Workshop Evaluation

The following questionnaire was distributed to workshop attendees during the workshop.
33 surveys were returned out of 45 participants. Survey results and comments are tabulated below.

QUESTION 2.1
Rate overall value of the workshop on a scale from 0 (no value, waste of time and money) to 5 (high value, excellent event):
0  1  2  3  4  5  Avg. 0  0  2  4  19  8  4
COMMENTS
Rating 5
"Very good event"!
"Very good papers by the best researchers in computer graphics about intersting good topics".
"Go on!! Try to involve more engineers".
Rating 4
"My hope is that with time the quality of the papers will increase and more people will attend".
"Being the only gathering related specifically to graphics hardcore, its certainly a worthwhile event".
"Via workshop".
"Industry & discussion should be included to remove "not feasible" ideas. This would increase the quality of the workshop".
Rating 3
"Very small confernece, massive amout of travel".
QUESTION 2.2
What would increase the value of the workshop for you? (Check all that apply)
1.Keep it as it is.
2.Raise the paper quality standards, shorten the program or have more invited talks if there are not enough high quality submissions.
3.Accept more papers, such as implementatin reports, technology presentations to attract more participants.
4.Increase industry articipation, e.g., industry exhibition, invited industry presentations.
5.Extend program to include demos, courses, posters, short papers, etc.
6.Extend the scope of workshop, e.g., towards multimedia-applications, video processing, audio processing, general DSP applications, entertainment systems, game chips, set top systems.
1  2  3  4  5  6  9  8  4  12  13  6
COMMENTS
"Need to encourage greater "non-speakers" attendance".
"There are plenty of other conferences which do all these things. Sometimes it is nice to have a small comfortable environment".
"Broaden scope to attract more participants, especially industry (both presenters & attendees)".
"I think a lot of interesting ideas can be had from industry, especially with regards to PC systems".
"Maybe invite some speakers to talk about product implementation details, even if for an outdated system. We'd all learn a lot".
QUESTION 2.3
Should the workshop continue to be a joint Eurographics/SIGGRAPH event?
31 of 33 said joint event.
COMMENTS
"Having both makes it a much more respectable"
"More ties to SIGGRAPH will help to increase attendance"
"Move event to coincide with SIGGRAPH every other year - this should attract more people"
"Increase number of potential participants"
"There is no event like this in the US, definitely the field is small (hopefully growing);"
"We can benefit from sharing, I think".
"Yes absoultely - The press reproductio quality is highly improved since the workshop is cosponsored by EG/SIGGRAPH".
QUESTION 2.4
Where should the workshop be held in future years?
Always in Europe:	2
Always in the U.S:	3
Alternate between Europe & U.S:	26
COMMENTS
Always in U.S.
"Because more participants; because more people from industry".
Alternate between Europe & U.S.
"In Europe alternate among high-profile cities (making it coincide with Eurographics helps as well)".
"Not if this means it will always be in L.A.".
"Maybe should be more co-located with conference. Eurographics + workshop at same venue for more crowd".
"Alternating is fine, I think, at least considering how few people attend. But I have never been to (or I didn't go) when the conference was in the U.S. and don't know how many more people attended when the conference was in the U.S.".
QUESTION 2.5
Please rate the following aspects of this year's workshop:
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Overall organization:			1	4	21	7
COMMENTS
"You guys did a great job".
"Coffee at start of day".
"Having proceedings in advance would be a great advantage (even a web page for downloading postscripts)".
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Paper quality:				10	20	3
COMMENTS
"Good to have commerical projects as well as academic projects".
"The quality was good considering how small the field probably is; certainly the quality could be
improved, though, and improvement is a good thing".
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Proceedings:			1		17	14
COMMENTS
"Figures inside the proceedings are not as clear as they should be".
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Publicity:			2	16	10	3
COMMENTS
"The handout at SIGGRAPH was great".
"Need more "non speaker" interest".
"Only heard about it from my advisor".
"I only heard about the conference because I misssed it last year at Siggraph".
"Having it at Siggraph is good for publicity".
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Web page:			2	10	16	4
COMMENTS
"Good enough for me".
"Could have been organized better".
"Sometimes information appeared very late".
"Much more info (I.e. for authors) should have been available".
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Workshop Venue:				5	19	5
COMMENTS
"It would be a benefit to have more guests come to the workshop".
"Chairs too small".
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Audio/Video:		1	8	9	13	1
COMMENTS
"Communication problems with the auditorium operator".
"Often lights weren't switched off in time".
"Technical personnel not paying attention/absent".
"Problems with lights and mircrophone".
"Lack of communication with the man serving the equipment".
"AV people should be more alert".
"A couple of idiots not paying attention ran the A/V booth".
"The equipment was fine, but the guy in the booth kept sleeping".
"Staff should be paying more attention - lights".
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Review Process:				6	22	1
COMMENTS
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Lunches:			1	6	21	4
COMMENTS
"We chose to go to a restaurant on the second day".
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Coffee Breaks:				7	23	2
COMMENTS
"More coffee breaks".
	Awful	Poor	Just acceptable	Fair	Good	Excellent
Banquet:		1	3	5	15	8
COMMENTS
"Wonderful food".
"Friendly, good food, interesting experience".
"Dinner was excellent!"
Other Comments
"Had the impression that registration was included in Eurographics registration. Clarfiy somewhere?"
"Knowing the resolution of computer projector would help prepare presentation (AVI's etc)".

Last Updated on 9/17/98
By Hanspeter Pfister
Email: pfister@merl.com