to the internet through their organisation's network (LAN). Download
rates vary widely, not only from country to country, but also within the countries. 20% of the
users only achieve download-rates of up to 5 KB/s and 40% of more than 30 KB/s, the rest is
in-between. Having documents with 300 KB on average, such a download would take one
minute or more in the first, and 10 seconds in the latter case.
Users' experience
Almost all users have more than 5 years experience in using computers, and also at least 2
years experience in using the internet. They use it on a daily basis, most of all for their work,
reading news and downloading software. The ICPDR Information System is only used
occasionally, and less than 30 minutes per visit.
Users' attitude
Most of the user regard the system as important to their work within the ICPDR and even
much more important in the next 5 years. Users state, that they would like to use the system
frequently and that using it can be learned quickly and does not need the support of a
technical person. They also agree with statements, that it is easy to use and well integrated,
but not to such an extend as to the previous statements.
Evaluation of the system
The usefulness and up-to-dateness of information and the ease of navigation are the most
important general aspects for the users, but the satisfaction with these aspects lacks
considerably behind. Finding documents is the most important task the system is used for.
Also quite important are expert databases, file sharing, event calendar, addresses, data
export, analytical tools and related/filtered information from other sources. In contrast, the
satisfaction with finding documents in the system is the lowest. Also the satisfaction with the
other important tasks mentioned above lacks behind in relation to their importance.
Expectations on support
Users would most of all like support by email, followed by web-based support and eLearning
as well as workshops. Training is less important, and telephone support has no importance at
all.
Requested enhancements
Enhancements which are requested the most are e-mail notifications of new documents and
events. A keyword or topic index, the possibility of requesting documents to be sent by email
and group mail (messaging) functions are also top-ranked. Still, most of the already existing
features gained a higher importance score than these enhancements.
4
From the deviation in answers and individual comments to the open questions, it becomes
obvious that the expectations from and the satisfaction with the system is very diverse among
the users.
All detailed results are presented in the chapter at page 9.
Some derived recommendations are given in the following chapter.
5
Recommendations
Hardware
Based on the Hardware Assessment and Priority Lists (see chapter Individual Results), and
after decision on a Standard Computer Configuration, a purchase plan can be compiled
taking also into account the project budget, UN purchase procedures and rules, and
restrictions and requirements at the national and organisational level.
Network Connection
The local situation of users having a slow internet connection (see chapter Individual Results)
should be investigated in order to find out if there are any options for improvement of the
connection speed, e.g. by optimising software configuration of the local system or by instal ing
new network equipment (e.g. router, etc.).
Training
The hesitant participation at the survey and the user's indication of a rather low importance of
training suggests that awareness-raising activities both for the Information System itself
and for the training programme should be undertaken before the actual training.
The mixed expectations by the users, reflected in the individual statements and in the large
deviation in the questions, indicate that there is no common view of the goals and
functions of the Information System. Therefore, the Permanent Secretariat should revise
the Information Management Strategy (from the presentation at the Sinaia Plenary 1999) and
adapt it to the current situation. The objectives, expected benefits and principles of the
Information System should be clarified.
Building on this strategy, the "institutional set-up" of the Information System should be laid out
in short but precise guidelines and SOPs, describing tasks and responsibilities within the
Information System (e.g. for administration of user accounts and access privileges,
publication of content, update of databases, etc.).
To ensure the effectiveness of the training, the nomination of facilitators is recommended.
Facilitators are selected users who have special tasks within a certain area of the IS, which
also means towards a certain group of users. There should be facilitators on Expert Group
level and country level. The tasks of the facilitators could be to coordinate, i.e. ensure
availability of relevant information in the appropriate form and place and on time, help and
encourage users to contribute information, review and edit contributions, delete redundant or
out-dated information, summarize content, etc. The detailed tasks of the facilitators should be
further discussed, agreed upon and defined in TORs.
The training programme should be launched in two phases: an initial training workshop for
facilitators ("training of trainers"), followed by one user workshop in each country.
Presentation of the strategy and institutional set-up should be included in the training
programme as an introductory module. Technical training modules can be customized to the
defined roles in the system, i.e. not everyone has to learn everything. Facilitators obviously
need a more advanced training and should be prepared to take an active role in the training
sessions of the 2nd phase.
Web-based and email user-support should be enhanced (see development below) and
eLearning modules (tutorials for specific tasks) should be developed to prepare, accompany
and follow-up the training.
6
Development
To improve navigation, the functionality of the navigation bar should be optimized (the base-
code is outdated, newer techniques can be implemented).
The search functions can be improved by implementing a search function by Document
number, date of approval or other meta-information. But this feature depends on correctness
and completeness of this meta-information (guidelines for publishing documents are
necessary).
A central and up-to-date address database is essential for many applications. Such a
database serves as one source of information for a searchable address book, group member
lists, meeting participants lists, mailing lists, email notifications, etc. A feasible solution for this
tasks should be developed.
Email notification of new documents and events are the most requested features and should
be implemented with high priority. Details of this feature (e.g. how is such a notification
triggered, how are recipients identified, etc.) have yet to be specified. Group messaging
functions (ranked at no. 5 of enhancements) should be considered as an integrated function.
The automatic sending of documents by email on request of a user (ranked at no. 4 of
enhancements) can be achieved with additional software from Oracle or other sources. The
possible options should be evaluated and tested.
To encourage feedback and facilitate support, a simple support application should be
developed. This would consist of an online form were users can request help in a structured
way. Administrators (and facilitators) can reply to these questions in the same application. All
communication is additionally transmitted by email. The solved questions with answers will be
viewable by all users as an additional source of online help (knowledge base).
A recurring problem is that users forget their password. This prevents them from using the
system, as they have to write an email and wait for a response. This problem can be solved
very efficiently with a function to retrieve the password by email. This enables the user to
continue working with the IS immediately and eases administration overhead.
Due to some criticism of the availability of the system (and also because of the increased
importance of availability if the AEWS is integrated), server monitoring should be
implemented. This monitoring will ensure that the system administrator is immediately
alarmed (by email or SMS) when a system failure occurs and can therefore take the
necessary steps to minimize downtime. Statistics will be kept to give a clear picture of the
total availability of the system (also to the users). Furthermore, scheduled downtimes (due to
software upgrades or power-cuts) should be announced in advance to users by email.
More recommendations
Another important outcome from the survey is that usefulness and up-to-dateness of
information have a considerable potential for improvement. To achieve such an
improvement, training or development will not be enough. The nomination of facilitators as
already mentioned above relating to the training programme - could be useful in this respect.
Building a topic or keyword index (ranked at no. 3 of enhancements) can already be
achieved with the built-in functions of Oracle Portal, no additional development is necessary.
This is more a content-related task, as new and already existing documents have to be
indexed manually by users who are familiar with the content of the documents (e.g.
facilitators). As a prerequisite, a list of topics or keywords has to be defined and also
maintained in the future.
To further improve user's ability of finding documents and for the improvement of expert
databases, more specific feedback from the users is needed. This kind of feedback can be
7
obtained during the training courses, through an improved feedback system and through the
facilitators.
Further content-related recommendations/requests from users which should be
considered and discussed:
Ř Short and easy to read summaries of main results and planned actions or disasters
(targeted to members of government, stake holders, decision-makers)
Ř Simpler structure
Ř General and compact information for the public,
Ř More attractive public area
Ř Links to WFD related information
Ř Expert level of information. New findings in sampling, analytical and information
technologies
Ř General information on countries of the DRPC, national information
Ř Task specific information (e.g. restoration of damaged ecosystems, DBAM, imission
limits etc. were mentioned)
8
Detailed Results
Survey Participation
Survey participation in total
How many users responded to the survey?
a) Total number of users of the IS
205
b) Number of users addressed in the survey 127
c) Active users within b)
90
d) Participating Users
59
e) Participation in % of b)
46
f) Participation in % of c)
66
b) The survey was addressed to all Heads of Delegations, Representatives of Participating States and Expert Group
Members of the ICPDR
c) Approx. two thirds of the users who have been addressed have also used the information system at least once (i.e.
logged in with their user name)
d) More than 50 users participated, i.e. they completed at least one of the three parts of the survey.
e) More than 40% of the users who have been addressed (basis: b) participated in the survey.
f) Even more than 60% of the "active" users (basis: c) participated in the survey.
Survey participation by country
Column Users (n) counts each user who has submitted at least one part of the survey. The participation for each part
and total users addressed in the countries are also shown.
Country Users (n) Users (%) Part 1 (n) Part 2 (n) Part 3 (n) Total users in
country
AT
4 36 2 2
4
11
AT
4
BA
2 29 2 1
0
7
BA
2
BG
2 40 2 2
2
5
BG
2
CZ
8 73 8 5
8
11
CZ
8
DE
4 33 1 2
4
12
DE
4
EU
0 0 0 0
0
4
EU
0
HR
4 31 4 3
4
13
HR
4
HU
5 45 5 3
5
11
HU
5
MD
2 29 2 1
1
7
MD
2
RO
4 44 4 1
4
9
RO
4
SI
8 80 8 5
5
10
SI
8
SK
6 60 5 4
6
10
SK
6
UA
0 0 0 0
0
6
UA
0
YU
4 67 4 3
3
6
YU
4
Note: Users of the Permanent Secretariat are not listed in this table.
9
Survey participation by group
Column Users (n) counts each user who has submitted at least one part of the survey. The participation for each part
and total users addressed in the groups are also shown.
Users Users Part Part Part Total users
Group
(n)
(%)
1 (n) 2 (n) 3 (n) in group
(n)
APC_EG 8
57
8
7
8
14
APC_EG
8
ECO_EG 7
47
5
2
6
15
ECO_EG
7
EMIS_EG 8
89
7
2
6
9
EMIS_EG
8
HOD 1
9
1
0
0
11
HOD
1
HOD_EXT1 5
23
4
2
4
22
HOD_EXT1
5
MLIM_EG 8
31
8
6
8
26
MLIM_EG
8
RBM_EG 10
37
8
4
8
27
RBM_EG
10
RBM_GIS_ESG 10
63 9 8
10
16
RBM_GIS_ESG
10
S_EG 2
40
2
1
2
5
S_EG
2
Note: Some users are members of more than one group. Therefore the sum of Users (n) is higher than the total number
of participants
Survey participation by part of survey
Part 1: Hardware
Part 2: Connection Speed
Part 3: Information System
Part Users % of participating users % of all users
Part 1
50
82
39
Part 1
50
Part 2
34
56
27
Part 2
34
Part 3
50
82
39
Part 3
50
10
Part 1: Hardware
Q1.2 Access to computer
Access Users(%) Users(n)
a) Exclusive
72.50
37
a) Exclusive
72.50
b) Shared
25.50
13
b) Shared
25.50
c) None
2
1
c) None
2.00
Q1.3 Computer type
Type Users(%)
Users(n)
Desktop 96.10
49 Desktop
96.10
Laptop 2
1
Laptop
2.00
None 2
1
None
2.00
Q1.10 Processor clock speed (MHz)
Recommended minimum: 500 MHz
Current systems usually have 900-2200 MHz.
In a computer, clock speed refers to the number of pulses per second generated by an oscillator that sets the tempo for
the processor. Clock speed is usually measured in MHz (megahertz, or millions of pulses per second) or GHz (gigahertz,
or billions of pulses per second).
Clock speed is one measure of computer "power," but it is not always directly proportional to the performance level.
Speed Users(%) Users(n)
a) <250
23.50
12
a) <250
23.50
b) 250-500
25.50
13
b) 250-500
25.50
c) 500-750
23.50
12
c) 500-750
23.50
d) 750-1000
21.60
11
d) 750-1000
21.60
e) >1000
3.90
2
e) >1000
3.90
f) n.a.
7.80
4
f) n.a.
7.80
Q1.11 Memory Size (RAM) in MB
Recommended Minimum: 128 MB
Current systems usually have 256 or 512 MB RAM.
RAM (random access memory) is the place in a computer where the operating system, application programs, and data in
current use are kept so that they can be very quickly reached by the computer's processor. The more RAM you have, the
less frequently the computer has to access instructions and data from the more slowly accessed hard disk form of
storage.
Memory Users(%) Users(n)
a) <32
3.90
2
a) <32
3.90
b) 32-64
33.30
17
b) 32-64
33.30
c) 64-128
58.80
30
c) 64-128
58.80
d) >128
17.60
9
d) >128
17.60
e) n.a.
7.80
4
e) n.a.
7.80
11
Q1.12 Hard disk size
Recommended Minimum: 10 GB
Current typical systems have hard disks of 20-100 GB.
A hard disk (or "disk drive") is part of a unit that stores and provides relatively quick access to large amounts of data on
an electromagnetically charged surface.
Disk Users(%)
Users(n)
a) <1GB
7.80
4
a) <1GB
7.80
b) 1-5GB
37.30
19
b) 1-5GB
37.30
c) 5-10GB
13.70
7
c) 5-10GB
13.70
d) >10GB
31.40
16
d) >10GB
31.40
e) n.a.
9.80
5
e) n.a.
9.80
Q1.4 Monitor screen size
Recommended minimum: 17"
Currently, monitors of 17-21" are most commonly used.
Size (inches) Users(%) Users(n)
14 3.90
2
14.00
3.90
15 19.60
10 15.00
19.60
17 54.90
28 17.00
54.90
19 11.80
6 19.00
11.80
21 7.80
4
21.00
7.80
Q1.13 Screen resolution (hor. x vert. pixels)
Recommended minimum: 800x600 pixel
Currently, screen resolutions of 800x600 and 1024x768 are most common.
Resolution is the number of pixels (individual points of color) contained on a display monitor, expressed in terms of the
number of pixels on the horizontal axis and the number on the vertical axis. The sharpness of the image on a display
depends on the resolution and the size of the monitor.
Knowledge of the size of users screens can play an integral role in the development of content for WWW sites as site
designers need to optimize graphics to fit the majority of user's screens.
Resolution Users(%) Users(n)
a) 640x480
0
0
a) 640x480
0.00
b) 800x600
43.10
22
b) 800x600
43.10
c) 1024x768
35.30
18
c) 1024x768
35.30
d) higher
11.80
6
d) higher
11.80
e) unknown
9.80
5
e) unknown
9.80
Q1.14 Color depth
Color on a computer is a function of the number of bits available to describe the shade of each pixel on the screen. The
color depth is indicated as bits per pixel. More bits per pixel provide more colors.
24 bit color is referred to as true color or full color because 16.7 million colors (224) is enough to provide even the most
subtle shading. 8 bit is typically recognized as a minimum requirement to provide reasonably natural looking color
reproduction of complex images.
Color depth
Users(%) Users(n)
a) 8-bit
7.80
4
a) 8-bit
7.80
b) 16-bit
35.30
18
b) 16-bit
35.30
c) 24-bit true color
43.10
22
c) 24-bit true color
43.10
higher 2
1
higher
2.00
unknown 11.80
6 unknown
11.80
12
Q1.05 Printer type
Type Users(%)
Users(n)
black/white inkjet
7.80
4
black/white inkjet
7.80
black/white laser
56.90
29
black/white laser
56.90
black/white needle
2
1
black/white needle
2.00
color inkjet/bubblejet
25.50
13
color inkjet/bubblejet
25.50
no printer
2
1
no printer
2.00
other 2
1
other
2.00
unknown 3.90
2
unknown
3.90
Q1.15 Operating System
Recommended minimum: Windows 98
Currently, Windows 98 is still the most common OS, followed by Windows 2000 and XP.
An operating system (abbreviated as "OS") manages all the other programs in a computer and provides a graphical user
interface. Having a recent OS is a basis for a stable and user-friendly system.
System Users(%)
Users(n)
a) Windows 95
8.50
4
a) Windows 95
8.50
b)
Windows
98 42.60 20 b) Windows 98
42.60
c) Windows ME
4.30
2
c) Windows ME
4.30
d) Windows NT
19.10
9
d) Windows NT
19.10
e) Windows 2000
21.30
10
e) Windows 2000
21.30
f) Windows XP
2.10
1
f) Windows XP
2.10
unknown 2.10
1
unknown
2.10
Q1.09 Installed Software
Program Users(%)
Users(n)
a) MS Internet Explorer
92.20
47
a) MS Internet Explorer
92.20
b) Netscape
35.30
18
b) Netscape
35.30
c) Other Browser
0
0
c) Other Browser
0.00
d) Acrobat Reader
98
50
d) Acrobat Reader
98.00
e) Acrobat
21.60
11
e) Acrobat
21.60
f) Zip Utility
100
51
f) Zip Utility
100.00
g) MS Office
98
50
g) MS Office
98.00
h) Other Office Package
17.60
9
h) Other Office Package
17.60
Used Browser Versions
The information about used browsers is taken from the web server's access log.
Browser Users(n)
MS Internet Explorer 4
2
MS Internet Explorer 4
2
MS Internet Explorer 5
38
MS Internet Explorer 5
38
MS Internet Explorer 5.5
31
MS Internet Explorer 5.5
31
MS Internet Explorer 6
36
MS Internet Explorer 6
36
Netscpape 4.0
5
Netscpape 4.0
5
Netscpape 4.5
5
Netscpape 4.5
5
Netscpape 4.6
3
Netscpape 4.6
3
Netscpape 4.7
11
Netscpape 4.7
11
unknown 2
unknown
2
13
Q1.08 System Administrator available
Answer Users(%) Users(n)
No 7.80
4
No
7.80
Yes 92.20
47
Yes
92.20
14
Part 2: Connection Speed
Q1.6 Internet connection type
28/33/56K modem: analog modems are used to connect a computer over the standard phone line with the internet.
28/33/56K indicates the maximum speed of the modem (should be indicated on the modem).
ISDN: "Integrated Services Digital Network" is a dial-up 64K connection over the digital ISDN network. Special ISDN
cards (sometimes also cal ed ISDN modems) are used.
Dual ISDN: each ISDN connection has two channels. If both channels are used for internet connection, you have a 128K
connection.
DSL: "Digital Subscriber Line" is an always-on connection over existing wiring at high speed. There are different types,
e.g. ADSL (Asymmetric DSL), SDSL (Symmetric DSL).
Cable modem: special cable modems are used to connect over the coaxial cable television network. The speed is can be
3-50 megabits/second.
LAN: "Local Area Network" using Ethernet connections to connect many computers in an office building.
Type Users(%)
Users(n)
a) LAN
84.30
43
a) LAN
84.30
b) Cable modem
3.90
2
b) Cable modem
3.90
c) DSL
2
1
c) DSL
2.00
d) ISDN
2
1
d) ISDN
2.00
e) 56K modem
3.90
2
e) 56K modem
3.90
f) 33K modem
2
1
f) 33K modem
2.00
g) unknown
2
1
g) unknown
2.00
Connection speed
Results from online connection speed test
Average speed Users(%) Users(n)
a) <5 KB/s
19.44
7
a) <5 KB/s
19.44
b) 5-10 KB/s
8.33
3
b) 5-10 KB/s
8.33
c) 10-20 KB/s
19.44
7
c) 10-20 KB/s
19.44
d) 20-30 KB/s
13.89
5
d) 20-30 KB/s
13.89
e) >30 KB/s
38.89
14
e) >30 KB/s
38.89
Connection speed by country
Country Average Min
Max
Deviation Users
AT 99.80 63.40
118.50
17.40
2
AT
99.80
BA 5.30
3.10
6.40
1.20
1
BA
5.30
BG 4.50
1.50
8.40
1.80
2
BG
4.50
CZ 33.20
3.10
100
24.40
5
CZ
33.20
DE 58.40
5.30
129.10
35.10
2
DE
58.40
EU -
-
-
-
0
EU
-
HR 11.40
2.60
15.60
3.80
3
HR
11.40
HU 28.80
5.90
67.10
16.50
3
HU
28.80
MD 2.70
2.50
3
0.20
1
MD
2.70
RO 12
12
12
0
1
RO
12.00
SI 36.70 11.30
68.70
12.80
5
SI
36.70
SK 6.80
1.20
27.40
6.10
4
SK
6.80
UA -
-
-
-
0
UA
-
YU 7.60
0.30
29.70
10.10
3
YU
7.60
not specified
325
3.10 916.60
270.50
3
not specified
325.00
15
Connection speed by group
Group Average
Min
Max
Deviation Users APC_EG
36.80
APC_EG 36.80
1.50
129.10
30
7
ECO_EG
2.70
ECO_EG 2.70
1.20
4.70
1.30
2
EMIS_EG
14.80
EMIS_EG 14.80
3.10
43.40
13.60
2
HOD
0.00
HOD_EXT1 20.40
3.10
46.30
13.90
2
HOD_EXT1
20.40
ICPDR_PS 477.10
3.10
916.60
343.40
1
ICPDR_PS
477.10
MLIM_EG 12.40
3.20
41.30
8.10
6
MLIM_EG
12.40
RBM_EG 59.10
20.80
109.40
25.70
4
RBM_EG
59.10
RBM_GIS_ESG 39.20
1.70
118.50 39.20
8
RBM_GIS_ESG
39.20
S_EG 17.60
3.10
46.30
14.10
1
S_EG
17.60
16
Part 3: Information System
Q3.2 How long have you been using a computer?
Users specified the number of years. The result is grouped.
Years Users(%) Users(n)
a) 0-1
2
1
a) 0-1
2
b) 2-3
0
0
b) 2-3
0
c) 4-5
2
1
c) 4-5
2
d) 6-10
25
13
d) 6-10
25
e) 10+
71
36
e) 10+
71
Q3.3 How long have you been using the Internet?
Users specified the number of years. The result is grouped.
Years Users(%) Users(n)
a) 0-1
2
1
a) 0-1
2
b) 2-3
12
6
b) 2-3
12
c) 4-5
53
27
c) 4-5
53
d) 6-10
31
16
d) 6-10
31
e) 10+
2
1
e) 10+
2
Q3.4 How often do you use the Internet?
