Evaluation Protocol

Question Title

* 1. Personal information

Question Title

* 2. Scope of the AMP

  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree Nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
The tool is useful to policy-makers involved in MSFD implementation
The target of the tool is well defined and clearly explained to the user
The tool contains adequate information referring to its inputs
The tool is effective with the intended target group of scientists
The tool is effective with the intended target group of policy makers
The tool is effective with the intended target group of policy makers with a strong scientific background
The tool is effective with the intended target group of general stakeholders including users with different abilities and experiences
The tool is comprehensive
The tool performs its intended functions satisfactorily
The tool is attractive and interesting so as to motivate the user to utilize it
There are no other similar tools available in this area

Question Title

* 3. Content

  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree Nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
All important and policy-relevant issues are covered in a comprehensive manner
The information provided is clear, concise and well-written
The information provided is valuable
The structure of the tool is clear, logical, and understandable to the user

Question Title

* 4. User interactions

  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree Nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
It is easy to use the tool’s functions
The tool has been categorized and organized in an efficient manner
The user can easily access the sources provided in the tool
The user has the choice of either going directly to the desired topic or use a structured approach to relevant topics
The navigational features of the tool are well-constructed
The tool acknowledges the introduction of input data and the provided feedback is employed effectively
The retrieved information from the implemented searching queries is accurate and valuable
The program provides a copy or summary of its basic information to the user for future reference

Question Title

* 5. Technical aspects

  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree Nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
The included workable interactive features such as forms and menus can be characterized as satisfactory
All the provided links are reliable
The tool is reliable in normal use and is bug free
The time response of the tool is satisfactory

Question Title

* 6. Support

  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Disagree Nor Agree Agree Strongly Agree
It is easy to inform the developers about potential technical malfunctions

Question Title

* 7. Suggestion for improvement:

Question Title

* 8. General remarks

T