1. 2011 ACSI Survey Summary HDF/HDF-EOS Workshop Riverdale, MD April 18, 2012

2. Project Background Measurement timetable Finalized questionnaireAugust 1, 2011 Data collection via web Sending invitations spanned the first two weeks. Sending reminders spanned the last two weeks. The survey was in the field for a longer time this year for resending invitations. September 12, 2011 – October 18, 2011 Topline resultsOctober 26, 2011 Results briefingNovember 29, 2011

3. Project Background Data collection Respondents 3,996 responses were received 3,996 responses were used for modeling E-mail addresses from lists associated with some of the data centers were included to reach the large number of users who may have accessed data via anonymous ftp. Those who answered for more than one data center: Two: 103 Three: 14 Four: 2

4. NASA EOSDIS Benchmarks Strong performance continues … ACSI (Overall) is updated on a quarterly basis, with specific industries/sectors measured annually. Federal Government (Overall) is updated on an annual basis and data collection is done in Q3. Quarterly scores are based on a calendar timeframe: Q1- Jan through March; Q2 – April through June; Q3 – July through Sept.; Q4 – Oct. through Dec. 75 77 65 76 304050607080 News & Information Sites (Public Sector) 2011 NASA EOSDIS - Aggregate 2011 Federal Government (Overall) 2010 ACSI (Overall) Q2 2011

5. 2005 2007 20082004 2009 2006 2010 2011 NASA EOSDIS Customer satisfaction remains steady Ideal How close does [DAAC] come to the ideal organization? Overall satisfaction How satisfied are you with the data products and services provided by [DAAC]? Expectations To what extent have data products and services provided by [DAAC] fallen short of or exceeded expectations? ACSI 76 82 73 7875 80 73 77 81 74 7571 79 73 75 (+/-) 0.9(+/-) 0.7(+/-) 0.6(+/-) 0.5 N=1016N=1263N=2291N=2601 77 81 73 75 (+/-) 0.4 N=3842 72 78 71 74 (+/-) 0.5 N=2857 77 81 74 75 (+/-) 0.4 N=4390 77 81 74 75 (+/-) 0.4 N=3996

6. NASA EOSDIS Model Product Search/Selection/Documentation most critical The performance of each component on a 0 to 100 scale. Component scores are made up of the weighted average of the corresponding survey questions. Scores The change in target variable that results from a five point change in a component score. For example, a 5-point gain in Product Search would yield a 0.9-point improvement in Satisfaction. Impacts Customer Satisfaction Index Future Use Recommend Sample Size: 3996 77 89 87 Customer Support 86 1.7 Product Search 75 0.9 Product Quality 78 0.4 Product Documentation 76 0.9 Product Selection and Order 77 1.1 3.2 3.8 Delivery 81 0.4

7. User background and interests questions User background and interests questions Have you searched, ordered, downloaded data? Did you look for or get documentation ? Have you reported a problem? Have you requested assistance from customer services? Search questions Rate search Order questions Delivery questions Delivery questions Format questions Format questions Usage questions Usage questions Did you get help 1 st time? Customer Service questions Customer Service questions Documentation questions Documentation questions Rate delivery Rate customer service Rate problem resolution Rate order Rate format Rate documentation ACSI standard 3 questions ACSI outcomes 2 questions Blue boxes designate general survey areas White boxes indicate rating questions Embedded skips are shown with arrows 2011 EOSDIS Survey Overview Did not search Thank you! no Did not order no

8. User background and interests questions User background and interests questions Have you searched, ordered, downloaded data? Did you look for or get documentation ? Have you reported a problem? Have you requested assistance from customer services? Search questions Rate search Order questions Delivery questions Delivery questions Format questions Format questions Usage questions Usage questions Did you get help 1 st time? Customer Service questions Customer Service questions Documentation questions Documentation questions Rate delivery Rate customer service Rate problem resolution Rate order Rate format Rate documentation ACSI standard 3 questions ACSI outcomes 2 questions Blue boxes designate general survey areas White boxes indicate rating questions Embedded skips are shown with arrows 2011 EOSDIS Survey Overview Did not search Thank you! no Did not order no 3996 3673 2954

9. NASA EOSDIS 2008 – 2011 Scores hold steady; no change more than one point =Significant Difference vs. 2010 (+/-) 0.4 (+/-) 0.9 (+/-) 0.5 (+/-) 0.6 77 86 81 78 77 76 75 77 86 80 77 76 77 85 81 77 76 77 75 77 84 81 74 77 75 Customer Satisfaction Index Customer Support Delivery Product Quality Product Selection and Order Product Documentation Product Search 2011201020092008

10. Product Quality One-point gain from last year Impact=0.4 78 77 74 Product Quality Ease of using the data product in the delivered format 2011201020092008 =Significant Difference vs. 2010

11. Product Quality Preferences somewhat in line with what provided ~Multiple responses allowed In 2010, 57% said products were provided in HDF-EOS and HDF and 42% said they were their preferred method. GeoTIFF is most preferred format, while HDF-EOS/HDF is format in which products were provided the most. Only 8% of products provided in GIS although nearly one-quarter prefer that format.

12. 2011 EOSDIS Survey Flow Overview - CLB HDF-EOS/HDF Format Tools used when data was provided in HDF format ~Multiple responses allowed Many of the respondents (687) selected ‘Other’ and listed alternate tool names or described custom approaches. Of these respondents 69 selected 'other‘ exclusively.

13. 2011 EOSDIS Survey Flow Overview - CLB Experience with HDF Mostly high ratings but some “Ease of Use” problems Over 60% of the respondents rated all three areas as 8, 9 or 10..

14. Survey respondents provided ~ 90 comments about their experience with HDF format, for example pertaining to – Search method “I found all of the HDF-4 files I needed easily, and in small sizes too which was a plus.” – Order processing “A mosaicking option for all data sets would be nice” – Preferences “Please no more HDF4 with irritating custom extensions” – What they are not finding “I need data in ASCII format... data from HDF is complicated” – Looking for documentation “Format Conversion (HDF to netcdf).” – Over half were voluntary comments or suggestions “... size and complexity (HDF-format) of the data files... can be ameliorated with web services... “ Verbatim comments are available for analysis 2011 EOSDIS Survey Flow Overview - CLB HDF User Comments Comments are both positive and negative

15. Summary  Satisfaction with NASA EOSDIS has held at 77 for four years. NASA continues to meet data users needs.  HDF-EOS/HDF is a well supported format Not all users are comfortable or satisfied with HDF Comments received provide insight into users effective use and/or problems Verbatim comments are supplied in separate word documents.

16. Comments Verbatim comments are supplied in separate word documents. In what format(s) were your data products provided to you? (select any that apply) Other (please specify and/or comment) Did you use software tool(s) to work with the data (e.g., format conversion, analysis, visualization, etc.?) Yes (Please specify which tool or tools you used to work with the data.) No, I couldn’t find what I needed (please specify what you were looking for) No, I couldn’t understand how to use it (please specify what you were trying to use) Do you have any additional comments or suggestion about possible improvements to data products, services, tools, documentation, or the websites that you would like to share? Are you finding what you need on our websites? (please comment)