Selection list
Frequency Users(%)
Users(n)
a) daily
86
44
a) daily
86
b) once a week
10
5
b) once a week
10
c) occasionally
4
2
c) occasional y
4
d) never
0
0
d) never
0
Q3.5 For which purpose do you use the Internet?
Checkboxes (multiple choices possible)
Use Users(%) Users(n)
Work 100
51
Work
100
News 69
35
News
69
Software dl.
43
22
Software dl.
43
GIS 27
14
GIS
27
Discussion 25
13
Discussion
25
Entertainment 25
13
Entertainment
25
Shopping 14
7
Shopping
14
Banking 10
5
Banking
10
Others 4
2
Others
4
17
Q3.6 How often do you use the ICPDR IS approximately?
Selection list
Frequency Users(%)
Users(n)
a) daily
2
1
a) daily
2
b) once a week
20
10
b) once a week
20
c) occasionally
75
38
c) occasional y
75
d) never
2
1
d) never
2
unanswered 2
1
unanswered
2
Q3.7 How much time do you typically spend in the ICPDR IS (per
visit)?
Users specified the number of minutes. The result is grouped.
Minutes Users(%) User(n)
a) 1-10
24
12
a) 1-10
24
b) 11-20
31
16
b) 11-20
31
c) 21-30
37
19
c) 21-30
37
d) 31-40
0
0
d) 31-40
0
e) 41-50
4
2
e) 41-50
4
f) 51-..
2
1
f) 51-..
2
unanswered 2
1
unanswered
2
Q3.8 How important is the IS to your work within the ICPDR currently?
Selection list
Importance Users(%)
Users(n)
0-not answered
4
2
0-not answered
4
1-very important
14
7
1-very important
14
2-important 53
27
2-important
53
3-neutral 27
14
3-neutral
27
4-irrelevant 2
1
4-irrelevant
2
5-very irrelevant
0
0
5-very irrelevant
0
Q3.9 How important do you expect the IS to be to your work within the
ICPDR within the next 5 years?
Selection list
Importance Users(%)
Users(n)
0-not answered
2
1
0-not answered
2
1-very important
47
24
1-very important
47
2-important 43
22
2-important
43
3-neutral 8
4
3-neutral
8
4-irrelevant 0
0
4-irrelevant
0
5-very irrelevant
0
0
5-very irrelevant
0
18
Q3.10 Agreement on statements a,h
Statements:
a) I think I would like to use this system frequently
h) I found the system very cumbersome to use.
Explanation:
The table shows the points and the number of users for each answer. The points are summed up for all users. Positive
points are given for agreement, negative points for disagreement. The higher the sum of points, the stronger the
agreement.
Answers and points: not answered = 0, strongly disagree = -2, disagree = -1, neutral = 0, agree = +1, strongly agree =
+2
Statement
Points na sd d n a sa
a) like to use
45
1 0 2 12 25 11
a) like to use
45
h)
cumbersome -38
4 7 27 10 3 0
h) cumbersome -38
Q3.10 Agreement on statements b,c
Statements:
b) I found the system unnecessarily complex
c) I thought the system was easy to use.
Explanation: see above
Statement
Points na sd d n a sa
b)
complex
-26 4 6 20 15 6 0
b) complex -26
c) easy to use
28 5 0 4 11 30 1
c) easy to use
28
Q3.10 Agreement on statements d,i
Statements:
d) I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system
i) I felt very confident using the system.
Explanation: see above
Statement
Points na sd d n a sa
d)
need
support -53
4 13 28 5 1 0
d) need support -53
i) confident use
25
8 0 3 14 24 2
i) confident use
25
Q3.10 Agreement on statements e,f
Statements:
e) I found that the various functions in this system were wel integrated
f) I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system
Explanation: see above
Statement
Points na sd d n a sa
e) well integrated
25
4 1 1 18 26
1
e) well integrated
25
f) inconsistency
-31
6 4 24 16 1
0
f) inconsistency -31
Q3.10 Agreement on statements g,j
Statements:
g) I would imagine the most people would learn to use this system very quickly
j) I need to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.
Explanation: see above
Statement
Points na sd d n a sa
g) learn quickly to use
39 2 0 1 9 38
1
g) learn quickly to use
39
j) lot to learn
-41 2 5 34 8
1
1
j) lot to learn -41
19
Q3.11 Importance of different aspects of the ICPDR IS
Answers by a selection list of the degree of importance for each aspect.
The result is given as the sum of points for each aspect.
Answers and points: very important=+2, important=+1, neutral=0, unimportant=-1, very unimportant=-2
Aspect Points
Avg.Pts./User Deviation
a) Design
45
0.88
0.84
a) Design
45
b) Ease of navigation
85
1.67
0.55
b) Ease of navigation
85
c) Search functions
68
1.33
0.79
c) Search functions
68
d) Usefulness of
91 1.78
0.54
d) Usefulness of
information
information
91
e) Online Help
43
0.84
0.95
e) Online Help
43
f) Information is up to
87 1.71
0.67
f) Information is up to
date
date
87
Q3.11 Satisfaction with differenct aspects of the ICPDR IS
Answers by a selection list of the degree of satisfaction for each aspect.
The result is given as the sum of points for each aspect.
Answers and points: very satisfied=+2, satisfied=+1, neutral=0, dissatisfied=-1, very dissatisfied=-2
Aspect Points
Avg.Pts./User Deviation
a) Design
48
0.94
0.86
a) Design
48
b) Ease of navigation
46
0.90
1.01
b) Ease of navigation
46
c) Search functions
39
0.76
1.03
c) Search functions
39
d) Usefulness of
56 1.10
0.85
d) Usefulness of
information
information
56
e) Online Help
34
0.67
1.07
e) Online Help
34
f) ) Information is up to
37 0.73
1.02
f) ) Information is up to
date
date
37
Q3.11 Importance-Satisfaction Gap
Difference between Satisfaction and Importance
Positive values: Satisfaction is higher than Importance
Negative values: Satisfaction is lower than Importance
Aspect Gap a) Design
3
a) Design
3
b) Ease of navigation -39
b) Ease of navigation
-39
c) Search functions -29
c) Search functions
-29
d) Usefulness of information -35
d) Usefulness of information -35
e) Online Help
-9
e) Online Help
-9
f) Information is up to date
-50
f) Information is up to date -50
20
Q3.12 Importance of using the ICPDR IS for different tasks
Answers by a selection list of the degree of importance for each task.
The result is given as the sum of points for each task.
Answers and points: very important=+2, important=+1, neutral=0, unimportant=-1, very unimportant=-2
Aspect Points
Avg.Pts./User
Deviation
a) Documents
85
1.67
0.52
a) Documents
85
b) Links
51
1
0.98
b) Links
51
c) Events
71
1.39
0.80
c) Events
71
d) Addresses
68
1.33
0.84
d) Addresses
68
e) Expert DB
72
1.41
0.96
e) Expert DB
72
f) General DB
49
0.96
1.11
f) General DB
49
g) Filtered Info
63
1.24
0.91
g) Filtered Info
63
h) Export data
69
1.35
1
h) Export data
69
i) Analytical tools
67
1.31
1.19
i) Analytical tools
67
j) Share documents
71
1.39
0.92
j) Share documents
71
k) Personal Folder
23
0.45
1.35
k) Personal Folder
23
l) Discussion
32
0.63
1.22
l) Discussion
32
Q3.12 Satisfaction with using the ICPDR IS for different tasks
Answers by a selection list of the degree of satisfaction for each task.
The result is given as the sum of points for each task.
Answers and Points: very satisfied=+2, satisfied=+1, neutral=0, dissatisfied=-1, very dissatisfied=-2
Aspect Points
Avg.Pts./User
Deviation
a) Documents
43
0.84
0.90
a) Documents
43
b) Links
53
1.04
1.13
b) Links
53
c) Events
57
1.12
1.09
c) Events
57
d) Addresses
58
1.14
1.33
d) Addresses
58
e) Expert DB
55
1.08
1.31
e) Expert DB
55
f) General DB
67
1.31
1.44
f) General DB
67
g) Filtered Info
56
1.10
1.42
g) Filtered Info
56
h) Export data
64
1.25
1.48
h) Export data
64
i) Analytical tools
61
1.20
1.37
i) Analytical tools
61
j) Share documents
67
1.31
1.36
j) Share documents
67
k) Personal Folder
71
1.39
1.42
k) Personal Folder
71
l) Discussion
71
1.39
1.47
l) Discussion
71
21
Q3.12 Tasks: Importance-Satisfaction Gap
Difference between Satisfaction and Importance
Positive values: Satisfaction is higher than Importance
Negative values: Satisfaction is lower than Importance
a) Documents -42
Task Gap b) Links
2
a) Documents
-42
c) Events -14
b) Links
2
c) Events
-14
d) Addresses -10
d) Addresses
-10
e) Expert DB -17
e) Expert DB
-17
f) General DB
18
f) General DB
18
g) Filtered Info
-7
g) Filtered Info
-7
h) Export data
-5
h) Export data
-5
i) Analytical tools
-6
i) Analytical tools
-6
j) Share documents
-4
j) Share documents
-4
k) Personal Folder
48
k) Personal Folder
48
l) Discussion
39
l) Discussion
39
Q3.13 What would help you in better using the IS for tasks mentioned
above?
Answers
Web site should be always available (in the past half a year very often unavailable)
Having some more experiences using the Internet, user interface in national language, homepage customizable on
group level to have relevant information at one glance.
Short, easy to read summaries of the main results of the expert groups, of main project results, of planned actions
(new tasks, planned projects, future public relation events, etc.)
I need up to date information and documents before the meetings in time, I would need easier navigation
stronger computer
More performed computer and increasing of the speed connection
easier orientation in the IS
searching of topics, keywords, dividing documents to the sections (horizontal and vertical) concerning expert groups
and topics, signalise the new things on web-site, date of upgrade version of document, signed old versions, add the
sign of importance for chosen expert groups, keywords to document and searching, etc.
if more links on WFD related information were available if more ICPDR members and guests would use the IS
The main item is the time available relative to the tasks I have to perform. ... The time I spend for the EG is around 25
- 30% of my yearly workload, but within the year it varies tremendously. Based on this the main problem I have to
resolve via DANUBIS is to obtain some information I do not yet hold. Technical items are from my point of view of
minor importance compared with the 'soft side', i.e. the timely input of content. This cannot be furnished by the
administrator, it has to come from the users themselves. In regard to this item I understand that I myself am 'called' to
participate. As the situation stands I subscribe to the view that an 'active informing' via e-mails is assuring the reaching
of all partners to a bigger extent than the obligation of the addressee to search DANUBIS for news.
Having in mind that I'm a resent user of the IS, a need more time to explore to be able to answer this question
ability of my current PC limited my using IS
training and more time
better computer
more use this IS
better availability and quick respond
user workshop
solving problems with password
A function to inform people via e-mail that an online discussion has started.
Some simple GIS tool with maps.
22
Q3.14 Which important content is not covered by the IS?
Answers
Expert level of information. New findings in sampling, analytical, information technologies, used in the river basin.
Members of the government, stake holders, heads of the departments need short (!) and quick (!) information about
Danube survey, disasters like floods, spills of hazardous substances or just about the TNMN (without knowing that it is
called so) and the information needed should be up to date but not more than half a page; that's what I miss in the IS
so that I have to put together the information on half a page in case the information is required.
A list of all expert group members
imission limits
geographically located information (GIS maps)
for me I would like specific task concerning to wetlands, nature protection, restoration of damaged ecosystems, EU
legislation.
general information on countries of the DRPC
No answer, as there is no time to reason
Having in mind that I'm a resent user of the IS, a need more time to explore to be able to answer this question
link to EU Water Director sources
DBAM, updating of the rating curves
a better telephone and address book, the 'workbook' (discussion in Prague)
I did not find the text of the Convention on cooperation for protection and sustainable use of the Danube river and
information on cooperation between ICPDR and ICPBS (Memorandum of understanding between the ICPBS and the
ICPDR and Declaration on water and water related ecosystems in the wider Black Sea region etc.).
simple GIS
Q3.15 Which important task/function is not covered by the IS?
Answers
Information platform with new EU-papers, easy links to EU-directives, etc.
A link, which presents a summary of the most important contents in german language
Sorry, I don't know this time.
No answer, as there is no time to reason
Having in mind that I'm a resent user of the IS, a need more time to explore to be able to answer this question
environmental and ICPDR password (vocabulary)
Possibility to find Summary reports from meeting of the Commission, Steering Group and expert groups including all
annexes.
GIS-queries
Q3.16 Importance of Support/Service
Answers by a selection list of the degree of importance for each question.
The result is given as the sum of points for each question.
Answers and points: very important=+2, important=+1, neutral=0, unimportant=-1, very unimportant=-2
Support/Service Points Users(n) Avg.Pts./User Deviation
a) Training
19
34
0.56
0.99
a) Training
19
b) Workshop
24
35
0.69
0.87
b) Workshop
24
c) Phone Support
5
35
0.14
0.77
c) Phone Support
5
d) Email Support
41
36
1.14
0.68
d) Email Support
41
e) Web Support
31
37
0.84
0.60
e) Web Support
31
f) eLearing
24
35
0.69
0.76
f) eLearing
24
g) Conversion
19
33
0.58
0.61
g) Conversion
19
h) Web space
17
32
0.53
0.98
h) Web space
17
23
Q3.17 Importance of future enhancements
Answers by a selection list of the degree of satisfaction for each question.
The result is ordered by the sum of points for each question.
Answers and points: very important=+2, important=+1, neutral=0, unimportant=-1, very unimportant=-2
Enhancement Points
Users(n)
Avg.Pts./User Deviation
a) Notify
documents
56
a) Notify
56 43
1.30
0.77
documents
c) Notify events
42
c) Notify events
42
43
0.98
0.67
t) Email
documents
32
t) Email
32 36
0.89
0.71
documents
k) Keyword index
31
k) Keyword index
31
35
0.89
0.76
d) Messaging
28
d) Messaging
28
40
0.70
0.72
i) Document
versioning
24
i) Document
24 38
0.63
0.88
versioning
p) Secured
connection
23
p) Secured
23 30
0.77
0.94
connection
s) FTP documents
20
s) FTP documents
20
31
0.65
0.66
b) Notify forum
19
b) Notify forum
19
40
0.48
1.11
f) Event
organization
19
f) Event
19 34
0.56
0.75
organization
e) Custom
calendar
17
e) Custom
17 35
0.49
0.82
calendar
g) Workflow
Applications
17
g) Workflow
17 31
0.55
0.85
Applications
l) National
language
14
l) National
14 36
0.39
0.90
language
m) Group
homepage
14
m) Group
14 33
0.42
0.83
homepage
u) Related news
13
u) Related news
13
35
0.37
0.88
r) Desktop
integration
8
r) Desktop
8 27
0.30
0.78
integration
q) Mobile access
6
q) Mobile access
6
30
0.20
1.03
j) Approval
process
3
j) Approval
3 20
0.15
0.59
process
o) eAdministration
1
o)
eAdministration 1 25
0.04
0.84
h) Chat room -
1
h) Chat room
-1
31
-0.03
0.75
n) User homepage -
n) User homepage
-1
30
-0.03
0.76
1
24
Q3.18 What one thing would you change about this IS?
Answers
On the beginning of homepage of the ICPDR I would public information about important characteristics of the Danube
and a map of the Danube river basin with all countries.
Having in mind that I'm a resent user of the IS, a need more time to explore to be able to answer this question
The improvement of the participation of country representatives and experts in IS actualization is necessary
Q3.19 Any further comments
Answers
too much information about too many things, too much possibilities. I am not capable to make a selection and I am
afraid I am not the only one. My opinion and evaluation is based on rare experiences.
To my mind the internal area is very well designed for experts/internal users, but I can imagine that the public area is
hard to handle for persons who are not insiders. Public users - I imagine - have certainly more general questions, not
so much administrative ones (organisations, tasks, groups ...) but simple ones about the Danube, the discharge,
emissions in general, disasters of the past etc. Of course most of these subjects can be found somewhere inside the
folders; for insiders it's quite easy but take an uninformed test person with simple questions ....the design of the public
area could be made more attractive, with key words of general interest, easier structured and it's the public who is not
surveyed now!
Allow as large flexibility in using this IS as possible, i.e. do not expect that users will use it the same way or that they
should be forced to use it the same way or with the same frequency
I would look forward to some information on level of national PIACs
25
Individual Results
Survey participation by user
This table shows each user and the date when he or she submitted the survey results. Additionally, total hits (since
February 2002) and last login date are given as an indicator of activity within the system.
