Beta EP Form

OK everyone, beta eyepiece evaluation form is ready. Please take a look and comment suggested changes/additions/deletions. Please also "exercise" it to try and find any bugs if you have time. It is protected and only fields meant for edit and change should work (the light blue fields).

Some initial thoughts from me since I'm actually using it now for an EP comparison to help spur some considerations for you'all to ponder:

1. For some optical performance factors, you'll see On-Axis, Central 50%, outer 50%, Edge. I used to have Central 25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75%-Edge. I ditched this because I found it very hard to determine those with any accuracy. So would like peoples comments here. Note it would nice to keep it simple for the evaluator if possible.

2. Criteria descriptors and what they mean (in instructions). This was a 1st wag. So lots of comments and suggestions here would be beneficial to tighten up and make clearer.

3. I originally only had the Single EP tab, then found could not easily do a multi-EP comparison. So created the Multi-EP form. Question...do we need to keep the single ep form? Seems redundant since you can just use EP#1 of multi form.

4. Scoring. The calculations tab has the standard weights of the optical factors. These won't be user changeable. Users will have their own factors to change which also add the ergonomic factors which are very user preference. Anyway, are the weights acceptable as is? I wonder if things like astigmatism, coma, SA, should be individual? Perhaps they should be averaged? If I have severe Coma, or severe Astigmatism, or severe Both, the edge is still not good, it's not 3x not good as the current weighting give it. So the whole weights area is of concern. We need a consensus for these. Suggest you get your favorite and mid EP, put the ratings in, then play with the user scores to make them fall relative to each other. Perhaps that will be a good start.


I'll be offline Thur-Sun this week road tripping from DC to Chicago. So please excuse me if responses are not timely if you ask any question. But I suggest you all just download it and play with it over weekend and start the comments Monday if possible.


If you want the form, email me on AMart with your email address and I'll send it off. Please let me know by 3pm tomorrow (Wed) otherwise I won't be able to get it to you until Monday next week.

Thanks!
-Bill

Attached Image:

Great job William! ... can't wate to see it in use.

Bob

Thanks Bill,
You have worked very hard on this and I want you to know that I for one appreciate all your efforts.
The form works well and looks good. If you are interested guys, please have Bill send you the form in Excel format. If you don't get to him on time just private message me and I will provide it for you.
Floyd

I got a suggestion to change all the rating verbiage to numbers instead. The spreadsheet does this behind the scenes and is how it gets the numerical score. However, I was wondering perhaps all the ratings should just be Poor to Excellent instead of so many different rating nomenclatures? If we reworded each criteria correctly, they all could be just poor to excellent.

For instance, Astigmatism could be worded as "Corrected for Astigmatism", etc. Similarly for rest so can be uniform across all categories starting at poor and moving to excellent.

Also might add a half-way between them all. So: Poor, Acceptable -, Acceptable, Solid -, Solid, Solid+, V.Good, V.Good+, Excellent. And of course, exactly what "Solid+" means would be in the instructions, etc. Numerically: Poor=1, Acceptable -=1.5, Acceptable=2, Solid - =2.5, Solid=3, Solid+=3.5, V.Good=4, V.Good+=4.5, Excellent=5.

Thoughts on all this?