Difference between revisions of "Documentation & support across tools"
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
Are you a South African hydrological modeler? Would you like to have your say? Feel free to participate in our survey [https://forms.gle/PtS2EffK413r2hjRA here]. We will update this page from time to time to reflect new data. | Are you a South African hydrological modeler? Would you like to have your say? Feel free to participate in our survey [https://forms.gle/PtS2EffK413r2hjRA here]. We will update this page from time to time to reflect new data. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == How to get help for your modelling question? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Lets try to get stack exchange going for the South African (or even global!) hydrological community. If you have a question about any of these modelling tools, please add them to stack overflow on site “earth science”, using the following tags: “hydrology” and “models”. If you find the answer elsewhere you are allowed to answer your own question. This would create a track record for others after you who may have the same questions. Click [https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/ here] to visit the Earth Science stack exchange site. | ||
Revision as of 20:57, 31 May 2021
On this page we provide a table that compares the usability of these models (in terms of ease of use of the interface, the documentation and the support) based on user ratings. Finally, we include a link that you can go to if you have a burning hydrological modelling question, but no way to answer it.
User ratings across tools
In 2021, we surveyed the South African hydrological modelling community to ask them about their modelling background and level, which tools they used, and what their perceptions about these tools were. Specifically we asked them to rate the ease-of-use of the user interface, the ease-of-use of the documentation as well as the support of each modelling tool on a scale of 1-5, 1 being poor, 3 being satisfactory, and 5 being excellent. On 31 May 2021 we had 45 responses, and we summarised results here for any modelling tools that were reviewed by more than two people (i.e. sample size greater than 2). If you are choosing a modelling tool for your project, perhaps this table, as well as those on capabilities and specific use cases, would help you make a decision on which to select.
| Modelling tool | Interface | Documentation | Support | Sample Size | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACRU | 3.4 | 3.6 | 3.9 | 19 | |
| WRSM-Pitman | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 14 | |
| SPATSIM-Pitman | 3.3 | 3.3 | 3.5 | 11 | |
| SWAT | 3.6 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 9 | |
| MIKE-SHE | 3.0 | 2.1 | 2.3 | 7 | |
| WEAP | 3.4 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 7 | |
| SCS-SA | 3.5 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 4 | |
| WRYM | 3.7 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 3 | |
| HYDRUS | 1.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 2 |
Are you a South African hydrological modeler? Would you like to have your say? Feel free to participate in our survey here. We will update this page from time to time to reflect new data.
How to get help for your modelling question?
Lets try to get stack exchange going for the South African (or even global!) hydrological community. If you have a question about any of these modelling tools, please add them to stack overflow on site “earth science”, using the following tags: “hydrology” and “models”. If you find the answer elsewhere you are allowed to answer your own question. This would create a track record for others after you who may have the same questions. Click here to visit the Earth Science stack exchange site.