User Hits
Last
Part1 Part2 Part3 CC Groups
Access
ADAMKOVÁ
Juliana
359 27-SEP-02 22-JUL-02 23-JUL-02 22-JUL-02 SK MLIM_EG
ANDELIC Naida
45 05-FEB-02 -
-
-
BA MLIM_EG
BABIAKOVA Gabriela
45 20-JUN-02 -
-
-
SK RBM_EG
BARTH Friedrich
0
- -
-
-
EU EG_CHAIR_EXT1, RBM_EG
BARTKOVA
Eleonora
0 - - - - SK HOD_EXT1,
RBM_EG
BAT Marjan
129 19-SEP-02 28-AUG-02 02-SEP-02 28-AUG-02 SI RBM_GIS_ESG
BEDJANIC Matjaz
19 14-FEB-02 -
-
-
SI ECO_EG
BELOUS Tatiana
52 10-SEP-02 06-SEP-02 10-SEP-02 -
MD DRP_SURVEY
BENIC Natasa
114 20-MAY-02 -
-
-
HR RBM_GIS_ESG
BERNARDOVÁ Ilja
71 02-SEP-02 27-JUN-02 -
27-JUN-02 CZ MLIM_EG
BEYER Knut
183 02-AUG-02 -
-
-
DE EG_CHAIR_EXT1, RBM_EG,
S_EG
BEYL Rüdiger
11 14-FEB-02 -
-
-
DE DRP_SURVEY
BEZDROB
Aida
0 - - - - BA APC_EG,
DRP_SURVEY
BIONDIC Danko
0
- -
-
-
HR RBM_EG
BIZA Pavel
220 24-SEP-02 11-JUL-02 11-JUL-02 11-JUL-02 CZ APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
BLÖCH Helmut
0
- -
-
-
EU EG_CHAIR_EXT1, RBM_EG
BRICELJ
Mitja
14
03-SEP-02
30-AUG-02 - - SI
HOD,
HOD_EXT1
BRUNNER Bernhard
158 28-AUG-02 11-JUL-02 18-JUL-02 11-JUL-02 DE APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
BUSSKAMP Ralf
99 28-AUG-02 -
28-AUG-02 04-SEP-02 DE RBM_GIS_ESG
BUZÁS Zsuzsa
169 09-JUL-02 27-JUN-02 -
27-JUN-02 HU RBM_EG
CELAC Diana
30 23-SEP-02 25-SEP-02 -
25-SEP-02 MD APC_EG, EMIS_EG,
HOD_EXT1, S_EG
CERAR Karmen
131 19-SEP-02 -
-
-
HR RBM_EG
CERO
Mehmed
0 - - - - BA DISTRIBUTION,
OTHER_PART_STATES_EXT1
CHIRIAC Gabriel
0
- 28-JUN-02 -
28-JUN-02 RO MLIM_EG
CONSTANTIN
George
9
05-APR-02
- - - RO HOD_EXT1
CONSTANTINESCU Teodor
70 10-MAY-02 09-SEP-02 -
09-SEP-02 RO EMIS_EG
Lucian
CUNICIAN Ludmila
40 12-APR-02 -
-
-
MD MLIM_EG
DEMMLER Georg
28 15-MAY-02 -
-
-
DE MLIM_EG
DIMITROV Dobri
185 26-SEP-02 11-JUN-02 13-JUN-02 11-JUN-02 BG APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
DUCA Gheorghe
0
- -
-
-
MD HOD, HOD_EXT1
DVORAK Vaclav
131 15-SEP-02 19-AUG-02 15-SEP-02 19-AUG-02 CZ RBM_EG
FABIANOVA Marcela
2,868 27-SEP-02 05-JUN-02 06-MAY-02 05-JUN-02 -
DRP_TEAM, EDIT_EVENTS
FAERGEMANN Henriette
184 20-SEP-02 -
-
-
EU HOD_EXT1
FLAJSMAN Emil
31 17-SEP-02 28-AUG-02 03-SEP-02 28-AUG-02 HR ECO_EG
FLECKSEDER Hellmut
366 06-SEP-02 23-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 23-AUG-02 AT RBM_EG
GALAMBOS
Mária
0 - - - - HU HOD_EXT1,
S_EG
GAVRIC
Mihajlo
0 - - - - YU MLIM_EG
GEISBACHER Daniel
355 24-SEP-02 23-AUG-02 22-AUG-02 23-AUG-02 SK APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
GEORGIEV
Valeri
6
02-SEP-02
- - - BG ECO_EG
GEORGIEVA Manoela
0
- -
-
-
BG HOD, HOD_EXT1
GERES Dragutin
0
- -
-
-
HR RBM EG
26
GLADCHII
Viorica
0 - - - - MD DRP_SURVEY
GLUMBIC Borivoj
385 07-JUN-02 -
-
-
HR DRP_SURVEY
GRBOVIC
Jasna
67
01-JUL-02
- - - SI
DRP_SURVEY
GRODZINSKI
Michael
0 - - - - UA DRP_SURVEY
GRUBER Doris
682 20-SEP-02 18-JUL-02 23-JUL-02 18-JUL-02 AT RBM_EG_TE, RBM_GIS_ESG
HADZIABDIC Andja
19 19-SEP-02 17-SEP-02 19-SEP-02 -
BA EMIS_EG
HAK Nena
113 30-SEP-02 -
-
-
HR APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
HOLLÓ Gyula
0
- -
-
-
HU HOD, HOD_EXT1, RBM_EG
HOLZWARTH Fritz
3 05-FEB-02 -
-
-
DE HOD, HOD_EXT1
IGNJATOVIC Jovanka
432 03-OCT-02 20-AUG-02 22-AUG-02 20-AUG-02 YU APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
DISTRIBUTION, MLIM_EG,
JAKSIC Borislav
0
- -
-
-
BA OTHER_PART_STATES_EXT1,
RBM_EG
JANAK Milan
113 16-SEP-02 11-SEP-02 16-SEP-02 11-SEP-02 SK ECO_EG
JEDLITSCHKA Jens
0
- -
-
14-JUN-02 DE HOD_EXT1, RBM_EG
JELINEK Gabriella
267 20-SEP-02 05-SEP-02 -
05-SEP-02 HU RBM_GIS_ESG
JULA Graziella
50 05-SEP-02 -
-
-
RO ECO_EG
JURAN Stanislav
107 13-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 -
02-SEP-02 CZ EMIS_EG
KINKOR Jaroslav
16 22-MAY-02 -
-
-
CZ HOD, HOD_EXT1
KISS
Ildiko
114
02-OCT-02
- - - HU MLIM_EG
KLINDOVA Adriana
18 04-SEP-02 30-AUG-02 -
30-AUG-02 SK ECO_EG
KOLLER-KREIMEL Veronika 111 18-SEP-02 -
-
-
AT JDS_TEAM, MLIM_EG
KORAC-MEHMEDOVIC
0 - 05-SEP-02 - - BA ECO_EG
Azra
KOREN Stanka
96 05-SEP-02 30-AUG-02 05-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 SI RBM_EG
KOUYUMDZHIEV Nikolai
0
- -
-
-
BG EMIS_EG, HOD_EXT1,
RBM_EG, RBM_GIS_ESG
KOVACS Peter
57 21-AUG-02 21-AUG-02 21-AUG-02 20-AUG-02 HU RBM_EG
KRAIER Wolfgang
116 03-SEP-02 -
-
19-AUG-02 DE ECO_EG
KUPEC Petr
62 30-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 -
03-SEP-02 CZ ECO_EG
LISKA Igor
2,367 03-OCT-02 05-JUN-02 04-JUN-02 05-JUN-02 -
EDIT_EVENTS, ICPDR_PS,
ICPDR_PS_TEXP, JDS_TEAM
LITERÁTHY Peter
122 02-JUL-02 -
-
-
HU JDS_TEAM, MLIM_EG
LUKSIC
Mojca
68
04-SEP-02
- - - HR ECO_EG
LÁSZLÓ Ferenc
13 26-JUN-02 -
-
-
HU JDS_TEAM, MLIM_EG
MAGYAR Gábor
88 07-MAY-02 -
-
-
HU ECO_EG, EG_CHAIR_EXT1
MAKOVINSKA
Jarmila
69
19-APR-02
- - - SK MLIM_EG
MAKVIC Zeljko
31 24-SEP-02 -
-
-
HR APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
MARTINOVIC-VITANOVIC
55 30-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 YU DRP_SURVEY
Vesna
MATOZ Helena
22 05-FEB-02 04-SEP-02 -
-
SI RBM_EG
MATUSKA
Milan
22
15-AUG-02
- - - SK HOD, HOD_EXT1, MLIM_EG,
RBM_EG
MELIAN Ruslan
0
- -
-
-
MD RBM_GIS_ESG
MILUTINOVIC Borisav
644 19-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 12-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 YU RBM_GIS_ESG
Stevan
MINARIK Boris
142 26-SEP-02 -
-
03-SEP-02 SK RBM_EG
MLINAR Jurij
320 30-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 SI RBM_GIS_ESG
MOLLOV Michail
74 20-AUG-02 18-JUN-02 20-AUG-02 18-JUN-02 BG MLIM_EG
MOTLOVÁ
Martina
0 - - - - CZ DRP_SURVEY
MOVCHAN Natalia
0
- -
-
-
UA RBM_EG, RBM_GIS_ESG
MOVCHAN
Yaroslav
0 - - - - UA DISTRIBUTION,
OTHER_PART_STATES_EXT1
MÜLLER Steffen
4 30-APR-02 -
-
-
DE RBM_GIS_ESG
NEDVEDOVA Doubravka
306 21-JUN-02 19-JUN-02 21-JUN-02 19-JUN-02 CZ HOD EXT1 S EG
27
NÜRNBERGER
Michael
0 - - - - AT
RBM_EG
OMERBEGOVIC
Visnja
87 17-SEP-02 02-JUL-02 02-JUL-02 02-JUL-02 HR RBM_GIS_ESG
OSTOJIC Zeljko
0
- -
-
-
HR HOD, HOD_EXT1
PANA-CARP Silvia
44 13-FEB-02 -
-
-
MD ECO_EG, MLIM_EG
PETKOVIC Slobodan
0
- 30-SEP-02 -
-
YU RBM_EG
PINTÉR György
620 30-SEP-02 30-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 HU APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
POLAJNAR Janez
220 30-SEP-02 14-JUN-02 03-SEP-02 14-JUN-02 SI APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
POPESCU Liviu M.
98 04-OCT-02 -
28-JUN-02 -
RO EG_CHAIR_EXT1, MLIM_EG
POPOVICI Mihaela
252 30-SEP-02 20-AUG-02 -
20-AUG-02 -
EDIT_EVENTS, EMIS_EG,
ICPDR_PS, ICPDR_PS_TEXP
RAUCHBÜCHL Alfred
0
- -
-
-
AT MLIM_EG
REMENÁROVÁ Darina
4 19-JUN-02 19-JUN-02 19-JUN-02 19-JUN-02 CZ MLIM_EG
RINDASU Sorin
6 03-SEP-02 16-JUL-02 -
16-JUL-02 RO RBM_GIS_ESG
SAVOVIC Ljubisa
173 25-JUN-02 -
-
-
BA RBM_GIS_ESG
SCHMEDTJE Ursula
1,859 05-SEP-02 -
-
23-SEP-02 -
EDIT_EVENTS, ICPDR_PS,
ICPDR_PS_TEXP
SCHÜSSLER Katharina
162 11-SEP-02 -
-
19-AUG-02 AT ECO_EG
SENGL
Manfred
147
30-JUL-02
- - - DE MLIM_EG
SERBAN Petru
16 09-MAY-02 09-SEP-02 -
09-SEP-02 RO RBM_EG
SEREDA Kyryl
0
- -
-
-
UA DRP_SURVEY
SIGMUND
Gerhard
64
04-MAR-02 - - - AT
ECO_EG,
EG_CHAIR_EXT1
SIRAC Sinisa
0
- 09-SEP-02 -
09-SEP-02 HR MLIM_EG
SOKOL
Jan
0 - - - - CZ RBM_EG
SOVJAKOVA Eva
114 11-SEP-02 06-SEP-02 06-SEP-02 05-SEP-02 CZ RBM_GIS_ESG
DISTRIBUTION, ECO_EG,
SPASOJEVIC
Miroslav
29
15-MAR-02 - - - YU OTHER_PART_STATES_EXT1,
RBM_EG_TE
STADIU Florin
0
- -
-
-
RO HOD, HOD_EXT1
STADLER Richard
116 24-SEP-02 -
-
-
AT APC_EG, HOD_EXT1,
MLIM_EG, RBM_EG, S_EG
STALZER
Wolfgang
0 - - - - AT
HOD,
HOD_EXT1
STEINDL Zsuzsa
99 30-SEP-02 30-AUG-02 02-SEP-02 30-AUG-02 HU EMIS_EG, HOD_EXT1
STETSENKO
Mykola
0 - - - - UA DISTRIBUTION,
OTHER_PART_STATES_EXT1
STRATENWERTH Thomas
20 27-AUG-02 -
-
-
DE HOD_EXT1
SURMANOVIC Dagmar
423 23-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 HR MLIM_EG
TOMAzEVI Erna
0
- 26-SEP-02 -
-
SI EMIS_EG
VARDUCA Aurel
0
- -
-
-
RO APC_EG, EG_CHAIR_EXT1,
MLIM_EG
VEREMIYCHIK George
40 23-APR-02 -
-
-
UA MLIM_EG
VERSTRYNGE Jean-
0 - - - - EU HOD,
HOD_EXT1
Francois
VOGL Charlotte
0
- -
-
-
AT RBM_EG
VYDARENY Milan
134 04-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 04-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 SK RBM_GIS_ESG
WINKELMANN-OEI
Gerhard
51
19-JUL-02
- - - DE APC_EG,
EG_CHAIR_EXT1
ZUPAN Martina
112 28-AUG-02 28-AUG-02 28-AUG-02 28-AUG-02 SI MLIM_EG
ÜBERWIMMER Franz
83 06-AUG-02 -
-
30-AUG-02 AT EMIS_EG
28
Hardware Equipment Priority List 1
Highest priority (1)
Completly out-dated, (nearly) unusable systems, most parameters below recommended mimimum configuration
Minimum Configuration: Exclusive access | Monitor: >15" | Processor: 500 MHz | RAM: 128 MB | Harddisk: 5 GB |
Screen Resolution: >800x600 pixel | Colors: >16256 | Operating System: >Windows95
Country User
Email domain
Current configuration
Remarks
Planned
Purchase
Exclusive Desktop, 75MHz,
@nfp-
BG MOLLOV
Michail
16MB RAM, 1GB HD, 17"
- No
bg.eionet.eu.int
Monitor, black/white inkjet
printer, Windows 95
Exclusive Desktop, 133MHz,
CZ BERNARDOVÁ
Ilja
@post.cz
32MB RAM, 0GB HD, 17"
- -
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz,
HU
BUZÁS Zsuzsa
@mail.ktm.hu
64MB RAM, 2GB HD, 15"
- not
known
Monitor, black/white inkjet
printer, Windows NT SP6
Shared Desktop, 166MHz,
40MB RAM, 3GB HD, 17"
HU PINTÉR
György
@vituki.hu
- Uncertain
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 95 OSR2
Shared Desktop, 100MHz,
16MB RAM, 0GB HD, 15"
MD
CELAC Diana
@mediu.moldova.md
- no
Monitor, black/white inkjet
printer, Windows 95
Shared Desktop, 133MHz,
32MB RAM, 4GB HD, 17"
RO
SERBAN Petru
@ape.rowater.ro
- none
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98
Shared Desktop, 133MHz,
CONSTANTINESCU
32MB RAM, 4GB HD, 17"
RO
Teodor Lucian
@ape.rowater.ro
- none
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz,
SK
KLINDOVA Adriana
@enviro.gov.sk
32MB RAM, 1GB HD, 14"
- No
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 95
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz,
provided by probably
SK
GEISBACHER Daniel @sizp.sk
64MB RAM, 2GB HD, 17"
Nadezda
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
yes
Skodova
printer, Windows 98 SE
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz,
YU
PETKOVIC Slobodan @uzzpro.sr.gov.yu
64MB RAM, 4GB HD, 15"
not user yet none
Monitor, black/white needle
printer, Windows 98
29
Hardware Equipment Priority List 2
High priority (2)
Out-dated systems, some parameters below recommended minimum configuration
Country User
Email
Current configuration
Remarks
Planned
domain
Purchase
Exclusive Desktop, 400MHz, 64MB
NEDVEDOVA
CZ
@env.cz
RAM, 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
- no
Doubravka
black/white laser printer, Windows
98
Exclusive Desktop, 450MHz, 63MB
CZ DVORAK
Vaclav
@env.cz RAM, 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
- None
black/white laser printer, Windows
98
Exclusive Desktop, 400MHz, 64MB
SURMANOVIC
HR
@voda.hr
RAM, 9GB HD, 15" Monitor,
- no
Dagmar
black/white laser printer, Windows
98 SE
Exclusive Desktop, 398MHz, 64MB
HR
SIRAC Sinisa
@voda.hr
RAM, 4GB HD, 15" Monitor,
- no
black/white laser printer, Windows
NT SP5
Shared Desktop, 450MHz, 256MB
same for al
OMERBEGOVIC
HR
@voda.hr
RAM, 0GB HD, 21" Monitor,
users of
1 month
Visnja
black/white laser printer, Windows
Croatian
NT
Waters
Shared Desktop, 350MHz, 128MB
I would like my
HU
JELINEK Gabriella @kovim.hu
RAM, 4GB HD, 14" Monitor,
-
monitor to be
unknown printer, unknown
replaced.
None Desktop, 365MHz, 64MB
HU
STEINDL Zsuzsa @mail.ktm.hu RAM, 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
- unknown
black/white laser printer, Windows
NT SP6
Exclusive Desktop, 350MHz, 128MB
SI TOMAzEVI Erna @gov.si
RAM, 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
- none
black/white laser printer, Windows
98
Exclusive Desktop, 350MHz, 64MB
SI
MATOZ Helena
@gov.si
RAM, 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
- NO
black/white laser printer, Windows
98
30
Hardware Equipment Priority List 3
Medium priority (3)
non-optimal system with one parameter below minimum configuration (or shared PC)
Country User
Email domain
Current configuration
Remarks
Planned
Purchase
Exclusive None, 500MHz,
HADZIABDIC
BA
@bih.net.ba
64MB RAM, 8GB HD, "
incomplete info
none
Andja
Monitor, other printer,
Windows 98 SE
KORAC-
Shared Desktop, 633MHz,
@bih.net.ba,
BA
MEHMEDOVIC
128MB RAM, 10GB HD, 15"
- no
planned
ekosef@bih.net.ba
Azra
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 98 SE
Exclusive Laptop, 600MHz,
BG
DIMITROV Dobri @meteo.bg
128MB RAM, 2GB HD, 15"
- No
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 2000
Exclusive Desktop, 400MHz,
CZ
BIZA Pavel
@povodi.cz
128MB RAM, 17GB HD, 17"
- ---
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98 SE
Exclusive Desktop, 501MHz,
survey also from O.
RO
CHIRIAC Gabriel @pcnet.pcnet.ro
64MB RAM, 19GB HD, 17"
Dumitrescu and C. -
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet Hamchevici
printer, Windows Me
Shared Desktop, 500MHz,
SI
POLAJNAR Janez @rzs-hm.si
127MB RAM, 8GB HD, 17"
- -
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 2000 SP1
Exclusive Desktop, 933MHz,
ADAMKOVÁ
SK
@shmu.sk
64MB RAM, GB HD, 15"
- no
Juliana
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 98
Shared Desktop, 866MHz,
MILUTINOVIC
@beoland.co.yu,
YU
256MB RAM, 4GB HD, 17"
- NO
Borisav Stevan
borisav@beotel.yu
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 2000
MARTINOVIC-
Exclusive Desktop, 700MHz,
new monitor
YU
VITANOVIC
@ibiss.bg.ac.yu
128MB RAM, 19GB HD, 15"
None
Vesna
Monitor, black/white laser
recommended
printer, Windows 98 SE
31
Hardware Equipment Priority List 4
Low priority (4)
Average systems with parameters above recommended minimum configuration, will become out-dated within 2 years
Country User
Email domain
Current configuration
Remarks
Planned Purchase
Exclusive Desktop, 505MHz,
REMENÁROVÁ
CZ
@chmi.cz
128MB RAM, 4GB HD, 19"
- -
Darina
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows NT
Exclusive Desktop, 0MHz,
incomplete
CZ KUPEC
Petr
@seznam.cz
128MB RAM, 16GB HD, 17"
-
Monitor, unknown printer,
info
Windows 98
Shared Desktop, 1100MHz,
HR
FLAJSMAN Emil @voda.hr
128MB RAM, 20GB HD, 17" - -
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows XP
Exclusive Desktop, 733MHz,
HU
KOVACS Peter @mail.ktm.hu
128MB RAM, 19GB HD, 17" - -
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98 SE
yes, 2 computers from
Shared Desktop, 800MHz,
National Dispatch of
RO RINDASU
Sorin
@ape.rowater.ro 128MB RAM, 27GB HD, 19" -
Romanian Water Authority
Monitor, black/white laser
(PENTIUM IV CPU 1,6
printer, Windows ME
GHz, 128MB RAM, HDD 40
Gb)
Exclusive Desktop, 730MHz,
SI BAT
Marjan
@gov.si 128MB RAM, 9GB HD, 21"
- -
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 2000 SP1
Shared Desktop, 1000MHz,
SI BRICELJ
Mitja
@gov.si 256MB RAM, 2GB HD, 17"
- none
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 2000
Exclusive Desktop, 667MHz,
128MB RAM, 10GB HD, 17"
SI KOREN
Stanka
@gov.si
- new
machine
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 600MHz,
IGNJATOVIC
128MB RAM, 20GB HD, 17"
YU
Jovanka
@meteo.yu
- none
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 2000
32
Hardware Equipment Priority List 5
Lowest priority (5)
Good systems with all parameters well above recommended minimum configuration
Country User
Email
Current configuration
Remarks
Planned
domain
Purchase
JURAN
Exclusive Desktop, 1000MHz, 128MB RAM,
CZ
@atlas.cz
- no
Stanislav
20GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white inkjet
printer, Windows 2000
SOVJAKOVA
Exclusive Desktop, 500MHz, 255MB RAM,
clock speed
CZ
@env.cz
----
Eva
19GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
n/a, has new
printer, Windows 98
PC
Exclusive Desktop, 927MHz, 128MB RAM,
SI MLINAR
Jurij
@gov.si
9GB HD, 19" Monitor, black/white laser printer, - -
Windows 2000 SP2
VYDARENY
Exclusive Desktop, 999MHz, 256MB RAM,
SK
@shmu.sk
- 250
EUR
Milan
28GB HD, 21" Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows NT SP6
Exclusive Desktop, 800MHz, 128MB RAM,
SK JANAK
Milan
@sopsr.sk
19GB HD, 19" Monitor, black/white laser
- No
printer, Windows 98
Hardware Equipment Reference List
Reference values (users in Germany, Austria, Permanent Secretariat, Danube Regional Project)
Country User
Email domain
Current configuration
Remarks
AT
FLECKSEDER
@bmlf.gv.at
Exclusive Desktop, 996MHz, 256MB RAM, 19GB HD, 17" -
Hellmut
Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows NT
AT
GRUBER Doris
@ubavie.gv.at
Shared Desktop, 1544MHz, 512MB RAM, 19GB HD, 21" -
Monitor, no printer printer, Windows 2000 SP2
DE
BRUNNER
@stmlu.bayern.de Exclusive Desktop, 233MHz, 128MB RAM, 2GB HD, 17" -
Bernhard
Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows NT
SI ZUPAN
Martina
@rzs-hm.si Exclusive Desktop, MHz, MB RAM, GB HD, 17" Monitor, -
black/white laser printer,
- HÖBART Alex
@unvienna.org
Exclusive Desktop, 1000MHz, 512MB RAM, 18GB HD,
-
19" Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows NT
- LISKA Igor
@unvienna.org
Exclusive Desktop, MHz, MB RAM, GB HD, 15" Monitor, -
color inkjet/bubblejet printer,
- POPOVICI
@unvienna.org
Exclusive Desktop, MHz, MB RAM, GB HD, 19" Monitor, -
Mihaela
color inkjet/bubblejet printer,
- FABIANOVA
@unvienna.org
Exclusive Desktop, 994MHz, 260MB RAM, 18GB HD, 17" -
Marcela
Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows 2000
33
Hardware Assessment Bosnia&Herzegowina
Email domain =~ organisation,institution
User
Email Domain
Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Purchase
ANDELIC Naida
@bih.net.ba
no info
-
-
-
BEZDROB Aida
@bih.net.ba
no info
-
-
-
CERO Mehmed
@bih.net.ba
no info
-
-
-
HADZIABDIC
Exclusive None, 500MHz, 64MB
incomplete
@bih.net.ba
3
none
Andja
RAM, 8GB HD, " Monitor, other
info
printer, Windows 98 SE
KORAC-
Shared Desktop, 633MHz, 128MB
@bih.net.ba,
MEHMEDOVIC
RAM, 10GB HD, 15" Monitor,
3 - no
planned
ekosef@bih.net.ba
Azra
black/white laser printer, Windows 98
SE
JAKSIC Borislav
@inecco.net
no info
-
-
-
SAVOVIC Ljubisa @inecco.net,
no info
-
-
-
LSavovic@iu-rs.com
34
Hardware Assessment Bulgaria
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain
Current Configuration
Priority Remarks Planned
Purchase
Exclusive Laptop, 600MHz, 128MB
DIMITROV Dobri
@meteo.bg
RAM, 2GB HD, 15" Monitor, color
3 - No
inkjet/bubblejet printer, Windows
2000
GEORGIEV Valeri @moew.government.bg no info
-
-
-
GEORGIEVA
@moew.govrn.bg no
info
- -
-
Manoela
KOUYUMDZHIEV
@moew.govrn.bg no
info
- -
-
Nikolai
Exclusive Desktop, 75MHz, 16MB
MOLLOV Michail
@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int
RAM, 1GB HD, 17" Monitor,
1 - No
black/white inkjet printer, Windows 95
35
Hardware Assessment Czech Republic
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email
Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Domain
Purchase
Exclusive Desktop, 1000MHz, 128MB
JURAN Stanislav @atlas.cz
RAM, 20GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white
5 - no
inkjet printer, Windows 2000
REMENÁROVÁ
Exclusive Desktop, 505MHz, 128MB
@chmi.cz
4 - -
Darina
RAM, 4GB HD, 19" Monitor, black/white
laser printer, Windows NT
Exclusive Desktop, 450MHz, 63MB RAM,
DVORAK Vaclav @env.cz
4GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
2 - None
printer, Windows 98
KINKOR Jaroslav @env.cz
no info
-
-
-
MOTLOVÁ
@env.cz no
info
- -
-
Martina
NEDVEDOVA
Exclusive Desktop, 400MHz, 64MB RAM,
@env.cz
2 - no
Doubravka
4GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 500MHz, 255MB
clock speed
SOVJAKOVA Eva @env.cz
RAM, 19GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white
5 n/a, has new
----
laser printer, Windows 98
PC
SOKOL Jan
@mze.cz
no info
-
-
-
BERNARDOVÁ
Exclusive Desktop, 133MHz, 32MB RAM,
Ilja
@post.cz
0GB HD, 17" Monitor, color
1 - -
inkjet/bubblejet printer, Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 400MHz, 128MB
BIZA Pavel
@povodi.cz RAM, 17GB HD, 17" Monitor, color
3 - ---
inkjet/bubblejet printer, Windows 98 SE
Exclusive Desktop, 0MHz, 128MB RAM,
KUPEC Petr
@seznam.cz 16GB HD, 17" Monitor, unknown printer,
4 incomplete info -
Windows 98
36
Hardware Assessment Croatia
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email
Current Configuration Priority Remarks
Planned
Domain
Purchase
GLUMBIC Borivoj @bj.tel.hr
no info
0 not involved anymore
-
BIONDIC Danko @voda.hr
no info
-
-
-
Shared Desktop,
1100MHz, 128MB RAM,
FLAJSMAN Emil @voda.hr
20GB HD, 17" Monitor,
4 - -
black/white laser printer,
Windows XP
GERES Dragutin @voda.hr
no info
-
-
-
HAK Nena
@voda.hr
no info
-
-
-
MAKVIC Zeljko
@voda.hr
no info
-
-
-
Shared Desktop,
OMERBEGOVIC
450MHz, 256MB RAM,
same for all users of Croatian
@voda.hr
2
1 month
Visnja
0GB HD, 21" Monitor,
Waters
black/white laser printer,
Windows NT
Exclusive Desktop,
398MHz, 64MB RAM,
SIRAC Sinisa
@voda.hr
4GB HD, 15" Monitor,
2 - no
black/white laser printer,
Windows NT SP5
Exclusive Desktop,
SURMANOVIC
400MHz, 64MB RAM,
@voda.hr
2 - no
Dagmar
9GB HD, 15" Monitor,
black/white laser printer,
Windows 98 SE
BENIC Natasa
@zg.hinet.hr no info
-
-
-
"As we are all connected on one and
same system, network, information
which you received from VISNJA
LUKSIC Mojca
@zg.hinet.hr no info
3
-
OMERBEGOVIC is valid for al
Croatians. Only, exception may be
MR. EMIL FLAJSMAN."
