Difference between revisions of "Documentation & support across tools"
m |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== User ratings across tools == | == User ratings across tools == | ||
| Line 67: | Line 63: | ||
|2 | |2 | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 08:24, 4 December 2023
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 |