Phase I
Sem. A
April
Sem. B
October
Phase II
Sem. A
March
Sem. B
September
Users in semesters 2017A and 2017B were
already invited to fill out one or two of the
Short Surveys for that observing semester,
or Phase I/Phase II processes. We were very
pleased to receive relatively high response
rates (between 30% and 50%; many thanks!).
This provides us with a clear snapshot of the
current status of our observing tools, data
quality, and support satisfaction.
Current Results
and Their Impact
2017B Phase I. As shown in the upper left
pie chart in Figure 1, ~65% of respondents
either liked or really liked the system; of
these, ~20% had suggestions for improve-
ment. Yet, ~11% were strongly unsatisfied,
and shared very useful comments about
what they believe should be improved. The
rest of the respondents commented on spe-
cific issues they encountered that deserve
our attention. Additionally, six respondents
sent us compliments about the service and
the help they received. ... You are welcome!
Most of the comments were about the Phase
I Tool (PIT). For another few semesters you’ll
find the PIT unchanged, but that’s because
we are currently focusing our resources on
creating a new one. Of course, we are us-
ing the Short Survey comments to help de-
termine the requirements for the new PIT.
Meanwhile, we have made better PIT train-
ing documentation available.
2017B Phase II. The Phase II process is gen-
erally less appreciated than that of Phase I;
only ~42% of respondents either liked or re-
ally liked working on their Phase II, and ~25%
of them were significantly unsatisfied. Most
comments we received are fairly uniform:
January 2018
Observing
Sem. A
August
Data Quality
Sem. B
Sem. A
February
July
Sem. B
January
1. The Observing Tool (OT) is tedious (e.g.,
setting up acquisition sequences, enter-
ing and changing parameters).
2. The documentation is deficient (some-
times inaccurate).
3. The support is excellent.
While we take pride in the quality of our sup-
port (thanks to those who mentioned it), we
strive to reduce the number of comments
focused on problems users experience with
our tools. The following are current efforts to
improve the Phase II preparation process:
Table 1.
The four Short Surveys
and the time of year
in which they are
launched. There were
small delays with some
of the surveys in 2017
due to technical issues
that have since been
resolved.
1. We are currently producing a new OT,
and survey results will be used to deter-
mine requirements (like that done for
the PIT).
2. We have improved some of the OT train-
ing documentation.
3. We are preparing better-focused Phase
II instructions and tutorials for all facility
instruments for 2018.
2017A Observing Semester. Of the PIs
whose programs received observations,
about 73% of the respondents evaluate that
their data meet, or exceed in some ways,
their expectations. While this is a good sign,
it does not reflect the opinion of all respon-
dents — most of whom were PIs of observ-
ing programs with the Gemini Planet Imager
and Gemini South Adaptive Optics Imager,
which require complex observations that
are often strongly dependent on good
weather conditions. When compiling all the
responses, we found ~21% came from PIs
who did not get data from their program —
mainly due to bad weather, combined with
program priorities.
GeminiFocus
25