CERAR Karmen @zg.tel.hr
no info
-
-
-
OSTOJIC Zeljko @zg.tel.hr
no info
-
-
-
37
Hardware Assessment Hungary
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain Current Configuration
Priority Remarks Planned
Purchase
HOLLÓ Gyula @kovim.gov.hu no info
-
-
-
JELINEK
@kovim.hu
Shared Desktop, 350MHz, 128MB RAM, 4GB HD,
2 -
Gabriella
14" Monitor, unknown printer, unknown
BUZÁS
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz, 64MB RAM, 2GB
@mail.ktm.hu
1 - not
known
Zsuzsa
HD, 15" Monitor, black/white inkjet printer,
Windows NT SP6
GALAMBOS
@mail.ktm.hu no
info
-
-
-
Mária
KISS Ildiko
@mail.ktm.hu no info
-
-
-
KOVACS
Exclusive Desktop, 733MHz, 128MB RAM, 19GB
@mail.ktm.hu
4 - -
Peter
HD, 17" Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet printer,
Windows 98 SE
STEINDL
None Desktop, 365MHz, 64MB RAM, 4GB HD,
@mail.ktm.hu
2 - unknown
Zsuzsa
17" Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows
NT SP6
MAGYAR
@mail2.ktm.hu no info
-
-
-
Gábor
LITERÁTHY
@vituki.hu no
info
- -
-
Peter
LÁSZLÓ
@vituki.hu no
info
- -
-
Ferenc
PINTÉR
Shared Desktop, 166MHz, 40MB RAM, 3GB HD,
@vituki.hu
1 - Uncertain
György
17" Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows 95
OSR2
38
Hardware Assessment Moldova
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain
Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Purchase
MELIAN
@acva.md no
info
0 not involved
-
Ruslan
anymore
CUNICIAN
@hidromet.meteo.md no info
-
-
-
Ludmila
BELOUS
Exclusive Desktop, MHz, MB RAM,
incomplete info,
Tatiana
@hotmail.com
GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
0 not involved
none
printer,
anymore
CELAC
Shared Desktop, 100MHz, 16MB
@mediu.moldova.md
1 - no
Diana
RAM, 0GB HD, 15" Monitor,
black/white inkjet printer, Windows 95
PANA-CARP @mediu.moldova.md no info
-
-
-
Silvia
DUCA
@moldova.md no
info
- -
-
Gheorghe
GLADCHII
@moldova.md no
info
0 not involved
-
Viorica
anymore
39
Hardware Assessment Romania
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain
Current Configuration Priority Remarks
Planned Purchase
POPESCU Liviu M.
@ICIM.RO
no info
-
-
-
Shared Desktop,
133MHz, 32MB RAM,
CONSTANTINESCU
Teodor Lucian
@ape.rowater.ro 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
1 - none
color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98
JULA Graziella
@ape.rowater.ro no info
-
-
-
yes, 2 computers from
Shared Desktop,
National Dispatch of
800MHz, 128MB RAM,
RINDASU Sorin
@ape.rowater.ro
Romanian Water
27GB HD, 19" Monitor,
4 -
Authority (PENTIUM IV
black/white laser printer,
CPU 1,6 GHz, 128MB
Windows ME
RAM, HDD 40 Gb)
Shared Desktop,
133MHz, 32MB RAM,
SERBAN Petru
@ape.rowater.ro 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
1 - none
color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98
CONSTANTIN
@mappm.ro no
info
-
-
-
George
STADIU Florin
@mappm.ro
no info
-
-
-
Exclusive Desktop,
survey also
501MHz, 64MB RAM,
CHIRIAC Gabriel
@pcnet.pcnet.ro
from O.
19GB HD, 17" Monitor,
3
-
Dumitrescu and
color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows Me
C. Hamchevici
VARDUCA Aurel
@pcnet.pcnet.ro no info
-
-
-
40
Hardware Assessment Slovenia
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Purchase
Exclusive Desktop, 730MHz, 128MB RAM,
BAT Marjan
@gov.si
9GB HD, 21" Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
4 - -
printer, Windows 2000 SP1
BRICELJ
Shared Desktop, 1000MHz, 256MB RAM,
@gov.si
4 - none
Mitja
2GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 2000
KOREN
Exclusive Desktop, 667MHz, 128MB RAM,
new
@gov.si
4 -
Stanka
10GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
machine
printer, Windows 98
MATOZ
Exclusive Desktop, 350MHz, 64MB RAM, 4GB
@gov.si
2 - NO
Helena
HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser printer,
Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 927MHz, 128MB RAM,
MLINAR Jurij @gov.si
9GB HD, 19" Monitor, black/white laser
5 - -
printer, Windows 2000 SP2
TOMAzEVI
Exclusive Desktop, 350MHz, 128MB RAM,
Erna
@gov.si
4GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
2 - none
printer, Windows 98
BEDJANIC
@guest.arnes.si no info
-
-
-
Matjaz
GRBOVIC
@rzs-hm.si no
info
0 not involved -
Jasna
anymore
POLAJNAR
Shared Desktop, 500MHz, 127MB RAM, 8GB
@rzs-hm.si
3 - -
Janez
HD, 17" Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet printer,
Windows 2000 SP1
ZUPAN
@rzs-hm.si
Exclusive Desktop, MHz, MB RAM, GB HD,
- -
-
Martina
17" Monitor, black/white laser printer,
41
Hardware Assessment Slovakia
User
Email Domain Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Purchase
BARTKOVA
@enviro.gov.sk no info
-
-
-
Eleonora
KLINDOVA
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz, 32MB RAM,
@enviro.gov.sk
1 - No
Adriana
1GB HD, 14" Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 95
MATUSKA Milan @enviro.gov.sk no info
-
-
-
BABIAKOVA
@mail.shmu.sk no info
-
-
-
Gabriela
ADAMKOVÁ
Exclusive Desktop, 933MHz, 64MB RAM,
@shmu.sk
3 - no
Juliana
GB HD, 15" Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 98
VYDARENY
Exclusive Desktop, 999MHz, 256MB RAM,
@shmu.sk
5 - 250
EUR
Milan
28GB HD, 21" Monitor, color
inkjet/bubblejet printer, Windows NT SP6
GEISBACHER
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz, 64MB RAM,
provided by
@sizp.sk
1
probably yes
Daniel
2GB HD, 17" Monitor, color
Nadezda
inkjet/bubblejet printer, Windows 98 SE
Skodova
Exclusive Desktop, 800MHz, 128MB RAM,
JANAK Milan
@sopsr.sk
19GB HD, 19" Monitor, black/white laser
5 - No
printer, Windows 98
MAKOVINSKA
@vuvh.sk no
info
- -
-
Jarmila
MINARIK Boris @vuzh.sk
no info
-
-
-
42
Hardware Assessment Ukraine
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User Email
Domain
Current
Priority Remarks
Planned
Configuration
Purchase
MOVCHAN Natalia @menr.gov.ua
no info
3 results expected by the end -
of September 2002.
VEREMIYCHIK
@mep.freenet.kiev.ua no info
-
-
-
George
GRODZINSKI
@prime.net.ua
no info
0 not involved anymore
-
Michael
MOVCHAN
@ukrnet.net no
info -
-
-
Yaroslav
SEREDA Kyryl
@ukrnet.net
no info
-
-
-
STETSENKO
@ukrnet.net no
info -
-
-
Mykola
43
Hardware Assessment FR Yugoslavia
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain
Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Purchase
Shared Desktop, 866MHz,
MILUTINOVIC
@beoland.co.yu,
256MB RAM, 4GB HD, 17"
3 - NO
Borisav Stevan
borisav@beotel.yu
Monitor, black/white laser printer,
Windows 2000
MARTINOVIC-
Exclusive Desktop, 700MHz,
new monitor
VITANOVIC
@ibiss.bg.ac.yu
128MB RAM, 19GB HD, 15"
3
None
recommended
Vesna
Monitor, black/white laser printer,
Windows 98 SE
Exclusive Desktop, 600MHz,
IGNJATOVIC
@meteo.yu
128MB RAM, 20GB HD, 17"
4 - none
Jovanka
Monitor, black/white laser printer,
Windows 2000
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz,
PETKOVIC
@uzzpro.sr.gov.yu
64MB RAM, 4GB HD, 15"
1 not user yet
none
Slobodan
Monitor, black/white needle
printer, Windows 98
SPASOJEVIC
@yahoo.com no
info
-
-
-
Miroslav
GAVRIC Mihajlo @yuonline.net
no info
0 not involved
-
anymore
44
Part 2: Users with slow internet connections
Results from connection speed test
Country User
Email Domain
Connection Tests Average
Min.
Max.
KB/s
KB/s
KB/s
BA
HADZIABDIC Andja
@bih.net.ba
LAN
6
5.33
3.13
6.36
BG
DIMITROV Dobri
@meteo.bg
LAN
4
2.87
1.51
4.12
BG MOLLOV
Michail
@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int DSL
10
5.12
3.17
8.40
HR
FLAJSMAN Emil
@voda.hr
56K modem
3
2.91
2.59
3.13
MD
BELOUS Tatiana
@hotmail.com
33K modem
6
2.71
2.53
2.96
SK
GEISBACHER Daniel
@sizp.sk
LAN
5
2.98
1.55
6.29
SK ADAMKOVÁ
Juliana
@shmu.sk
LAN
6
7.72
3.80
12.46
SK JANAK
Milan
@sopsr.sk
LAN
6
2.64
1.20
4.70
YU
MILUTINOVIC Borisav
@beoland.co.yu,
LAN 12
2.27
1.75
3.25
Stevan
borisav@beotel.yu
YU
MARTINOVIC-
@ibiss.bg.ac.yu LAN 14
1.96
0.34
5.52
VITANOVIC Vesna
45
Q3.16a User indicating Training as (very) important
Country User
Email domain
Importance of
Groups
Training
AT
ÜBERWIMMER Franz
@ooe.gv.at
important
EMIS_EG
BG
MOLLOV Michail
@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int
very important
MLIM_EG
CZ
NEDVEDOVA Doubravka @env.cz
important
HOD_EXT1, S_EG
CZ
SOVJAKOVA Eva
@env.cz
important
RBM_GIS_ESG
CZ
BIZA Pavel
@povodi.cz
important
APC_EG
MD
CELAC Diana
@mediu.moldova.md
very important
APC_EG, EMIS_EG,
HOD_EXT1, S_EG
RO
CONSTANTINESCU
@ape.rowater.ro important
EMIS_EG
Teodor Lucian
RO
RINDASU Sorin
@ape.rowater.ro
very important
RBM_GIS_ESG
RO
SERBAN Petru
@ape.rowater.ro
important
RBM_EG
RO
CHIRIAC Gabriel
@pcnet.pcnet.ro
important
MLIM_EG
SK
KLINDOVA Adriana
@enviro.gov.sk
important
ECO_EG
SK
VYDARENY Milan
@shmu.sk
very important
RBM_GIS_ESG
YU
MILUTINOVIC Borisav
@beoland.co.yu,
very important
RBM_GIS_ESG
Stevan
borisav@beotel.yu
YU
MARTINOVIC-VITANOVIC @ibiss.bg.ac.yu very
important
DRP_SURVEY
Vesna
YU
IGNJATOVIC Jovanka
@meteo.yu
important
APC_EG
- FABIANOVA Marcela
@unvienna.org
very important
DRP_TEAM
- POPOVICI Mihaela
@unvienna.org
important
EMIS_EG, ICPDR_PS,
ICPDR_PS_TEXP
46
Q3.16b User indicating Workshops as (very) important
Country User
Email domain
Importance of Workshop
AT
ÜBERWIMMER Franz
@ooe.gv.at
important
BG MOLLOV
Michail
@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int
important
CZ
JURAN Stanislav
@atlas.cz
Very important
CZ
NEDVEDOVA Doubravka
@env.cz
Very important
CZ BERNARDOVÁ
Ilja
@post.cz
important
CZ
BIZA Pavel
@povodi.cz
important
HR OMERBEGOVIC
Visnja
@voda.hr
important
HU
JELINEK Gabriella
@kovim.hu
important
MD
CELAC Diana
@mediu.moldova.md
very important
RO CONSTANTINESCU
Teodor
Lucian
@ape.rowater.ro
important
RO
RINDASU Sorin
@ape.rowater.ro
very important
RO
SERBAN Petru
@ape.rowater.ro
important
RO
CHIRIAC Gabriel
@pcnet.pcnet.ro
important
SK
KLINDOVA Adriana
@enviro.gov.sk
important
SK VYDARENY
Milan
@shmu.sk
important
SK
GEISBACHER Daniel
@sizp.sk
important
YU
MILUTINOVIC Borisav Stevan
@beoland.co.yu, borisav@beotel.yu important
YU
MARTINOVIC-VITANOVIC Vesna @ibiss.bg.ac.yu
very important
YU
IGNJATOVIC Jovanka
@meteo.yu
important
- FABIANOVA Marcela
@unvienna.org
very important
- POPOVICI Mihaela
@unvienna.org
important
47
Q3.16h Users indicating web space for own (national) presentation as
(very) important
Country User
Email domain
Importance of web space
BG MOLLOV
Michail
@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int
important
CZ
SOVJAKOVA Eva
@env.cz
very important
CZ KUPEC
Petr
@seznam.cz
important
HU
KOVACS Peter
@mail.ktm.hu
important
RO CONSTANTINESCU
Teodor
Lucian
@ape.rowater.ro
important
RO
RINDASU Sorin
@ape.rowater.ro
very important
RO
SERBAN Petru
@ape.rowater.ro
important
RO
CHIRIAC Gabriel
@pcnet.pcnet.ro
very important
SI
POLAJNAR Janez
@rzs-hm.si
important
SI ZUPAN
Martina
@rzs-hm.si
important
SK VYDARENY
Milan
@shmu.sk
important
SK
GEISBACHER Daniel
@sizp.sk
important
YU
MILUTINOVIC Borisav Stevan
@beoland.co.yu, borisav@beotel.yu very important
YU
MARTINOVIC-VITANOVIC Vesna @ibiss.bg.ac.yu
very important
YU
IGNJATOVIC Jovanka
@meteo.yu
important
- FABIANOVA Marcela
@unvienna.org
very important
48
Observations during the survey
Many users did not react on the first survey invitation which was sent out by email. By the end
of August 2002, only 20% of the addressed users submitted their results. Some of these
users had been away from their office. Others stated they are already overworked or that they
can not contribute to the survey. Some users seemingly did not get the first email, reaching
some users was very difficult or impossible. Nevertheless, by sending out individual emails
and in some cases phoning the users directly, the participation could be doubled in the
end.
Many users also had problems with logging into the system. They either forgot their
password, did not have any information on their user account or sometimes have not even
been aware of a password-protected area. These problems became only obvious after
actively asking the users, why they did not log in so far. Most of the users who faced such
problems did not act on themselves to get access to the system.
Additional feedback and suggestions for improvement of the system emerged also during the
communication with the users for gathering survey results
49
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project,
Component 2.4 "Reinforcement of ICPDR Information System (Danubis)"
Survey Report
Contents
Summary.................................................................................................................................... 3
Set-up and implementation .................................................................................................... 3
Results.................................................................................................................................... 4
Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 6
Hardware ............................................................................................................................ 6
Network Connection ........................................................................................................... 6
Training ............................................................................................................................... 6
Development....................................................................................................................... 7
More recommendations ...................................................................................................... 7
Detailed Results ......................................................................................................................... 9
Survey Participation ............................................................................................................... 9
Survey participation in total................................................................................................. 9
Survey participation by country .......................................................................................... 9
Survey participation by group ........................................................................................... 10
Survey participation by part of survey .............................................................................. 10
Part 1: Hardware .................................................................................................................. 11
Q1.2 Access to computer ................................................................................................. 11
Q1.3 Computer type ......................................................................................................... 11
Q1.10 Processor clock speed (MHz)................................................................................ 11
Q1.11 Memory Size (RAM) in MB .................................................................................... 11
Q1.12 Hard disk size ........................................................................................................ 12
Q1.4 Monitor screen size.................................................................................................. 12
Q1.13 Screen resolution (hor. x vert. pixels) .................................................................... 12
Q1.14 Color depth ............................................................................................................ 12
Q1.05 Printer type............................................................................................................. 13
Q1.15 Operating System .................................................................................................. 13
Q1.09 Installed Software .................................................................................................. 13
Used Browser Versions .................................................................................................... 13
Q1.08 System Administrator available ............................................................................. 14
Part 2: Connection Speed .................................................................................................... 15
Q1.6 Internet connection type .......................................................................................... 15
Connection speed............................................................................................................. 15
Connection speed by country ........................................................................................... 15
Connection speed by group.............................................................................................. 16
Part 3: Information System................................................................................................... 17
Q3.2 How long have you been using a computer? .......................................................... 17
Q3.3 How long have you been using the Internet? .......................................................... 17
Q3.4 How often do you use the Internet?......................................................................... 17
Q3.5 For which purpose do you use the Internet? ........................................................... 17
Q3.6 How often do you use the ICPDR IS approximately?.............................................. 18
Q3.7 How much time do you typically spend in the ICPDR IS (per visit)? ....................... 18
Q3.8 How important is the IS to your work within the ICPDR currently? ......................... 18
Q3.9 How important do you expect the IS to be to your work within the ICPDR within the
next 5 years? .................................................................................................................... 18
Q3.10 Agreement on statements a,h................................................................................ 19
Q3.10 Agreement on statements b,c................................................................................ 19
Q3.10 Agreement on statements d,i................................................................................. 19
Q3.10 Agreement on statements e,f................................................................................. 19
Q3.10 Agreement on statements g,j................................................................................. 19
Q3.11 Importance of different aspects of the ICPDR IS................................................... 20
Q3.11 Satisfaction with differenct aspects of the ICPDR IS............................................. 20
1
Q3.11 Importance-Satisfaction Gap ................................................................................. 20
Q3.12 Importance of using the ICPDR IS for different tasks............................................ 21
Q3.12 Satisfaction with using the ICPDR IS for different tasks........................................ 21
Q3.12 Tasks: Importance-Satisfaction Gap...................................................................... 22
Q3.13 What would help you in better using the IS for tasks mentioned above?.............. 22
Q3.14 Which important content is not covered by the IS? ............................................... 23
Q3.15 Which important task/function is not covered by the IS?....................................... 23
Q3.16 Importance of Support/Service .............................................................................. 23
Q3.17 Importance of future enhancements ...................................................................... 24
Q3.18 What one thing would you change about this IS? ................................................. 25
Q3.19 Any further comments............................................................................................ 25
Individual Results ................................................................................................................. 26
Survey participation by user ............................................................................................. 26
Hardware Equipment Priority List 1 .................................................................................. 29
Hardware Equipment Priority List 2 .................................................................................. 30
Hardware Equipment Priority List 3 .................................................................................. 31
Hardware Equipment Priority List 4 .................................................................................. 32
Hardware Equipment Priority List 5 .................................................................................. 33
Hardware Equipment Reference List................................................................................ 33
Hardware Assessment Bosnia&Herzegowina .................................................................. 34
Hardware Assessment Bulgaria ....................................................................................... 35
Hardware Assessment Czech Republic ........................................................................... 36
Hardware Assessment Croatia ......................................................................................... 37
Hardware Assessment Hungary....................................................................................... 38
Hardware Assessment Moldova....................................................................................... 39
Hardware Assessment Romania ...................................................................................... 40
Hardware Assessment Slovenia....................................................................................... 41
Hardware Assessment Slovakia....................................................................................... 42
Hardware Assessment Ukraine ........................................................................................ 43
Hardware Assessment FR Yugoslavia ............................................................................. 44
Part 2: Users with slow internet connections.................................................................... 45
Q3.16a User indicating Training as (very) important........................................................ 46
Q3.16b User indicating Workshops as (very) important................................................... 47
Q3.16h Users indicating web space for own (national) presentation as (very) important 48
Observations during the survey............................................................................................ 49
2
Summary
Set-up and implementation
The survey was carried out among the users of the ICPDR Information System in order to
assess the hardware and software equipment, network connection and the users' experience
with computers, the internet and the ICPDR Information System.
