Quick Comments Results: Sept. 29

Your suggestions for what worked well and what could be improved::

• Better moderator.
• I think there is always room for improvement, site navigation and timeliness of postings could have been better. I do think it was a great first try. NOTE: My answer to the last question in this wasn't one of the choices. I first heard of the discussion at the SLA conference, then by email from 3 separate colleagues.
• I give the quality of content and participants high marks.
• I would have enjoyed an additional week of dialogue.
• EPA should allow more public participation by hosting more e-forums on their programs and proposed actions.
• This format worked for me.The time frame was differcult with school just starting(my kids don't have their routines down yet) so it was mostly late nights for me and very early mornings. How to improve possibly bi-lingual.Another suggestion..could you list all the reference sites in list form , web addresses and participants email addresses.I leave the methodology to the think-tankers.
• Do it again for each facet of EPA functioning. The panel responded beautifully. Citizen response disappointingly small but I suspect that this was partly a result of insufficient notice and partly due to unfamiliarity with this mode of communication. Can notice of future such dialogue be sent to all who have E-mailed to federal websites? Political and just plain obnoxious comments cannot be screened but could be diverted to a separate page along with commercial and frivolous ones for those who choose to attack, quarrel, advertise or just fool around. A listing of specific information sites would help newcomers get up to speed on what EPA is doing. (Many who might produce useful input are not good info seekers and don't find time to forage in the fertile fields of EPA data.) A simple diagram at the beginning would help newcomers get oriented, showing the lineup of panelists, where this particular dialogue fits into a planning process of the Higher Archies, central/subthemes. Consider an informal discussion among stick-figure or Dilbert-type people to assure potential contributors they aren't wasting time (as conventional wisdoms would have us believe) and are not seen as an officious circle.
• I really liked the Quick Response forms, the daily summaries and the 4-pronged approach to reading archived messages. Suggestions? Someone said that real time "chat" should be added -- I disagree. In the present format I could read all messages at my leisure and not miss whatever happened when I could not be present. In fact, I read every posted message in the archive, and that within 36 hours of its being posted as the Dialog progressed. One comment: when the agenda changed I would have liked the old agenda to be archived so I might have compared what was thought originally and what developed in reality.
• I think it was very well run. I particularly liked that we could view it in a number of ways, including the threaded view. Given FIRE 2000 in the west, it was really difficult for me to take advantage of the opportunity. Too many things were set aside that need to be dealt with now that the fires have subsided.
• We need information about the impact of global warming on Indigenous communities, their territories, and econimies.
• It's obvious that those who were the most active participants, spend their lives doing this kind of information access, and only represent a small portion of the public who need access - their views may have tended to overpower the few citizen activist participants and some library participants. The expertise these info users represent is invaluable but may have biased the outcomes of the dialogue heavily toward a specific use of the information.
• I felt the dialog was an excellent beginning. In this sort of open format there were many strings that could and did develop. From quality of information, to access to information, to hardware/software requirements necessary to effectively access information, to training/outreach opportunities, to other sources of info, to source (ie manufacturer) info, to detail of information to be made available, etc. Each of these topics could be a dialog in its own right. As a result of the variety of discussion strings I felt that some of the emphasis on using libraries was diluted. Yes it is important that information be present in the most useful and available form possible, and yes we do concede that filtered information can have its biases amd yes its true that putting an entire study or report in all its scientific crafting can obfuscate the particular piece of the information that the individual may be after. But I think my point here is that libraries can and should be a point of entry, with the technology and resources to provide that entry. And that includes training, in some fashion, about use of the EPA materials for library staff. I did a quick survey of maybe half of our librarians and only one suggested the EPA as the first source for information. After the dialog, at least here in Newburgh, our librarians will think of the EPA, so in that the dialog was effective. I know Pat is looking for training ideas and cannot possibly do small group training that would be most effective. I am not convinced about teleconferencing but maybe... or maybe a web based session where an EPA site is dissected - perhaps it couldn't be interactive but a walk-thru of features in the form of a lesson on use.

Welcome | About this Event | Briefing Book | Join the Dialogue | Search the Site