The following is an automated compilation of comments from reviewers who evaluated your submission for EASA2004. Project: SmallWiki Reference number: 137 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INNOVATION: 2 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== Unlike other Wikis SmallWiki provides an object oriented design and is highly extensible. >From a software developer's point of view this is an important benefit, but from a user's point of view SmallWiki does not provide any really innovative features (ok, it's just a Wiki). So this is surely a great piece of softwaare, but I won't rate it very innovative. 2. DESIGN AND EASE OF USE: 4 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== The user interface is highly customizable and the presets are well designed. I had a look at http://kilana.unibe.ch:9090 and I really like the design. There are is several cues and hint, so that the user never gets lost (a good example is the "Syntax" link in the "edit" dialog). 3. EUROPEAN PORTABILITY: 2 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== The software currently supports only English. But since it is nicely designed software, language adaptions should not be too hard. 4. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AND APPROACH: 2 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== This software has been successfully used for a university courses. Anyway, I don't see an educational approach behind it -- it's just a Wiki. 5. EVALUATION OF USE: 3 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== SmallWiki has been tested with university student and my impression is, that these students had fun using the Wiki. http://kilana.unibe.ch:9090/ese2003gruppen-smallwikis/ But I cannot rate this as a "evidence of the high quality". OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: 2 (of 1-3, where 3 is best) ======================================== Of course, this is yet another Wiki -- but a nice one. I'm not sure if it should reach the finals. The basic idea is not novel, but from a software developer's point of view it's really well designed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INNOVATION: 4 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== Normally, wiki is not this simple to take part in. This is by far the easiest system to use among those that I have encountered. 2. DESIGN AND EASE OF USE: 3 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== Installation was a somewhat tedious task. But once installed, it ran smoothly and everything worked great. 3. EUROPEAN PORTABILITY: 4 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== It is based on Smalltalk. Thus it is simple to adapt to other languages. 4. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AND APPROACH: (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== Not an educational system 5. EVALUATION OF USE: 4 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== The system is in extensive use and the sites that I visited showed me that the users are making good use of it. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: 3 (of 1-3, where 3 is best) ======================================== It is a nice and easy to use system with qualities beyond what you normally see in wiki systems ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. INNOVATION: 3 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== The project is more innovative by its use as an communicational and educational tool than in is technical part (although in my opinion the use of smalltalk is a very good and original choice :) 2. DESIGN AND EASE OF USE: 4 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== May be it can be more difficult to use and "install" by people not accustomed with opensource and wiki. 3. EUROPEAN PORTABILITY: 3 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== I think it can be adapted for other european languages. 4. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AND APPROACH: 4 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== 5. EVALUATION OF USE: 3 (of 1-4, where 4 is best) ======================================== I don't know about a formal evaluation process of the project. I can see a lot of people using it. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: 2 (of 1-3, where 3 is best) ======================================== The project promotes a very interesting pedagogical approach. The use of opensource and GPL-like licence is a good choice in this domain.