The survey consisted of two electronic questionnaires and two automated system tests. The
survey results were collected in the database of the ICPDR Information System. The analysis
was also generated from the database.
Part 1: Hardware/Software:
a) Questionnaire (Word Form)
b) Online test, instructions provided as PDF document
Part 2: Internet Connection Speed:
Online test at ICPDR website, instructions provided as PDF document
Part 3: Information System:
Questionnaire (Word Form)
The survey was distributed by email on 12 June 2002 among all Heads of Delegations,
Representatives of Participating States and Expert Group Members of the ICPDR.
The deadline for submitting results was set to the end of August 2002. After this, reminders
were sent out and further results have been collected.
The questionnaires (part 1a and 3) were prepared as forms with MS Word. This way, the
users could answer most questions by choosing an option from a drop-down list or clicking on
a checkbox. Additionally, some text fields for open questions were included.
The completed questionnaires were sent back. The form data was saved directly into comma-
delimited text files which in turn were imported into the database.
Information on the hardware (part 1b) was collected using a free online test
(http://www.pcpitstop.com). The users carried out this test from their workplace PC and
mailed the result page back. The relevant figures of the result page have been manually
entered into an Excel sheet which was then imported into the database.
The online connection test (part 2) was hosted on the ICPDR web server to test the speed of
the connection between each user's PC and the ICPDR server. For this purpose, a specific
application was developed which measures the download time of a file and stores the result in
the database automatically. Users carried out the test several times to examine how
download times differ over time. The test can be used again at any time and is accessible at
this location: http://www.icpdr.org/speedtest
The analysis of the survey was defined as database queries of the survey data, which are
also stored in the database. A special application was developed which uses the survey data
and the stored analytical queries to generate the tables and charts shown in the following
chapters. By separating data, logic and presentation like this, it was possible to work on the
survey analysis and presentation already in paral el to the collection of survey data.
Furthermore, it was possible to combine the survey data with other data in the Information
System (like user information, access logs). This framework can also serve as a tool for a
repeated survey or other surveys.
3
Results
Participation
The survey was sent to 128 users. 56 users (44%) responded to the survey, this is more than
60% of the active users of the Information System. Participation varied considerably from
country to country, from 0 to nearly 80%. But on group-level the participation was more even,
at least 6 users of each Expert Group participated.
Hard- and Software equipment
The average user has exclusive access to a Desktop PC, which is equipped with a 500 MHz
processor, 128 MB memory, 10 GB hard disk, a 17" monitor with a screen resolution of
800x600 pixels, as well as a b/w laser printer. The most common operating system is
Windows 98, and Internet Explorer, Acrobat Reader, MS Office and a ZIP utility are installed.
This is not a state-of-the art system, but fairly enough for working with a web-based system.
However, several users having inferior systems need new equipment.
Internet connection
Most users connect to the internet through their organisation's network (LAN). Download
rates vary widely, not only from country to country, but also within the countries. 20% of the
users only achieve download-rates of up to 5 KB/s and 40% of more than 30 KB/s, the rest is
in-between. Having documents with 300 KB on average, such a download would take one
minute or more in the first, and 10 seconds in the latter case.
Users' experience
Almost all users have more than 5 years experience in using computers, and also at least 2
years experience in using the internet. They use it on a daily basis, most of all for their work,
reading news and downloading software. The ICPDR Information System is only used
occasionally, and less than 30 minutes per visit.
Users' attitude
Most of the user regard the system as important to their work within the ICPDR and even
much more important in the next 5 years. Users state, that they would like to use the system
frequently and that using it can be learned quickly and does not need the support of a
technical person. They also agree with statements, that it is easy to use and well integrated,
but not to such an extend as to the previous statements.
Evaluation of the system
The usefulness and up-to-dateness of information and the ease of navigation are the most
important general aspects for the users, but the satisfaction with these aspects lacks
considerably behind. Finding documents is the most important task the system is used for.
Also quite important are expert databases, file sharing, event calendar, addresses, data
export, analytical tools and related/filtered information from other sources. In contrast, the
satisfaction with finding documents in the system is the lowest. Also the satisfaction with the
other important tasks mentioned above lacks behind in relation to their importance.
Expectations on support
Users would most of all like support by email, followed by web-based support and eLearning
as well as workshops. Training is less important, and telephone support has no importance at
all.
Requested enhancements
Enhancements which are requested the most are e-mail notifications of new documents and
events. A keyword or topic index, the possibility of requesting documents to be sent by email
and group mail (messaging) functions are also top-ranked. Still, most of the already existing
features gained a higher importance score than these enhancements.
4
From the deviation in answers and individual comments to the open questions, it becomes
obvious that the expectations from and the satisfaction with the system is very diverse among
the users.
All detailed results are presented in the chapter at page 9.
Some derived recommendations are given in the following chapter.
5
Recommendations
Hardware
Based on the Hardware Assessment and Priority Lists (see chapter Individual Results), and
after decision on a Standard Computer Configuration, a purchase plan can be compiled
taking also into account the project budget, UN purchase procedures and rules, and
restrictions and requirements at the national and organisational level.
Network Connection
The local situation of users having a slow internet connection (see chapter Individual Results)
should be investigated in order to find out if there are any options for improvement of the
connection speed, e.g. by optimising software configuration of the local system or by instal ing
new network equipment (e.g. router, etc.).
Training
The hesitant participation at the survey and the user's indication of a rather low importance of
training suggests that awareness-raising activities both for the Information System itself
and for the training programme should be undertaken before the actual training.
The mixed expectations by the users, reflected in the individual statements and in the large
deviation in the questions, indicate that there is no common view of the goals and
functions of the Information System. Therefore, the Permanent Secretariat should revise
the Information Management Strategy (from the presentation at the Sinaia Plenary 1999) and
adapt it to the current situation. The objectives, expected benefits and principles of the
Information System should be clarified.
Building on this strategy, the "institutional set-up" of the Information System should be laid out
in short but precise guidelines and SOPs, describing tasks and responsibilities within the
Information System (e.g. for administration of user accounts and access privileges,
publication of content, update of databases, etc.).
To ensure the effectiveness of the training, the nomination of facilitators is recommended.
Facilitators are selected users who have special tasks within a certain area of the IS, which
also means towards a certain group of users. There should be facilitators on Expert Group
level and country level. The tasks of the facilitators could be to coordinate, i.e. ensure
availability of relevant information in the appropriate form and place and on time, help and
encourage users to contribute information, review and edit contributions, delete redundant or
out-dated information, summarize content, etc. The detailed tasks of the facilitators should be
further discussed, agreed upon and defined in TORs.
The training programme should be launched in two phases: an initial training workshop for
facilitators ("training of trainers"), followed by one user workshop in each country.
Presentation of the strategy and institutional set-up should be included in the training
programme as an introductory module. Technical training modules can be customized to the
defined roles in the system, i.e. not everyone has to learn everything. Facilitators obviously
need a more advanced training and should be prepared to take an active role in the training
sessions of the 2nd phase.
Web-based and email user-support should be enhanced (see development below) and
eLearning modules (tutorials for specific tasks) should be developed to prepare, accompany
and follow-up the training.
6
Development
To improve navigation, the functionality of the navigation bar should be optimized (the base-
code is outdated, newer techniques can be implemented).
The search functions can be improved by implementing a search function by Document
number, date of approval or other meta-information. But this feature depends on correctness
and completeness of this meta-information (guidelines for publishing documents are
necessary).
A central and up-to-date address database is essential for many applications. Such a
database serves as one source of information for a searchable address book, group member
lists, meeting participants lists, mailing lists, email notifications, etc. A feasible solution for this
tasks should be developed.
Email notification of new documents and events are the most requested features and should
be implemented with high priority. Details of this feature (e.g. how is such a notification
triggered, how are recipients identified, etc.) have yet to be specified. Group messaging
functions (ranked at no. 5 of enhancements) should be considered as an integrated function.
The automatic sending of documents by email on request of a user (ranked at no. 4 of
enhancements) can be achieved with additional software from Oracle or other sources. The
possible options should be evaluated and tested.
To encourage feedback and facilitate support, a simple support application should be
developed. This would consist of an online form were users can request help in a structured
way. Administrators (and facilitators) can reply to these questions in the same application. All
communication is additionally transmitted by email. The solved questions with answers will be
viewable by all users as an additional source of online help (knowledge base).
A recurring problem is that users forget their password. This prevents them from using the
system, as they have to write an email and wait for a response. This problem can be solved
very efficiently with a function to retrieve the password by email. This enables the user to
continue working with the IS immediately and eases administration overhead.
Due to some criticism of the availability of the system (and also because of the increased
importance of availability if the AEWS is integrated), server monitoring should be
implemented. This monitoring will ensure that the system administrator is immediately
alarmed (by email or SMS) when a system failure occurs and can therefore take the
necessary steps to minimize downtime. Statistics will be kept to give a clear picture of the
total availability of the system (also to the users). Furthermore, scheduled downtimes (due to
software upgrades or power-cuts) should be announced in advance to users by email.
More recommendations
Another important outcome from the survey is that usefulness and up-to-dateness of
information have a considerable potential for improvement. To achieve such an
improvement, training or development will not be enough. The nomination of facilitators as
already mentioned above relating to the training programme - could be useful in this respect.
Building a topic or keyword index (ranked at no. 3 of enhancements) can already be
achieved with the built-in functions of Oracle Portal, no additional development is necessary.
This is more a content-related task, as new and already existing documents have to be
indexed manually by users who are familiar with the content of the documents (e.g.
facilitators). As a prerequisite, a list of topics or keywords has to be defined and also
maintained in the future.
To further improve user's ability of finding documents and for the improvement of expert
databases, more specific feedback from the users is needed. This kind of feedback can be
7
obtained during the training courses, through an improved feedback system and through the
facilitators.
Further content-related recommendations/requests from users which should be
considered and discussed:
Ř Short and easy to read summaries of main results and planned actions or disasters
(targeted to members of government, stake holders, decision-makers)
Ř Simpler structure
Ř General and compact information for the public,
Ř More attractive public area
Ř Links to WFD related information
Ř Expert level of information. New findings in sampling, analytical and information
technologies
Ř General information on countries of the DRPC, national information
Ř Task specific information (e.g. restoration of damaged ecosystems, DBAM, imission
limits etc. were mentioned)
8
Detailed Results
Survey Participation
Survey participation in total
How many users responded to the survey?
a) Total number of users of the IS
205
b) Number of users addressed in the survey 127
c) Active users within b)
90
d) Participating Users
59
e) Participation in % of b)
46
f) Participation in % of c)
66
b) The survey was addressed to all Heads of Delegations, Representatives of Participating States and Expert Group
Members of the ICPDR
c) Approx. two thirds of the users who have been addressed have also used the information system at least once (i.e.
logged in with their user name)
d) More than 50 users participated, i.e. they completed at least one of the three parts of the survey.
e) More than 40% of the users who have been addressed (basis: b) participated in the survey.
f) Even more than 60% of the "active" users (basis: c) participated in the survey.
Survey participation by country
Column Users (n) counts each user who has submitted at least one part of the survey. The participation for each part
and total users addressed in the countries are also shown.
Country Users (n) Users (%) Part 1 (n) Part 2 (n) Part 3 (n) Total users in
country
AT
4 36 2 2
4
11
AT
4
BA
2 29 2 1
0
7
BA
2
BG
2 40 2 2
2
5
BG
2
CZ
8 73 8 5
8
11
CZ
8
DE
4 33 1 2
4
12
DE
4
EU
0 0 0 0
0
4
EU
0
HR
4 31 4 3
4
13
HR
4
HU
5 45 5 3
5
11
HU
5
MD
2 29 2 1
1
7
MD
2
RO
4 44 4 1
4
9
RO
4
SI
8 80 8 5
5
10
SI
8
SK
6 60 5 4
6
10
SK
6
UA
0 0 0 0
0
6
UA
0
YU
4 67 4 3
3
6
YU
4
Note: Users of the Permanent Secretariat are not listed in this table.
9
Survey participation by group
Column Users (n) counts each user who has submitted at least one part of the survey. The participation for each part
and total users addressed in the groups are also shown.
Users Users Part Part Part Total users
Group
(n)
(%)
1 (n) 2 (n) 3 (n) in group
(n)
APC_EG 8
57
8
7
8
14
APC_EG
8
ECO_EG 7
47
5
2
6
15
ECO_EG
7
EMIS_EG 8
89
7
2
6
9
EMIS_EG
8
HOD 1
9
1
0
0
11
HOD
1
HOD_EXT1 5
23
4
2
4
22
HOD_EXT1
5
MLIM_EG 8
31
8
6
8
26
MLIM_EG
8
RBM_EG 10
37
8
4
8
27
RBM_EG
10
RBM_GIS_ESG 10
63 9 8
10
16
RBM_GIS_ESG
10
S_EG 2
40
2
1
2
5
S_EG
2
Note: Some users are members of more than one group. Therefore the sum of Users (n) is higher than the total number
of participants
Survey participation by part of survey
Part 1: Hardware
Part 2: Connection Speed
Part 3: Information System
Part Users % of participating users % of all users
Part 1
50
82
39
Part 1
50
Part 2
34
56
27
Part 2
34
Part 3
50
82
39
Part 3
50
10
Part 1: Hardware
Q1.2 Access to computer
Access Users(%) Users(n)
a) Exclusive
72.50
37
a) Exclusive
72.50
b) Shared
25.50
13
b) Shared
25.50
c) None
2
1
c) None
2.00
Q1.3 Computer type
Type Users(%)
Users(n)
Desktop 96.10
49 Desktop
96.10
Laptop 2
1
Laptop
2.00
None 2
1
None
2.00
Q1.10 Processor clock speed (MHz)
Recommended minimum: 500 MHz
Current systems usually have 900-2200 MHz.
In a computer, clock speed refers to the number of pulses per second generated by an oscillator that sets the tempo for
the processor. Clock speed is usually measured in MHz (megahertz, or millions of pulses per second) or GHz (gigahertz,
or billions of pulses per second).
Clock speed is one measure of computer "power," but it is not always directly proportional to the performance level.
Speed Users(%) Users(n)
a) <250
23.50
12
a) <250
23.50
b) 250-500
25.50
13
b) 250-500
25.50
c) 500-750
23.50
12
c) 500-750
23.50
d) 750-1000
21.60
11
d) 750-1000
21.60
e) >1000
3.90
2
e) >1000
3.90
f) n.a.
7.80
4
f) n.a.
7.80
Q1.11 Memory Size (RAM) in MB
Recommended Minimum: 128 MB
Current systems usually have 256 or 512 MB RAM.
RAM (random access memory) is the place in a computer where the operating system, application programs, and data in
current use are kept so that they can be very quickly reached by the computer's processor. The more RAM you have, the
less frequently the computer has to access instructions and data from the more slowly accessed hard disk form of
storage.
Memory Users(%) Users(n)
a) <32
3.90
2
a) <32
3.90
b) 32-64
33.30
17
b) 32-64
33.30
c) 64-128
58.80
30
c) 64-128
58.80
d) >128
17.60
9
d) >128
17.60
e) n.a.
7.80
4
e) n.a.
7.80
11
Q1.12 Hard disk size
Recommended Minimum: 10 GB
Current typical systems have hard disks of 20-100 GB.
A hard disk (or "disk drive") is part of a unit that stores and provides relatively quick access to large amounts of data on
an electromagnetically charged surface.
Disk Users(%)
Users(n)
a) <1GB
7.80
4
a) <1GB
7.80
b) 1-5GB
37.30
19
b) 1-5GB
37.30
c) 5-10GB
13.70
7
c) 5-10GB
13.70
d) >10GB
31.40
16
d) >10GB
31.40
e) n.a.
9.80
5
e) n.a.
9.80
Q1.4 Monitor screen size
Recommended minimum: 17"
Currently, monitors of 17-21" are most commonly used.
Size (inches) Users(%) Users(n)
14 3.90
2
14.00
3.90
15 19.60
10 15.00
19.60
17 54.90
28 17.00
54.90
19 11.80
6 19.00
11.80
21 7.80
4
21.00
7.80
Q1.13 Screen resolution (hor. x vert. pixels)
Recommended minimum: 800x600 pixel
Currently, screen resolutions of 800x600 and 1024x768 are most common.
Resolution is the number of pixels (individual points of color) contained on a display monitor, expressed in terms of the
number of pixels on the horizontal axis and the number on the vertical axis. The sharpness of the image on a display
depends on the resolution and the size of the monitor.
Knowledge of the size of users screens can play an integral role in the development of content for WWW sites as site
designers need to optimize graphics to fit the majority of user's screens.
Resolution Users(%) Users(n)
a) 640x480
0
0
a) 640x480
0.00
b) 800x600
43.10
22
b) 800x600
43.10
c) 1024x768
35.30
18
c) 1024x768
35.30
d) higher
11.80
6
d) higher
11.80
e) unknown
9.80
5
e) unknown
9.80
Q1.14 Color depth
Color on a computer is a function of the number of bits available to describe the shade of each pixel on the screen. The
color depth is indicated as bits per pixel. More bits per pixel provide more colors.
24 bit color is referred to as true color or full color because 16.7 million colors (224) is enough to provide even the most
subtle shading. 8 bit is typically recognized as a minimum requirement to provide reasonably natural looking color
reproduction of complex images.
Color depth
Users(%) Users(n)
a) 8-bit
7.80
4
a) 8-bit
7.80
b) 16-bit
35.30
18
b) 16-bit
35.30
c) 24-bit true color
43.10
22
c) 24-bit true color
43.10
higher 2
1
higher
2.00
unknown 11.80
6 unknown
11.80
12
Q1.05 Printer type
Type Users(%)
Users(n)
black/white inkjet
7.80
4
black/white inkjet
7.80
black/white laser
56.90
29
black/white laser
56.90
black/white needle
2
1
black/white needle
2.00
color inkjet/bubblejet
25.50
13
color inkjet/bubblejet
25.50
no printer
2
1
no printer
2.00
other 2
1
other
2.00
unknown 3.90
2
unknown
3.90
Q1.15 Operating System
Recommended minimum: Windows 98
Currently, Windows 98 is still the most common OS, followed by Windows 2000 and XP.
An operating system (abbreviated as "OS") manages all the other programs in a computer and provides a graphical user
interface. Having a recent OS is a basis for a stable and user-friendly system.
System Users(%)
Users(n)
a) Windows 95
8.50
4
a) Windows 95
8.50
b)
Windows
98 42.60 20 b) Windows 98
42.60
c) Windows ME
4.30
2
c) Windows ME
4.30
d) Windows NT
19.10
9
d) Windows NT
19.10
e) Windows 2000
21.30
10
e) Windows 2000
21.30
f) Windows XP
2.10
1
f) Windows XP
2.10
unknown 2.10
1
unknown
2.10
Q1.09 Installed Software
Program Users(%)
Users(n)
a) MS Internet Explorer
92.20
47
a) MS Internet Explorer
92.20
b) Netscape
35.30
18
b) Netscape
35.30
c) Other Browser
0
0
c) Other Browser
0.00
d) Acrobat Reader
98
50
d) Acrobat Reader
98.00
e) Acrobat
21.60
11
e) Acrobat
21.60
f) Zip Utility
100
51
f) Zip Utility
100.00
g) MS Office
98
50
g) MS Office
98.00
h) Other Office Package
17.60
9
h) Other Office Package
17.60
Used Browser Versions
The information about used browsers is taken from the web server's access log.
Browser Users(n)
MS Internet Explorer 4
2
MS Internet Explorer 4
2
MS Internet Explorer 5
38
MS Internet Explorer 5
38
MS Internet Explorer 5.5
31
MS Internet Explorer 5.5
31
MS Internet Explorer 6
36
MS Internet Explorer 6
36
Netscpape 4.0
5
Netscpape 4.0
5
Netscpape 4.5
5
Netscpape 4.5
5
Netscpape 4.6
3
Netscpape 4.6
3
Netscpape 4.7
11
Netscpape 4.7
11
unknown 2
unknown
2
13
Q1.08 System Administrator available
Answer Users(%) Users(n)
No 7.80
4
No
7.80
Yes 92.20
47
Yes
92.20
14
Part 2: Connection Speed
Q1.6 Internet connection type
28/33/56K modem: analog modems are used to connect a computer over the standard phone line with the internet.
28/33/56K indicates the maximum speed of the modem (should be indicated on the modem).
ISDN: "Integrated Services Digital Network" is a dial-up 64K connection over the digital ISDN network. Special ISDN
cards (sometimes also cal ed ISDN modems) are used.
Dual ISDN: each ISDN connection has two channels. If both channels are used for internet connection, you have a 128K
connection.
DSL: "Digital Subscriber Line" is an always-on connection over existing wiring at high speed. There are different types,
e.g. ADSL (Asymmetric DSL), SDSL (Symmetric DSL).
