PUBLISHED QUARTERLY BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COMPUTING CENTER
|McVey Hall, Lexington, Kentucky 40506||Area Code 606 Phone 258-2916|
|July, 1971||Vol.5, Issue 1|
The University of Kentucky Computing Center previously supported two conversational programming systems, Conversational Programming System (CPS) and Call/360. Both of these systems allow computer programs to be written and executed from a typewriter terminal.
On July 1, 1971, the support for CPS was discontinued (that is, CPS is no longer available for use) for several reasons:
Call/360 will continue to be supported.
Users desiring teleprocessing service can establish a password with either an existing or new project number by contacting the administrative assistant in the Computing Center.
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THE COMPUTING CENTER?
In March 1971, the Computing Center mailed evaluation surveys to all project holders, and asked them to rate the various services of the Center on a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor. Of the 160 persons responding, 64% were faculty, 18% were students, 16% were staff and 2% held other positions.
The following graphs are based on an analysis of the ratings that were given in the objective portion of the questionnaire. The number of project holders rating the service is listed in parentheses directly after the service name, and the percentages shown are based on the number of respondents who evaluated the service. For example, 130 users rated the Data Center service and of that number 48.5% rated it as excellent.
Comments, suggestions, and complaints were solicited; those received varied in scope of appreciation and dissatisfaction with the Center's performance. Some users cited instances of noncooperation while others expressed thanks for the helpfulness and consideration accorded them by members of the staff.
We thank the project holders for taking the time to reply to the questionnaires. We will attempt to display our appreciation of their efforts by giving careful consideration to all complaints, suggestions, and criticisms, and by a careful self-evaluation in those areas shown to be deficient. Even though the response rate on questionnaires returned was only about one-third, we hope that the overall vote of confidence reflected in the ratings is a true representation of user opinion. We, of course, assume that those not returning questionnaires had no complaints or compliments, but reflect a complacency born of satisfactions.