In response questions and comments about field computers from:
Warren Kovach <WarrenK@kovcomp.demon.co.uk and
Marti Rijken mrijken@inter.NL.net
We have used a small field computer to a limited degree and are
thinking about expanding its use. Our unit is a "Husky Hunter"
available in forestry supply catalogs. It is a PC compatible unit
with an 8088 chip. It is not fast, but doesn't have to be for data
entry. I would not try to do any analysis or even try to run a word
processor on it, but for field data entry, it is great. I do not
endorse any particular brand of field computer, but do feel that their
use has great potential. My main complaint is the small screen.
> - The research makes long walks off the road necessary. The
> equipment must be as light as possible. Nothing can beat a paper
> form.
The Husky Hunter is very small and lightweight; it hardly weighs
more that a field clipboard. This little computer can be easily
carried anywhere in the field. According to the owners manual, it can
be completely submerged and still function (we have not tried this).
You cannot say the same for paper, even write-in-the-rain paper.
> - The screen is not large enough to hold a full A4-size form with
> preprinted species names. So typing names will be necessary. In
> many cases not the whole species list will fit on one screen. This
> makes it more difficult to keep a track of the complete species
> list.
I agree in full that the small screen on field computers is a
serious drawback. It would be much preferable to have more of a "data
sheet" visible on the screen. Typing in species names, however, is
not really a problem. We use 4 digit acronyms for species names (TADI
for Taxodium distichum, for example). Rather than looking up and down
a list of species names you could have your program such that you
enter the species and it would append the information to the master
list internally. A good program would also have a "hot key" to allow
scanning of the list or examination of the data. I like programs like
the old dBase III+ for data entry on a field computer, or you could
write your own in just about any programming language.
> - With data entry in the field you have nothing to fall back onto,
> if later you find unprobabilities in the data.
This has always been one of my concerns, but if the data entry
program is configured correctly you can have it check for errors as
you enter data. If you enter a 4 digit acronym that is not recognized
or if you enter 100 when the possible values must be less than 10
etc., the computer could let you know that something is wrong. In
falling back on paper data sheets I have often found obvious errors on
the data sheet and had "nothing to fall back onto." Every time you
handle the data, recording the data in the field or entering the data
in the lab, you have the potential for introducing errors. By
reducing the number of times the data is handled, you may reduce the
possibility of errors.
> - In our climate we can count on some days with bad weather :-)
> We can use these days to do data entry at home or at the office,
> with more accuracy than in the field.
Yes, bad weather is a bear and it often keeps us in from the field.
If your data had been entered in the field you could spend bad weather
days analyzing data or writing or reading journal articles or . . .
rather than entering data. Plus, with a weather resistant field
computer, you can keep entering data in the field if bad weather
develops. Even with write-in-the-rain paper I have had to give up and
go back to the lab during rainstorms because the paper becomes mush if
it gets too wet (although it does work quite well in light rain).
Sometimes, if you just have a little work to finish a plot or you are
collecting time-series data that MUST be collected at a specific time,
it is necessary to collect data in bad weather and a weather tight
field computer is great.
> I must emphasize this point.
> It is important to let the researchers do their own data entry to
> prevent errors. I've tried to let typist do it, with really bad
> results, even with an error checking program.
I totally agree. The best scenario is for the researcher to record
the data directly into a computer in the field.
My main concern was that the batteries would go dead in the middle
of a field trip and all of the days data would be lost. The little
computer we have has a lithium backup battery that maintains data
storage while you change the main batteries.
BobK
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
# Bob Keeland, Ph.D. FOREST ECOLOGIST #
# NBS, Southern Science Center PHONE: (318) 266-8663 #
# 700 CajunDome Blvd. FAX: (318) 266-8592 #
# Lafayette, LA 70506 INTERNET: keelandb@nwrc.gov #
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0