Cable modem: special cable modems are used to connect over the coaxial cable television network. The speed is can be
3-50 megabits/second.
LAN: "Local Area Network" using Ethernet connections to connect many computers in an office building.
Type Users(%)
Users(n)
a) LAN
84.30
43
a) LAN
84.30
b) Cable modem
3.90
2
b) Cable modem
3.90
c) DSL
2
1
c) DSL
2.00
d) ISDN
2
1
d) ISDN
2.00
e) 56K modem
3.90
2
e) 56K modem
3.90
f) 33K modem
2
1
f) 33K modem
2.00
g) unknown
2
1
g) unknown
2.00
Connection speed
Results from online connection speed test
Average speed Users(%) Users(n)
a) <5 KB/s
19.44
7
a) <5 KB/s
19.44
b) 5-10 KB/s
8.33
3
b) 5-10 KB/s
8.33
c) 10-20 KB/s
19.44
7
c) 10-20 KB/s
19.44
d) 20-30 KB/s
13.89
5
d) 20-30 KB/s
13.89
e) >30 KB/s
38.89
14
e) >30 KB/s
38.89
Connection speed by country
Country Average Min
Max
Deviation Users
AT 99.80 63.40
118.50
17.40
2
AT
99.80
BA 5.30
3.10
6.40
1.20
1
BA
5.30
BG 4.50
1.50
8.40
1.80
2
BG
4.50
CZ 33.20
3.10
100
24.40
5
CZ
33.20
DE 58.40
5.30
129.10
35.10
2
DE
58.40
EU -
-
-
-
0
EU
-
HR 11.40
2.60
15.60
3.80
3
HR
11.40
HU 28.80
5.90
67.10
16.50
3
HU
28.80
MD 2.70
2.50
3
0.20
1
MD
2.70
RO 12
12
12
0
1
RO
12.00
SI 36.70 11.30
68.70
12.80
5
SI
36.70
SK 6.80
1.20
27.40
6.10
4
SK
6.80
UA -
-
-
-
0
UA
-
YU 7.60
0.30
29.70
10.10
3
YU
7.60
not specified
325
3.10 916.60
270.50
3
not specified
325.00
15
Connection speed by group
Group Average
Min
Max
Deviation Users APC_EG
36.80
APC_EG 36.80
1.50
129.10
30
7
ECO_EG
2.70
ECO_EG 2.70
1.20
4.70
1.30
2
EMIS_EG
14.80
EMIS_EG 14.80
3.10
43.40
13.60
2
HOD
0.00
HOD_EXT1 20.40
3.10
46.30
13.90
2
HOD_EXT1
20.40
ICPDR_PS 477.10
3.10
916.60
343.40
1
ICPDR_PS
477.10
MLIM_EG 12.40
3.20
41.30
8.10
6
MLIM_EG
12.40
RBM_EG 59.10
20.80
109.40
25.70
4
RBM_EG
59.10
RBM_GIS_ESG 39.20
1.70
118.50 39.20
8
RBM_GIS_ESG
39.20
S_EG 17.60
3.10
46.30
14.10
1
S_EG
17.60
16
Part 3: Information System
Q3.2 How long have you been using a computer?
Users specified the number of years. The result is grouped.
Years Users(%) Users(n)
a) 0-1
2
1
a) 0-1
2
b) 2-3
0
0
b) 2-3
0
c) 4-5
2
1
c) 4-5
2
d) 6-10
25
13
d) 6-10
25
e) 10+
71
36
e) 10+
71
Q3.3 How long have you been using the Internet?
Users specified the number of years. The result is grouped.
Years Users(%) Users(n)
a) 0-1
2
1
a) 0-1
2
b) 2-3
12
6
b) 2-3
12
c) 4-5
53
27
c) 4-5
53
d) 6-10
31
16
d) 6-10
31
e) 10+
2
1
e) 10+
2
Q3.4 How often do you use the Internet?
Selection list
Frequency Users(%)
Users(n)
a) daily
86
44
a) daily
86
b) once a week
10
5
b) once a week
10
c) occasionally
4
2
c) occasional y
4
d) never
0
0
d) never
0
Q3.5 For which purpose do you use the Internet?
Checkboxes (multiple choices possible)
Use Users(%) Users(n)
Work 100
51
Work
100
News 69
35
News
69
Software dl.
43
22
Software dl.
43
GIS 27
14
GIS
27
Discussion 25
13
Discussion
25
Entertainment 25
13
Entertainment
25
Shopping 14
7
Shopping
14
Banking 10
5
Banking
10
Others 4
2
Others
4
17
Q3.6 How often do you use the ICPDR IS approximately?
Selection list
Frequency Users(%)
Users(n)
a) daily
2
1
a) daily
2
b) once a week
20
10
b) once a week
20
c) occasionally
75
38
c) occasional y
75
d) never
2
1
d) never
2
unanswered 2
1
unanswered
2
Q3.7 How much time do you typically spend in the ICPDR IS (per
visit)?
Users specified the number of minutes. The result is grouped.
Minutes Users(%) User(n)
a) 1-10
24
12
a) 1-10
24
b) 11-20
31
16
b) 11-20
31
c) 21-30
37
19
c) 21-30
37
d) 31-40
0
0
d) 31-40
0
e) 41-50
4
2
e) 41-50
4
f) 51-..
2
1
f) 51-..
2
unanswered 2
1
unanswered
2
Q3.8 How important is the IS to your work within the ICPDR currently?
Selection list
Importance Users(%)
Users(n)
0-not answered
4
2
0-not answered
4
1-very important
14
7
1-very important
14
2-important 53
27
2-important
53
3-neutral 27
14
3-neutral
27
4-irrelevant 2
1
4-irrelevant
2
5-very irrelevant
0
0
5-very irrelevant
0
Q3.9 How important do you expect the IS to be to your work within the
ICPDR within the next 5 years?
Selection list
Importance Users(%)
Users(n)
0-not answered
2
1
0-not answered
2
1-very important
47
24
1-very important
47
2-important 43
22
2-important
43
3-neutral 8
4
3-neutral
8
4-irrelevant 0
0
4-irrelevant
0
5-very irrelevant
0
0
5-very irrelevant
0
18
Q3.10 Agreement on statements a,h
Statements:
a) I think I would like to use this system frequently
h) I found the system very cumbersome to use.
Explanation:
The table shows the points and the number of users for each answer. The points are summed up for all users. Positive
points are given for agreement, negative points for disagreement. The higher the sum of points, the stronger the
agreement.
Answers and points: not answered = 0, strongly disagree = -2, disagree = -1, neutral = 0, agree = +1, strongly agree =
+2
Statement
Points na sd d n a sa
a) like to use
45
1 0 2 12 25 11
a) like to use
45
h)
cumbersome -38
4 7 27 10 3 0
h) cumbersome -38
Q3.10 Agreement on statements b,c
Statements:
b) I found the system unnecessarily complex
c) I thought the system was easy to use.
Explanation: see above
Statement
Points na sd d n a sa
b)
complex
-26 4 6 20 15 6 0
b) complex -26
c) easy to use
28 5 0 4 11 30 1
c) easy to use
28
Q3.10 Agreement on statements d,i
Statements:
d) I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system
i) I felt very confident using the system.
Explanation: see above
Statement
Points na sd d n a sa
d)
need
support -53
4 13 28 5 1 0
d) need support -53
i) confident use
25
8 0 3 14 24 2
i) confident use
25
Q3.10 Agreement on statements e,f
Statements:
e) I found that the various functions in this system were wel integrated
f) I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system
Explanation: see above
Statement
Points na sd d n a sa
e) well integrated
25
4 1 1 18 26
1
e) well integrated
25
f) inconsistency
-31
6 4 24 16 1
0
f) inconsistency -31
Q3.10 Agreement on statements g,j
Statements:
g) I would imagine the most people would learn to use this system very quickly
j) I need to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.
Explanation: see above
Statement
Points na sd d n a sa
g) learn quickly to use
39 2 0 1 9 38
1
g) learn quickly to use
39
j) lot to learn
-41 2 5 34 8
1
1
j) lot to learn -41
19
Q3.11 Importance of different aspects of the ICPDR IS
Answers by a selection list of the degree of importance for each aspect.
The result is given as the sum of points for each aspect.
Answers and points: very important=+2, important=+1, neutral=0, unimportant=-1, very unimportant=-2
Aspect Points
Avg.Pts./User Deviation
a) Design
45
0.88
0.84
a) Design
45
b) Ease of navigation
85
1.67
0.55
b) Ease of navigation
85
c) Search functions
68
1.33
0.79
c) Search functions
68
d) Usefulness of
91 1.78
0.54
d) Usefulness of
information
information
91
e) Online Help
43
0.84
0.95
e) Online Help
43
f) Information is up to
87 1.71
0.67
f) Information is up to
date
date
87
Q3.11 Satisfaction with differenct aspects of the ICPDR IS
Answers by a selection list of the degree of satisfaction for each aspect.
The result is given as the sum of points for each aspect.
Answers and points: very satisfied=+2, satisfied=+1, neutral=0, dissatisfied=-1, very dissatisfied=-2
Aspect Points
Avg.Pts./User Deviation
a) Design
48
0.94
0.86
a) Design
48
b) Ease of navigation
46
0.90
1.01
b) Ease of navigation
46
c) Search functions
39
0.76
1.03
c) Search functions
39
d) Usefulness of
56 1.10
0.85
d) Usefulness of
information
information
56
e) Online Help
34
0.67
1.07
e) Online Help
34
f) ) Information is up to
37 0.73
1.02
f) ) Information is up to
date
date
37
Q3.11 Importance-Satisfaction Gap
Difference between Satisfaction and Importance
Positive values: Satisfaction is higher than Importance
Negative values: Satisfaction is lower than Importance
Aspect Gap a) Design
3
a) Design
3
b) Ease of navigation -39
b) Ease of navigation
-39
c) Search functions -29
c) Search functions
-29
d) Usefulness of information -35
d) Usefulness of information -35
e) Online Help
-9
e) Online Help
-9
f) Information is up to date
-50
f) Information is up to date -50
20
Q3.12 Importance of using the ICPDR IS for different tasks
Answers by a selection list of the degree of importance for each task.
The result is given as the sum of points for each task.
Answers and points: very important=+2, important=+1, neutral=0, unimportant=-1, very unimportant=-2
Aspect Points
Avg.Pts./User
Deviation
a) Documents
85
1.67
0.52
a) Documents
85
b) Links
51
1
0.98
b) Links
51
c) Events
71
1.39
0.80
c) Events
71
d) Addresses
68
1.33
0.84
d) Addresses
68
e) Expert DB
72
1.41
0.96
e) Expert DB
72
f) General DB
49
0.96
1.11
f) General DB
49
g) Filtered Info
63
1.24
0.91
g) Filtered Info
63
h) Export data
69
1.35
1
h) Export data
69
i) Analytical tools
67
1.31
1.19
i) Analytical tools
67
j) Share documents
71
1.39
0.92
j) Share documents
71
k) Personal Folder
23
0.45
1.35
k) Personal Folder
23
l) Discussion
32
0.63
1.22
l) Discussion
32
Q3.12 Satisfaction with using the ICPDR IS for different tasks
Answers by a selection list of the degree of satisfaction for each task.
The result is given as the sum of points for each task.
Answers and Points: very satisfied=+2, satisfied=+1, neutral=0, dissatisfied=-1, very dissatisfied=-2
Aspect Points
Avg.Pts./User
Deviation
a) Documents
43
0.84
0.90
a) Documents
43
b) Links
53
1.04
1.13
b) Links
53
c) Events
57
1.12
1.09
c) Events
57
d) Addresses
58
1.14
1.33
d) Addresses
58
e) Expert DB
55
1.08
1.31
e) Expert DB
55
f) General DB
67
1.31
1.44
f) General DB
67
g) Filtered Info
56
1.10
1.42
g) Filtered Info
56
h) Export data
64
1.25
1.48
h) Export data
64
i) Analytical tools
61
1.20
1.37
i) Analytical tools
61
j) Share documents
67
1.31
1.36
j) Share documents
67
k) Personal Folder
71
1.39
1.42
k) Personal Folder
71
l) Discussion
71
1.39
1.47
l) Discussion
71
21
Q3.12 Tasks: Importance-Satisfaction Gap
Difference between Satisfaction and Importance
Positive values: Satisfaction is higher than Importance
Negative values: Satisfaction is lower than Importance
a) Documents -42
Task Gap b) Links
2
a) Documents
-42
c) Events -14
b) Links
2
c) Events
-14
d) Addresses -10
d) Addresses
-10
e) Expert DB -17
e) Expert DB
-17
f) General DB
18
f) General DB
18
g) Filtered Info
-7
g) Filtered Info
-7
h) Export data
-5
h) Export data
-5
i) Analytical tools
-6
i) Analytical tools
-6
j) Share documents
-4
j) Share documents
-4
k) Personal Folder
48
k) Personal Folder
48
l) Discussion
39
l) Discussion
39
Q3.13 What would help you in better using the IS for tasks mentioned
above?
Answers
Web site should be always available (in the past half a year very often unavailable)
Having some more experiences using the Internet, user interface in national language, homepage customizable on
group level to have relevant information at one glance.
Short, easy to read summaries of the main results of the expert groups, of main project results, of planned actions
(new tasks, planned projects, future public relation events, etc.)
I need up to date information and documents before the meetings in time, I would need easier navigation
stronger computer
More performed computer and increasing of the speed connection
easier orientation in the IS
searching of topics, keywords, dividing documents to the sections (horizontal and vertical) concerning expert groups
and topics, signalise the new things on web-site, date of upgrade version of document, signed old versions, add the
sign of importance for chosen expert groups, keywords to document and searching, etc.
if more links on WFD related information were available if more ICPDR members and guests would use the IS
The main item is the time available relative to the tasks I have to perform. ... The time I spend for the EG is around 25
- 30% of my yearly workload, but within the year it varies tremendously. Based on this the main problem I have to
resolve via DANUBIS is to obtain some information I do not yet hold. Technical items are from my point of view of
minor importance compared with the 'soft side', i.e. the timely input of content. This cannot be furnished by the
administrator, it has to come from the users themselves. In regard to this item I understand that I myself am 'called' to
participate. As the situation stands I subscribe to the view that an 'active informing' via e-mails is assuring the reaching
of all partners to a bigger extent than the obligation of the addressee to search DANUBIS for news.
Having in mind that I'm a resent user of the IS, a need more time to explore to be able to answer this question
ability of my current PC limited my using IS
training and more time
better computer
more use this IS
better availability and quick respond
user workshop
solving problems with password
A function to inform people via e-mail that an online discussion has started.
Some simple GIS tool with maps.
22
Q3.14 Which important content is not covered by the IS?
Answers
Expert level of information. New findings in sampling, analytical, information technologies, used in the river basin.
Members of the government, stake holders, heads of the departments need short (!) and quick (!) information about
Danube survey, disasters like floods, spills of hazardous substances or just about the TNMN (without knowing that it is
called so) and the information needed should be up to date but not more than half a page; that's what I miss in the IS
so that I have to put together the information on half a page in case the information is required.
A list of all expert group members
imission limits
geographically located information (GIS maps)
for me I would like specific task concerning to wetlands, nature protection, restoration of damaged ecosystems, EU
legislation.
general information on countries of the DRPC
No answer, as there is no time to reason
Having in mind that I'm a resent user of the IS, a need more time to explore to be able to answer this question
link to EU Water Director sources
DBAM, updating of the rating curves
a better telephone and address book, the 'workbook' (discussion in Prague)
I did not find the text of the Convention on cooperation for protection and sustainable use of the Danube river and
information on cooperation between ICPDR and ICPBS (Memorandum of understanding between the ICPBS and the
ICPDR and Declaration on water and water related ecosystems in the wider Black Sea region etc.).
simple GIS
Q3.15 Which important task/function is not covered by the IS?
Answers
Information platform with new EU-papers, easy links to EU-directives, etc.
A link, which presents a summary of the most important contents in german language
Sorry, I don't know this time.
No answer, as there is no time to reason
Having in mind that I'm a resent user of the IS, a need more time to explore to be able to answer this question
environmental and ICPDR password (vocabulary)
Possibility to find Summary reports from meeting of the Commission, Steering Group and expert groups including all
annexes.
GIS-queries
Q3.16 Importance of Support/Service
Answers by a selection list of the degree of importance for each question.
The result is given as the sum of points for each question.
Answers and points: very important=+2, important=+1, neutral=0, unimportant=-1, very unimportant=-2
Support/Service Points Users(n) Avg.Pts./User Deviation
a) Training
19
34
0.56
0.99
a) Training
19
b) Workshop
24
35
0.69
0.87
b) Workshop
24
c) Phone Support
5
35
0.14
0.77
c) Phone Support
5
d) Email Support
41
36
1.14
0.68
d) Email Support
41
e) Web Support
31
37
0.84
0.60
e) Web Support
31
f) eLearing
24
35
0.69
0.76
f) eLearing
24
g) Conversion
19
33
0.58
0.61
g) Conversion
19
h) Web space
17
32
0.53
0.98
h) Web space
17
23
Q3.17 Importance of future enhancements
Answers by a selection list of the degree of satisfaction for each question.
The result is ordered by the sum of points for each question.
Answers and points: very important=+2, important=+1, neutral=0, unimportant=-1, very unimportant=-2
Enhancement Points
Users(n)
Avg.Pts./User Deviation
a) Notify
documents
56
a) Notify
56 43
1.30
0.77
documents
c) Notify events
42
c) Notify events
42
43
0.98
0.67
t) Email
documents
32
t) Email
32 36
0.89
0.71
documents
k) Keyword index
31
k) Keyword index
31
35
0.89
0.76
d) Messaging
28
d) Messaging
28
40
0.70
0.72
i) Document
versioning
24
i) Document
24 38
0.63
0.88
versioning
p) Secured
connection
23
p) Secured
23 30
0.77
0.94
connection
s) FTP documents
20
s) FTP documents
20
31
0.65
0.66
b) Notify forum
19
b) Notify forum
19
40
0.48
1.11
f) Event
organization
19
f) Event
19 34
0.56
0.75
organization
e) Custom
calendar
17
e) Custom
17 35
0.49
0.82
calendar
g) Workflow
Applications
17
g) Workflow
17 31
0.55
0.85
Applications
l) National
language
14
l) National
14 36
0.39
0.90
language
m) Group
homepage
14
m) Group
14 33
0.42
0.83
homepage
u) Related news
13
u) Related news
13
35
0.37
0.88
r) Desktop
integration
8
r) Desktop
8 27
0.30
0.78
integration
q) Mobile access
6
q) Mobile access
6
30
0.20
1.03
j) Approval
process
3
j) Approval
3 20
0.15
0.59
process
o) eAdministration
1
o)
eAdministration 1 25
0.04
0.84
h) Chat room -
1
h) Chat room
-1
31
-0.03
0.75
n) User homepage -
n) User homepage
-1
30
-0.03
0.76
1
24
Q3.18 What one thing would you change about this IS?
Answers
On the beginning of homepage of the ICPDR I would public information about important characteristics of the Danube
and a map of the Danube river basin with all countries.
Having in mind that I'm a resent user of the IS, a need more time to explore to be able to answer this question
The improvement of the participation of country representatives and experts in IS actualization is necessary
Q3.19 Any further comments
Answers
too much information about too many things, too much possibilities. I am not capable to make a selection and I am
afraid I am not the only one. My opinion and evaluation is based on rare experiences.
To my mind the internal area is very well designed for experts/internal users, but I can imagine that the public area is
hard to handle for persons who are not insiders. Public users - I imagine - have certainly more general questions, not
so much administrative ones (organisations, tasks, groups ...) but simple ones about the Danube, the discharge,
emissions in general, disasters of the past etc. Of course most of these subjects can be found somewhere inside the
folders; for insiders it's quite easy but take an uninformed test person with simple questions ....the design of the public
area could be made more attractive, with key words of general interest, easier structured and it's the public who is not
surveyed now!
Allow as large flexibility in using this IS as possible, i.e. do not expect that users will use it the same way or that they
should be forced to use it the same way or with the same frequency
I would look forward to some information on level of national PIACs
25
Individual Results
Survey participation by user
This table shows each user and the date when he or she submitted the survey results. Additionally, total hits (since
February 2002) and last login date are given as an indicator of activity within the system.
User Hits
Last
Part1 Part2 Part3 CC Groups
Access
ADAMKOVÁ
Juliana
359 27-SEP-02 22-JUL-02 23-JUL-02 22-JUL-02 SK MLIM_EG
ANDELIC Naida
45 05-FEB-02 -
-
-
BA MLIM_EG
BABIAKOVA Gabriela
45 20-JUN-02 -
-
-
SK RBM_EG
BARTH Friedrich
0
- -
-
-
EU EG_CHAIR_EXT1, RBM_EG
BARTKOVA
Eleonora
0 - - - - SK HOD_EXT1,
RBM_EG
BAT Marjan
129 19-SEP-02 28-AUG-02 02-SEP-02 28-AUG-02 SI RBM_GIS_ESG
BEDJANIC Matjaz
19 14-FEB-02 -
-
-
SI ECO_EG
BELOUS Tatiana
52 10-SEP-02 06-SEP-02 10-SEP-02 -
MD DRP_SURVEY
BENIC Natasa
114 20-MAY-02 -
-
-
HR RBM_GIS_ESG
BERNARDOVÁ Ilja
71 02-SEP-02 27-JUN-02 -
27-JUN-02 CZ MLIM_EG
BEYER Knut
183 02-AUG-02 -
-
-
DE EG_CHAIR_EXT1, RBM_EG,
S_EG
BEYL Rüdiger
11 14-FEB-02 -
-
-
DE DRP_SURVEY
BEZDROB
Aida
0 - - - - BA APC_EG,
DRP_SURVEY
BIONDIC Danko
0
- -
-
-
HR RBM_EG
BIZA Pavel
220 24-SEP-02 11-JUL-02 11-JUL-02 11-JUL-02 CZ APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
BLÖCH Helmut
0
- -
-
-
EU EG_CHAIR_EXT1, RBM_EG
BRICELJ
Mitja
14
03-SEP-02
30-AUG-02 - - SI
HOD,
HOD_EXT1
BRUNNER Bernhard
158 28-AUG-02 11-JUL-02 18-JUL-02 11-JUL-02 DE APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
BUSSKAMP Ralf
99 28-AUG-02 -
28-AUG-02 04-SEP-02 DE RBM_GIS_ESG
BUZÁS Zsuzsa
169 09-JUL-02 27-JUN-02 -
27-JUN-02 HU RBM_EG
CELAC Diana
30 23-SEP-02 25-SEP-02 -
25-SEP-02 MD APC_EG, EMIS_EG,
HOD_EXT1, S_EG
CERAR Karmen
131 19-SEP-02 -
-
-
HR RBM_EG
CERO
Mehmed
0 - - - - BA DISTRIBUTION,
OTHER_PART_STATES_EXT1
CHIRIAC Gabriel
0
- 28-JUN-02 -
28-JUN-02 RO MLIM_EG
CONSTANTIN
George
9
05-APR-02
- - - RO HOD_EXT1
CONSTANTINESCU Teodor
70 10-MAY-02 09-SEP-02 -
09-SEP-02 RO EMIS_EG
Lucian
CUNICIAN Ludmila
40 12-APR-02 -
-
-
MD MLIM_EG
DEMMLER Georg
28 15-MAY-02 -
-
-
DE MLIM_EG
DIMITROV Dobri
185 26-SEP-02 11-JUN-02 13-JUN-02 11-JUN-02 BG APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
DUCA Gheorghe
0
- -
-
-
MD HOD, HOD_EXT1
DVORAK Vaclav
131 15-SEP-02 19-AUG-02 15-SEP-02 19-AUG-02 CZ RBM_EG
FABIANOVA Marcela
2,868 27-SEP-02 05-JUN-02 06-MAY-02 05-JUN-02 -
DRP_TEAM, EDIT_EVENTS
FAERGEMANN Henriette
184 20-SEP-02 -
-
-
EU HOD_EXT1
FLAJSMAN Emil
31 17-SEP-02 28-AUG-02 03-SEP-02 28-AUG-02 HR ECO_EG
FLECKSEDER Hellmut
366 06-SEP-02 23-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 23-AUG-02 AT RBM_EG
GALAMBOS
Mária
0 - - - - HU HOD_EXT1,
S_EG
GAVRIC
Mihajlo
0 - - - - YU MLIM_EG
GEISBACHER Daniel
355 24-SEP-02 23-AUG-02 22-AUG-02 23-AUG-02 SK APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
GEORGIEV
Valeri
6
02-SEP-02
- - - BG ECO_EG
GEORGIEVA Manoela
0
- -
-
-
BG HOD, HOD_EXT1
GERES Dragutin
0
- -
-
-
HR RBM EG
26
GLADCHII
Viorica
0 - - - - MD DRP_SURVEY
GLUMBIC Borivoj
385 07-JUN-02 -
-
-
HR DRP_SURVEY
GRBOVIC
Jasna
67
01-JUL-02
- - - SI
DRP_SURVEY
GRODZINSKI
Michael
0 - - - - UA DRP_SURVEY
GRUBER Doris
682 20-SEP-02 18-JUL-02 23-JUL-02 18-JUL-02 AT RBM_EG_TE, RBM_GIS_ESG
HADZIABDIC Andja
19 19-SEP-02 17-SEP-02 19-SEP-02 -
BA EMIS_EG
HAK Nena
113 30-SEP-02 -
-
-
HR APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
HOLLÓ Gyula
0
- -
-
-
HU HOD, HOD_EXT1, RBM_EG
HOLZWARTH Fritz
3 05-FEB-02 -
-
-
DE HOD, HOD_EXT1
IGNJATOVIC Jovanka
432 03-OCT-02 20-AUG-02 22-AUG-02 20-AUG-02 YU APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
DISTRIBUTION, MLIM_EG,
JAKSIC Borislav
0
- -
-
-
BA OTHER_PART_STATES_EXT1,
RBM_EG
JANAK Milan
113 16-SEP-02 11-SEP-02 16-SEP-02 11-SEP-02 SK ECO_EG
JEDLITSCHKA Jens
0
- -
-
14-JUN-02 DE HOD_EXT1, RBM_EG
JELINEK Gabriella
267 20-SEP-02 05-SEP-02 -
05-SEP-02 HU RBM_GIS_ESG
JULA Graziella
50 05-SEP-02 -
-
-
RO ECO_EG
JURAN Stanislav
107 13-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 -
02-SEP-02 CZ EMIS_EG
KINKOR Jaroslav
16 22-MAY-02 -
-
-
CZ HOD, HOD_EXT1
KISS
Ildiko
114
02-OCT-02
- - - HU MLIM_EG
KLINDOVA Adriana
18 04-SEP-02 30-AUG-02 -
30-AUG-02 SK ECO_EG
KOLLER-KREIMEL Veronika 111 18-SEP-02 -
-
-
AT JDS_TEAM, MLIM_EG
KORAC-MEHMEDOVIC
0 - 05-SEP-02 - - BA ECO_EG
Azra
KOREN Stanka
96 05-SEP-02 30-AUG-02 05-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 SI RBM_EG
KOUYUMDZHIEV Nikolai
0
- -
-
-
BG EMIS_EG, HOD_EXT1,
RBM_EG, RBM_GIS_ESG
KOVACS Peter
57 21-AUG-02 21-AUG-02 21-AUG-02 20-AUG-02 HU RBM_EG
KRAIER Wolfgang
116 03-SEP-02 -
-
19-AUG-02 DE ECO_EG
KUPEC Petr
62 30-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 -
03-SEP-02 CZ ECO_EG
LISKA Igor
2,367 03-OCT-02 05-JUN-02 04-JUN-02 05-JUN-02 -
EDIT_EVENTS, ICPDR_PS,
ICPDR_PS_TEXP, JDS_TEAM
LITERÁTHY Peter
122 02-JUL-02 -
-
-
HU JDS_TEAM, MLIM_EG
LUKSIC
Mojca
68
04-SEP-02
- - - HR ECO_EG
LÁSZLÓ Ferenc
13 26-JUN-02 -
-
-
HU JDS_TEAM, MLIM_EG
MAGYAR Gábor
88 07-MAY-02 -
-
-
HU ECO_EG, EG_CHAIR_EXT1
MAKOVINSKA
Jarmila
69
19-APR-02
- - - SK MLIM_EG
MAKVIC Zeljko
31 24-SEP-02 -
-
-
HR APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
MARTINOVIC-VITANOVIC
55 30-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 YU DRP_SURVEY
Vesna
MATOZ Helena
22 05-FEB-02 04-SEP-02 -
-
SI RBM_EG
MATUSKA
Milan
22
15-AUG-02
- - - SK HOD, HOD_EXT1, MLIM_EG,
RBM_EG
MELIAN Ruslan
0
- -
-
-
MD RBM_GIS_ESG
MILUTINOVIC Borisav
644 19-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 12-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 YU RBM_GIS_ESG
Stevan
MINARIK Boris
142 26-SEP-02 -
-
03-SEP-02 SK RBM_EG
MLINAR Jurij
320 30-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 SI RBM_GIS_ESG
MOLLOV Michail
74 20-AUG-02 18-JUN-02 20-AUG-02 18-JUN-02 BG MLIM_EG
MOTLOVÁ
Martina
0 - - - - CZ DRP_SURVEY
MOVCHAN Natalia
0
- -
-
-
UA RBM_EG, RBM_GIS_ESG
MOVCHAN
Yaroslav
0 - - - - UA DISTRIBUTION,
OTHER_PART_STATES_EXT1
MÜLLER Steffen
4 30-APR-02 -
-
-
DE RBM_GIS_ESG
NEDVEDOVA Doubravka
306 21-JUN-02 19-JUN-02 21-JUN-02 19-JUN-02 CZ HOD EXT1 S EG
27
NÜRNBERGER
Michael
0 - - - - AT
RBM_EG
OMERBEGOVIC
Visnja
87 17-SEP-02 02-JUL-02 02-JUL-02 02-JUL-02 HR RBM_GIS_ESG
OSTOJIC Zeljko
0
- -
-
-
HR HOD, HOD_EXT1
PANA-CARP Silvia
44 13-FEB-02 -
-
-
MD ECO_EG, MLIM_EG
PETKOVIC Slobodan
0
- 30-SEP-02 -
-
YU RBM_EG
PINTÉR György
620 30-SEP-02 30-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 30-AUG-02 HU APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
POLAJNAR Janez
220 30-SEP-02 14-JUN-02 03-SEP-02 14-JUN-02 SI APC_EG, DRP_SURVEY
POPESCU Liviu M.
98 04-OCT-02 -
28-JUN-02 -
RO EG_CHAIR_EXT1, MLIM_EG
POPOVICI Mihaela
252 30-SEP-02 20-AUG-02 -
20-AUG-02 -
EDIT_EVENTS, EMIS_EG,
ICPDR_PS, ICPDR_PS_TEXP
RAUCHBÜCHL Alfred
0
- -
-
-
AT MLIM_EG
REMENÁROVÁ Darina
4 19-JUN-02 19-JUN-02 19-JUN-02 19-JUN-02 CZ MLIM_EG
RINDASU Sorin
6 03-SEP-02 16-JUL-02 -
16-JUL-02 RO RBM_GIS_ESG
SAVOVIC Ljubisa
173 25-JUN-02 -
-
-
BA RBM_GIS_ESG
SCHMEDTJE Ursula
1,859 05-SEP-02 -
-
23-SEP-02 -
EDIT_EVENTS, ICPDR_PS,
ICPDR_PS_TEXP
SCHÜSSLER Katharina
162 11-SEP-02 -
-
19-AUG-02 AT ECO_EG
SENGL
Manfred
147
30-JUL-02
- - - DE MLIM_EG
SERBAN Petru
16 09-MAY-02 09-SEP-02 -
09-SEP-02 RO RBM_EG
SEREDA Kyryl
0
- -
-
-
UA DRP_SURVEY
SIGMUND
Gerhard
64
04-MAR-02 - - - AT
ECO_EG,
EG_CHAIR_EXT1
SIRAC Sinisa
0
- 09-SEP-02 -
09-SEP-02 HR MLIM_EG
SOKOL
Jan
0 - - - - CZ RBM_EG
SOVJAKOVA Eva
114 11-SEP-02 06-SEP-02 06-SEP-02 05-SEP-02 CZ RBM_GIS_ESG
DISTRIBUTION, ECO_EG,
SPASOJEVIC
Miroslav
29
15-MAR-02 - - - YU OTHER_PART_STATES_EXT1,
RBM_EG_TE
STADIU Florin
0
- -
-
-
RO HOD, HOD_EXT1
STADLER Richard
116 24-SEP-02 -
-
-
AT APC_EG, HOD_EXT1,
MLIM_EG, RBM_EG, S_EG
STALZER
Wolfgang
0 - - - - AT
HOD,
HOD_EXT1
STEINDL Zsuzsa
99 30-SEP-02 30-AUG-02 02-SEP-02 30-AUG-02 HU EMIS_EG, HOD_EXT1
STETSENKO
Mykola
0 - - - - UA DISTRIBUTION,
OTHER_PART_STATES_EXT1
STRATENWERTH Thomas
20 27-AUG-02 -
-
-
DE HOD_EXT1
SURMANOVIC Dagmar
423 23-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 02-SEP-02 HR MLIM_EG
TOMAzEVI Erna
0
- 26-SEP-02 -
-
SI EMIS_EG
VARDUCA Aurel
0
- -
-
-
RO APC_EG, EG_CHAIR_EXT1,
MLIM_EG
VEREMIYCHIK George
40 23-APR-02 -
-
-
UA MLIM_EG
VERSTRYNGE Jean-
0 - - - - EU HOD,
HOD_EXT1
Francois
VOGL Charlotte
0
- -
-
-
AT RBM_EG
VYDARENY Milan
134 04-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 04-SEP-02 03-SEP-02 SK RBM_GIS_ESG
WINKELMANN-OEI
Gerhard
51
19-JUL-02
- - - DE APC_EG,
EG_CHAIR_EXT1
ZUPAN Martina
112 28-AUG-02 28-AUG-02 28-AUG-02 28-AUG-02 SI MLIM_EG
ÜBERWIMMER Franz
83 06-AUG-02 -
-
30-AUG-02 AT EMIS_EG
28
Hardware Equipment Priority List 1
Highest priority (1)
Completly out-dated, (nearly) unusable systems, most parameters below recommended mimimum configuration
Minimum Configuration: Exclusive access | Monitor: >15" | Processor: 500 MHz | RAM: 128 MB | Harddisk: 5 GB |
Screen Resolution: >800x600 pixel | Colors: >16256 | Operating System: >Windows95
Country User
Email domain
Current configuration
Remarks
Planned
Purchase
Exclusive Desktop, 75MHz,
@nfp-
BG MOLLOV
Michail
16MB RAM, 1GB HD, 17"
- No
bg.eionet.eu.int
Monitor, black/white inkjet
printer, Windows 95
Exclusive Desktop, 133MHz,
CZ BERNARDOVÁ
Ilja
@post.cz
32MB RAM, 0GB HD, 17"
- -
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz,
HU
BUZÁS Zsuzsa
@mail.ktm.hu
64MB RAM, 2GB HD, 15"
- not
known
Monitor, black/white inkjet
printer, Windows NT SP6
Shared Desktop, 166MHz,
40MB RAM, 3GB HD, 17"
HU PINTÉR
György
@vituki.hu
- Uncertain
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 95 OSR2
Shared Desktop, 100MHz,
16MB RAM, 0GB HD, 15"
MD
CELAC Diana
@mediu.moldova.md
- no
Monitor, black/white inkjet
printer, Windows 95
Shared Desktop, 133MHz,
32MB RAM, 4GB HD, 17"
RO
SERBAN Petru
@ape.rowater.ro
- none
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98
Shared Desktop, 133MHz,
CONSTANTINESCU
32MB RAM, 4GB HD, 17"
RO
Teodor Lucian
@ape.rowater.ro
- none
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz,
SK
KLINDOVA Adriana
@enviro.gov.sk
32MB RAM, 1GB HD, 14"
- No
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 95
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz,
provided by probably
SK
GEISBACHER Daniel @sizp.sk
64MB RAM, 2GB HD, 17"
Nadezda
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
yes
Skodova
printer, Windows 98 SE
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz,
YU
PETKOVIC Slobodan @uzzpro.sr.gov.yu
64MB RAM, 4GB HD, 15"
not user yet none
Monitor, black/white needle
printer, Windows 98
29
Hardware Equipment Priority List 2
High priority (2)
Out-dated systems, some parameters below recommended minimum configuration
Country User
Email
Current configuration
Remarks
Planned
domain
Purchase
Exclusive Desktop, 400MHz, 64MB
NEDVEDOVA
CZ
@env.cz
RAM, 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
- no
Doubravka
black/white laser printer, Windows
98
Exclusive Desktop, 450MHz, 63MB
CZ DVORAK
Vaclav
@env.cz RAM, 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
- None
black/white laser printer, Windows
98
Exclusive Desktop, 400MHz, 64MB
SURMANOVIC
HR
@voda.hr
RAM, 9GB HD, 15" Monitor,
- no
Dagmar
black/white laser printer, Windows
98 SE
Exclusive Desktop, 398MHz, 64MB
HR
SIRAC Sinisa
@voda.hr
RAM, 4GB HD, 15" Monitor,
- no
black/white laser printer, Windows
NT SP5
Shared Desktop, 450MHz, 256MB
same for al
OMERBEGOVIC
HR
@voda.hr
RAM, 0GB HD, 21" Monitor,
users of
1 month
Visnja
black/white laser printer, Windows
Croatian
NT
Waters
Shared Desktop, 350MHz, 128MB
I would like my
HU
JELINEK Gabriella @kovim.hu
RAM, 4GB HD, 14" Monitor,
-
monitor to be
unknown printer, unknown
replaced.
None Desktop, 365MHz, 64MB
HU
STEINDL Zsuzsa @mail.ktm.hu RAM, 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
- unknown
black/white laser printer, Windows
NT SP6
Exclusive Desktop, 350MHz, 128MB
SI TOMAzEVI Erna @gov.si
RAM, 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
- none
black/white laser printer, Windows
98
Exclusive Desktop, 350MHz, 64MB
SI
MATOZ Helena
@gov.si
RAM, 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
- NO
black/white laser printer, Windows
98
30
Hardware Equipment Priority List 3
Medium priority (3)
non-optimal system with one parameter below minimum configuration (or shared PC)
Country User
Email domain
Current configuration
Remarks
Planned
Purchase
Exclusive None, 500MHz,
HADZIABDIC
BA
@bih.net.ba
64MB RAM, 8GB HD, "
incomplete info
none
Andja
Monitor, other printer,
Windows 98 SE
KORAC-
Shared Desktop, 633MHz,
@bih.net.ba,
BA
MEHMEDOVIC
128MB RAM, 10GB HD, 15"
- no
planned
ekosef@bih.net.ba
Azra
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 98 SE
Exclusive Laptop, 600MHz,
BG
DIMITROV Dobri @meteo.bg
128MB RAM, 2GB HD, 15"
- No
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 2000
Exclusive Desktop, 400MHz,
CZ
BIZA Pavel
@povodi.cz
128MB RAM, 17GB HD, 17"
- ---
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98 SE
Exclusive Desktop, 501MHz,
survey also from O.
RO
CHIRIAC Gabriel @pcnet.pcnet.ro
64MB RAM, 19GB HD, 17"
Dumitrescu and C. -
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet Hamchevici
printer, Windows Me
Shared Desktop, 500MHz,
SI
POLAJNAR Janez @rzs-hm.si
127MB RAM, 8GB HD, 17"
- -
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 2000 SP1
Exclusive Desktop, 933MHz,
ADAMKOVÁ
SK
@shmu.sk
64MB RAM, GB HD, 15"
- no
Juliana
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 98
Shared Desktop, 866MHz,
MILUTINOVIC
@beoland.co.yu,
YU
256MB RAM, 4GB HD, 17"
- NO
Borisav Stevan
borisav@beotel.yu
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 2000
MARTINOVIC-
Exclusive Desktop, 700MHz,
new monitor
YU
VITANOVIC
@ibiss.bg.ac.yu
128MB RAM, 19GB HD, 15"
None
Vesna
Monitor, black/white laser
recommended
printer, Windows 98 SE
31
Hardware Equipment Priority List 4
Low priority (4)
Average systems with parameters above recommended minimum configuration, will become out-dated within 2 years
Country User
Email domain
Current configuration
Remarks
Planned Purchase
Exclusive Desktop, 505MHz,
REMENÁROVÁ
CZ
@chmi.cz
128MB RAM, 4GB HD, 19"
- -
Darina
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows NT
Exclusive Desktop, 0MHz,
incomplete
CZ KUPEC
Petr
@seznam.cz
128MB RAM, 16GB HD, 17"
-
Monitor, unknown printer,
info
Windows 98
Shared Desktop, 1100MHz,
HR
FLAJSMAN Emil @voda.hr
128MB RAM, 20GB HD, 17" - -
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows XP
Exclusive Desktop, 733MHz,
HU
KOVACS Peter @mail.ktm.hu
128MB RAM, 19GB HD, 17" - -
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98 SE
yes, 2 computers from
Shared Desktop, 800MHz,
National Dispatch of
RO RINDASU
Sorin
@ape.rowater.ro 128MB RAM, 27GB HD, 19" -
Romanian Water Authority
Monitor, black/white laser
(PENTIUM IV CPU 1,6
printer, Windows ME
GHz, 128MB RAM, HDD 40
Gb)
Exclusive Desktop, 730MHz,
SI BAT
Marjan
@gov.si 128MB RAM, 9GB HD, 21"
- -
Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 2000 SP1
Shared Desktop, 1000MHz,
SI BRICELJ
Mitja
@gov.si 256MB RAM, 2GB HD, 17"
- none
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 2000
Exclusive Desktop, 667MHz,
128MB RAM, 10GB HD, 17"
SI KOREN
Stanka
@gov.si
- new
machine
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 600MHz,
IGNJATOVIC
128MB RAM, 20GB HD, 17"
YU
Jovanka
@meteo.yu
- none
Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 2000
32
Hardware Equipment Priority List 5
Lowest priority (5)
Good systems with all parameters well above recommended minimum configuration
Country User
Email
Current configuration
Remarks
Planned
domain
Purchase
JURAN
Exclusive Desktop, 1000MHz, 128MB RAM,
CZ
@atlas.cz
- no
Stanislav
20GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white inkjet
printer, Windows 2000
SOVJAKOVA
Exclusive Desktop, 500MHz, 255MB RAM,
clock speed
CZ
@env.cz
----
Eva
19GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
n/a, has new
printer, Windows 98
PC
Exclusive Desktop, 927MHz, 128MB RAM,
SI MLINAR
Jurij
@gov.si
9GB HD, 19" Monitor, black/white laser printer, - -
Windows 2000 SP2
VYDARENY
Exclusive Desktop, 999MHz, 256MB RAM,
SK
@shmu.sk
- 250
EUR
Milan
28GB HD, 21" Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows NT SP6
Exclusive Desktop, 800MHz, 128MB RAM,
SK JANAK
Milan
@sopsr.sk
19GB HD, 19" Monitor, black/white laser
- No
printer, Windows 98
Hardware Equipment Reference List
Reference values (users in Germany, Austria, Permanent Secretariat, Danube Regional Project)
Country User
Email domain
Current configuration
Remarks
AT
FLECKSEDER
@bmlf.gv.at
Exclusive Desktop, 996MHz, 256MB RAM, 19GB HD, 17" -
Hellmut
Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows NT
AT
GRUBER Doris
@ubavie.gv.at
Shared Desktop, 1544MHz, 512MB RAM, 19GB HD, 21" -
Monitor, no printer printer, Windows 2000 SP2
DE
BRUNNER
@stmlu.bayern.de Exclusive Desktop, 233MHz, 128MB RAM, 2GB HD, 17" -
Bernhard
Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows NT
SI ZUPAN
Martina
@rzs-hm.si Exclusive Desktop, MHz, MB RAM, GB HD, 17" Monitor, -
black/white laser printer,
- HÖBART Alex
@unvienna.org
Exclusive Desktop, 1000MHz, 512MB RAM, 18GB HD,
-
19" Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows NT
- LISKA Igor
@unvienna.org
Exclusive Desktop, MHz, MB RAM, GB HD, 15" Monitor, -
color inkjet/bubblejet printer,
- POPOVICI
@unvienna.org
Exclusive Desktop, MHz, MB RAM, GB HD, 19" Monitor, -
Mihaela
color inkjet/bubblejet printer,
- FABIANOVA
@unvienna.org
Exclusive Desktop, 994MHz, 260MB RAM, 18GB HD, 17" -
Marcela
Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows 2000
33
Hardware Assessment Bosnia&Herzegowina
Email domain =~ organisation,institution
User
Email Domain
Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Purchase
ANDELIC Naida
@bih.net.ba
no info
-
-
-
BEZDROB Aida
@bih.net.ba
no info
-
-
-
CERO Mehmed
@bih.net.ba
no info
-
-
-
HADZIABDIC
Exclusive None, 500MHz, 64MB
incomplete
@bih.net.ba
3
none
Andja
RAM, 8GB HD, " Monitor, other
info
printer, Windows 98 SE
KORAC-
Shared Desktop, 633MHz, 128MB
@bih.net.ba,
MEHMEDOVIC
RAM, 10GB HD, 15" Monitor,
3 - no
planned
ekosef@bih.net.ba
Azra
black/white laser printer, Windows 98
SE
JAKSIC Borislav
@inecco.net
no info
-
-
-
SAVOVIC Ljubisa @inecco.net,
no info
-
-
-
LSavovic@iu-rs.com
34
Hardware Assessment Bulgaria
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain
Current Configuration
Priority Remarks Planned
Purchase
Exclusive Laptop, 600MHz, 128MB
DIMITROV Dobri
@meteo.bg
RAM, 2GB HD, 15" Monitor, color
3 - No
inkjet/bubblejet printer, Windows
2000
GEORGIEV Valeri @moew.government.bg no info
-
-
-
GEORGIEVA
@moew.govrn.bg no
info
- -
-
Manoela
KOUYUMDZHIEV
@moew.govrn.bg no
info
- -
-
Nikolai
Exclusive Desktop, 75MHz, 16MB
MOLLOV Michail
@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int
RAM, 1GB HD, 17" Monitor,
1 - No
black/white inkjet printer, Windows 95
35
Hardware Assessment Czech Republic
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email
Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Domain
Purchase
Exclusive Desktop, 1000MHz, 128MB
JURAN Stanislav @atlas.cz
RAM, 20GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white
5 - no
inkjet printer, Windows 2000
REMENÁROVÁ
Exclusive Desktop, 505MHz, 128MB
@chmi.cz
4 - -
Darina
RAM, 4GB HD, 19" Monitor, black/white
laser printer, Windows NT
Exclusive Desktop, 450MHz, 63MB RAM,
DVORAK Vaclav @env.cz
4GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
2 - None
printer, Windows 98
KINKOR Jaroslav @env.cz
no info
-
-
-
MOTLOVÁ
@env.cz no
info
- -
-
Martina
NEDVEDOVA
Exclusive Desktop, 400MHz, 64MB RAM,
@env.cz
2 - no
Doubravka
4GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 500MHz, 255MB
clock speed
SOVJAKOVA Eva @env.cz
RAM, 19GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white
5 n/a, has new
----
laser printer, Windows 98
PC
SOKOL Jan
@mze.cz
no info
-
-
-
BERNARDOVÁ
Exclusive Desktop, 133MHz, 32MB RAM,
Ilja
@post.cz
0GB HD, 17" Monitor, color
1 - -
inkjet/bubblejet printer, Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 400MHz, 128MB
BIZA Pavel
@povodi.cz RAM, 17GB HD, 17" Monitor, color
3 - ---
inkjet/bubblejet printer, Windows 98 SE
Exclusive Desktop, 0MHz, 128MB RAM,
KUPEC Petr
@seznam.cz 16GB HD, 17" Monitor, unknown printer,
4 incomplete info -
Windows 98
36
Hardware Assessment Croatia
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email
Current Configuration Priority Remarks
Planned
Domain
Purchase
GLUMBIC Borivoj @bj.tel.hr
no info
0 not involved anymore
-
BIONDIC Danko @voda.hr
no info
-
-
-
Shared Desktop,
1100MHz, 128MB RAM,
FLAJSMAN Emil @voda.hr
20GB HD, 17" Monitor,
4 - -
black/white laser printer,
Windows XP
GERES Dragutin @voda.hr
no info
-
-
-
HAK Nena
@voda.hr
no info
-
-
-
MAKVIC Zeljko
@voda.hr
no info
-
-
-
Shared Desktop,
OMERBEGOVIC
450MHz, 256MB RAM,
same for all users of Croatian
@voda.hr
2
1 month
Visnja
0GB HD, 21" Monitor,
Waters
black/white laser printer,
Windows NT
Exclusive Desktop,
398MHz, 64MB RAM,
SIRAC Sinisa
@voda.hr
4GB HD, 15" Monitor,
2 - no
black/white laser printer,
Windows NT SP5
Exclusive Desktop,
SURMANOVIC
400MHz, 64MB RAM,
@voda.hr
2 - no
Dagmar
9GB HD, 15" Monitor,
black/white laser printer,
Windows 98 SE
BENIC Natasa
@zg.hinet.hr no info
-
-
-
"As we are all connected on one and
same system, network, information
which you received from VISNJA
LUKSIC Mojca
@zg.hinet.hr no info
3
-
OMERBEGOVIC is valid for al
Croatians. Only, exception may be
MR. EMIL FLAJSMAN."
CERAR Karmen @zg.tel.hr
no info
-
-
-
OSTOJIC Zeljko @zg.tel.hr
no info
-
-
-
37
Hardware Assessment Hungary
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain Current Configuration
Priority Remarks Planned
Purchase
HOLLÓ Gyula @kovim.gov.hu no info
-
-
-
JELINEK
@kovim.hu
Shared Desktop, 350MHz, 128MB RAM, 4GB HD,
2 -
Gabriella
14" Monitor, unknown printer, unknown
BUZÁS
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz, 64MB RAM, 2GB
@mail.ktm.hu
1 - not
known
Zsuzsa
HD, 15" Monitor, black/white inkjet printer,
Windows NT SP6
GALAMBOS
@mail.ktm.hu no
info
-
-
-
Mária
KISS Ildiko
@mail.ktm.hu no info
-
-
-
KOVACS
Exclusive Desktop, 733MHz, 128MB RAM, 19GB
@mail.ktm.hu
4 - -
Peter
HD, 17" Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet printer,
Windows 98 SE
STEINDL
None Desktop, 365MHz, 64MB RAM, 4GB HD,
@mail.ktm.hu
2 - unknown
Zsuzsa
17" Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows
NT SP6
MAGYAR
@mail2.ktm.hu no info
-
-
-
Gábor
LITERÁTHY
@vituki.hu no
info
- -
-
Peter
LÁSZLÓ
@vituki.hu no
info
- -
-
Ferenc
PINTÉR
Shared Desktop, 166MHz, 40MB RAM, 3GB HD,
@vituki.hu
1 - Uncertain
György
17" Monitor, black/white laser printer, Windows 95
OSR2
38
Hardware Assessment Moldova
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain
Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Purchase
MELIAN
@acva.md no
info
0 not involved
-
Ruslan
anymore
CUNICIAN
@hidromet.meteo.md no info
-
-
-
Ludmila
BELOUS
Exclusive Desktop, MHz, MB RAM,
incomplete info,
Tatiana
@hotmail.com
GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
0 not involved
none
printer,
anymore
CELAC
Shared Desktop, 100MHz, 16MB
@mediu.moldova.md
1 - no
Diana
RAM, 0GB HD, 15" Monitor,
black/white inkjet printer, Windows 95
PANA-CARP @mediu.moldova.md no info
-
-
-
Silvia
DUCA
@moldova.md no
info
- -
-
Gheorghe
GLADCHII
@moldova.md no
info
0 not involved
-
Viorica
anymore
39
Hardware Assessment Romania
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain
Current Configuration Priority Remarks
Planned Purchase
POPESCU Liviu M.
@ICIM.RO
no info
-
-
-
Shared Desktop,
133MHz, 32MB RAM,
CONSTANTINESCU
Teodor Lucian
@ape.rowater.ro 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
1 - none
color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98
JULA Graziella
@ape.rowater.ro no info
-
-
-
yes, 2 computers from
Shared Desktop,
National Dispatch of
800MHz, 128MB RAM,
RINDASU Sorin
@ape.rowater.ro
Romanian Water
27GB HD, 19" Monitor,
4 -
Authority (PENTIUM IV
black/white laser printer,
CPU 1,6 GHz, 128MB
Windows ME
RAM, HDD 40 Gb)
Shared Desktop,
133MHz, 32MB RAM,
SERBAN Petru
@ape.rowater.ro 4GB HD, 17" Monitor,
1 - none
color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows 98
CONSTANTIN
@mappm.ro no
info
-
-
-
George
STADIU Florin
@mappm.ro
no info
-
-
-
Exclusive Desktop,
survey also
501MHz, 64MB RAM,
CHIRIAC Gabriel
@pcnet.pcnet.ro
from O.
19GB HD, 17" Monitor,
3
-
Dumitrescu and
color inkjet/bubblejet
printer, Windows Me
C. Hamchevici
VARDUCA Aurel
@pcnet.pcnet.ro no info
-
-
-
40
Hardware Assessment Slovenia
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Purchase
Exclusive Desktop, 730MHz, 128MB RAM,
BAT Marjan
@gov.si
9GB HD, 21" Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet
4 - -
printer, Windows 2000 SP1
BRICELJ
Shared Desktop, 1000MHz, 256MB RAM,
@gov.si
4 - none
Mitja
2GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 2000
KOREN
Exclusive Desktop, 667MHz, 128MB RAM,
new
@gov.si
4 -
Stanka
10GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
machine
printer, Windows 98
MATOZ
Exclusive Desktop, 350MHz, 64MB RAM, 4GB
@gov.si
2 - NO
Helena
HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser printer,
Windows 98
Exclusive Desktop, 927MHz, 128MB RAM,
MLINAR Jurij @gov.si
9GB HD, 19" Monitor, black/white laser
5 - -
printer, Windows 2000 SP2
TOMAzEVI
Exclusive Desktop, 350MHz, 128MB RAM,
Erna
@gov.si
4GB HD, 17" Monitor, black/white laser
2 - none
printer, Windows 98
BEDJANIC
@guest.arnes.si no info
-
-
-
Matjaz
GRBOVIC
@rzs-hm.si no
info
0 not involved -
Jasna
anymore
POLAJNAR
Shared Desktop, 500MHz, 127MB RAM, 8GB
@rzs-hm.si
3 - -
Janez
HD, 17" Monitor, color inkjet/bubblejet printer,
Windows 2000 SP1
ZUPAN
@rzs-hm.si
Exclusive Desktop, MHz, MB RAM, GB HD,
- -
-
Martina
17" Monitor, black/white laser printer,
41
Hardware Assessment Slovakia
User
Email Domain Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Purchase
BARTKOVA
@enviro.gov.sk no info
-
-
-
Eleonora
KLINDOVA
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz, 32MB RAM,
@enviro.gov.sk
1 - No
Adriana
1GB HD, 14" Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 95
MATUSKA Milan @enviro.gov.sk no info
-
-
-
BABIAKOVA
@mail.shmu.sk no info
-
-
-
Gabriela
ADAMKOVÁ
Exclusive Desktop, 933MHz, 64MB RAM,
@shmu.sk
3 - no
Juliana
GB HD, 15" Monitor, black/white laser
printer, Windows 98
VYDARENY
Exclusive Desktop, 999MHz, 256MB RAM,
@shmu.sk
5 - 250
EUR
Milan
28GB HD, 21" Monitor, color
inkjet/bubblejet printer, Windows NT SP6
GEISBACHER
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz, 64MB RAM,
provided by
@sizp.sk
1
probably yes
Daniel
2GB HD, 17" Monitor, color
Nadezda
inkjet/bubblejet printer, Windows 98 SE
Skodova
Exclusive Desktop, 800MHz, 128MB RAM,
JANAK Milan
@sopsr.sk
19GB HD, 19" Monitor, black/white laser
5 - No
printer, Windows 98
MAKOVINSKA
@vuvh.sk no
info
- -
-
Jarmila
MINARIK Boris @vuzh.sk
no info
-
-
-
42
Hardware Assessment Ukraine
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User Email
Domain
Current
Priority Remarks
Planned
Configuration
Purchase
MOVCHAN Natalia @menr.gov.ua
no info
3 results expected by the end -
of September 2002.
VEREMIYCHIK
@mep.freenet.kiev.ua no info
-
-
-
George
GRODZINSKI
@prime.net.ua
no info
0 not involved anymore
-
Michael
MOVCHAN
@ukrnet.net no
info -
-
-
Yaroslav
SEREDA Kyryl
@ukrnet.net
no info
-
-
-
STETSENKO
@ukrnet.net no
info -
-
-
Mykola
43
Hardware Assessment FR Yugoslavia
Email domain =~ organisation, institution
User
Email Domain
Current Configuration
Priority Remarks
Planned
Purchase
Shared Desktop, 866MHz,
MILUTINOVIC
@beoland.co.yu,
256MB RAM, 4GB HD, 17"
3 - NO
Borisav Stevan
borisav@beotel.yu
Monitor, black/white laser printer,
Windows 2000
MARTINOVIC-
Exclusive Desktop, 700MHz,
new monitor
VITANOVIC
@ibiss.bg.ac.yu
128MB RAM, 19GB HD, 15"
3
None
recommended
Vesna
Monitor, black/white laser printer,
Windows 98 SE
Exclusive Desktop, 600MHz,
IGNJATOVIC
@meteo.yu
128MB RAM, 20GB HD, 17"
4 - none
Jovanka
Monitor, black/white laser printer,
Windows 2000
Exclusive Desktop, 200MHz,
PETKOVIC
@uzzpro.sr.gov.yu
64MB RAM, 4GB HD, 15"
1 not user yet
none
Slobodan
Monitor, black/white needle
printer, Windows 98
SPASOJEVIC
@yahoo.com no
info
-
-
-
Miroslav
GAVRIC Mihajlo @yuonline.net
no info
0 not involved
-
anymore
44
Part 2: Users with slow internet connections
Results from connection speed test
Country User
Email Domain
Connection Tests Average
Min.
Max.
KB/s
KB/s
KB/s
BA
HADZIABDIC Andja
@bih.net.ba
LAN
6
5.33
3.13
6.36
BG
DIMITROV Dobri
@meteo.bg
LAN
4
2.87
1.51
4.12
BG MOLLOV
Michail
@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int DSL
10
5.12
3.17
8.40
HR
FLAJSMAN Emil
@voda.hr
56K modem
3
2.91
2.59
3.13
MD
BELOUS Tatiana
@hotmail.com
33K modem
6
2.71
2.53
2.96
SK
GEISBACHER Daniel
@sizp.sk
LAN
5
2.98
1.55
6.29
SK ADAMKOVÁ
Juliana
@shmu.sk
LAN
6
7.72
3.80
12.46
SK JANAK
Milan
@sopsr.sk
LAN
6
2.64
1.20
4.70
YU
MILUTINOVIC Borisav
@beoland.co.yu,
LAN 12
2.27
1.75
3.25
Stevan
borisav@beotel.yu
YU
MARTINOVIC-
@ibiss.bg.ac.yu LAN 14
1.96
0.34
5.52
VITANOVIC Vesna
45
Q3.16a User indicating Training as (very) important
Country User
Email domain
Importance of
Groups
Training
AT
ÜBERWIMMER Franz
@ooe.gv.at
important
EMIS_EG
BG
MOLLOV Michail
@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int
very important
MLIM_EG
CZ
NEDVEDOVA Doubravka @env.cz
important
HOD_EXT1, S_EG
CZ
SOVJAKOVA Eva
@env.cz
important
RBM_GIS_ESG
CZ
BIZA Pavel
@povodi.cz
important
APC_EG
MD
CELAC Diana
@mediu.moldova.md
very important
APC_EG, EMIS_EG,
HOD_EXT1, S_EG
RO
CONSTANTINESCU
@ape.rowater.ro important
EMIS_EG
Teodor Lucian
RO
RINDASU Sorin
@ape.rowater.ro
very important
RBM_GIS_ESG
RO
SERBAN Petru
@ape.rowater.ro
important
RBM_EG
RO
CHIRIAC Gabriel
@pcnet.pcnet.ro
important
MLIM_EG
SK
KLINDOVA Adriana
@enviro.gov.sk
important
ECO_EG
SK
VYDARENY Milan
@shmu.sk
very important
RBM_GIS_ESG
YU
MILUTINOVIC Borisav
@beoland.co.yu,
very important
RBM_GIS_ESG
Stevan
borisav@beotel.yu
YU
MARTINOVIC-VITANOVIC @ibiss.bg.ac.yu very
important
DRP_SURVEY
Vesna
YU
IGNJATOVIC Jovanka
@meteo.yu
important
APC_EG
- FABIANOVA Marcela
@unvienna.org
very important
DRP_TEAM
- POPOVICI Mihaela
@unvienna.org
important
EMIS_EG, ICPDR_PS,
ICPDR_PS_TEXP
46
Q3.16b User indicating Workshops as (very) important
Country User
Email domain
Importance of Workshop
AT
ÜBERWIMMER Franz
@ooe.gv.at
important
BG MOLLOV
Michail
@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int
important
CZ
JURAN Stanislav
@atlas.cz
Very important
CZ
NEDVEDOVA Doubravka
@env.cz
Very important
CZ BERNARDOVÁ
Ilja
@post.cz
important
CZ
BIZA Pavel
@povodi.cz
important
HR OMERBEGOVIC
Visnja
@voda.hr
important
HU
JELINEK Gabriella
@kovim.hu
important
MD
CELAC Diana
@mediu.moldova.md
very important
RO CONSTANTINESCU
Teodor
Lucian
@ape.rowater.ro
important
RO
RINDASU Sorin
@ape.rowater.ro
very important
RO
SERBAN Petru
@ape.rowater.ro
important
RO
CHIRIAC Gabriel
@pcnet.pcnet.ro
important
SK
KLINDOVA Adriana
@enviro.gov.sk
important
SK VYDARENY
Milan
@shmu.sk
important
SK
GEISBACHER Daniel
@sizp.sk
important
YU
MILUTINOVIC Borisav Stevan
@beoland.co.yu, borisav@beotel.yu important
YU
MARTINOVIC-VITANOVIC Vesna @ibiss.bg.ac.yu
very important
YU
IGNJATOVIC Jovanka
@meteo.yu
important
- FABIANOVA Marcela
@unvienna.org
very important
- POPOVICI Mihaela
@unvienna.org
important
47
Q3.16h Users indicating web space for own (national) presentation as
(very) important
Country User
Email domain
Importance of web space
BG MOLLOV
Michail
@nfp-bg.eionet.eu.int
important
CZ
SOVJAKOVA Eva
@env.cz
very important
CZ KUPEC
Petr
@seznam.cz
important
HU
KOVACS Peter
@mail.ktm.hu
important
RO CONSTANTINESCU
Teodor
Lucian
@ape.rowater.ro
important
RO
RINDASU Sorin
@ape.rowater.ro
very important
RO
SERBAN Petru
@ape.rowater.ro
important
RO
CHIRIAC Gabriel
@pcnet.pcnet.ro
very important
SI
POLAJNAR Janez
@rzs-hm.si
important
SI ZUPAN
Martina
@rzs-hm.si
important
SK VYDARENY
Milan
@shmu.sk
important
SK
GEISBACHER Daniel
@sizp.sk
important
YU
MILUTINOVIC Borisav Stevan
@beoland.co.yu, borisav@beotel.yu very important
YU
MARTINOVIC-VITANOVIC Vesna @ibiss.bg.ac.yu
very important
YU
IGNJATOVIC Jovanka
@meteo.yu
important
- FABIANOVA Marcela
@unvienna.org
very important
48
Observations during the survey
Many users did not react on the first survey invitation which was sent out by email. By the end
of August 2002, only 20% of the addressed users submitted their results. Some of these
users had been away from their office. Others stated they are already overworked or that they
can not contribute to the survey. Some users seemingly did not get the first email, reaching
some users was very difficult or impossible. Nevertheless, by sending out individual emails
and in some cases phoning the users directly, the participation could be doubled in the
end.
Many users also had problems with logging into the system. They either forgot their
password, did not have any information on their user account or sometimes have not even
been aware of a password-protected area. These problems became only obvious after
actively asking the users, why they did not log in so far. Most of the users who faced such
problems did not act on themselves to get access to the system.
Additional feedback and suggestions for improvement of the system emerged also during the
communication with the users for gathering survey results
49
Document Outline