Thai lernen einfach gemacht
Dieser Thai Kurs ist für alle die Interesse an Thailand und der Thai Sprache haben. Meine Frau Jo und ich Joerg Uhdinger bringen Dir nach und nach hilfreiche Wörter und Sätze zu verschiedenen Themen bei. Wir probieren dabei so realitätsnah wie möglich zu bleiben und nehmen Redewendungen die man im Alltag hier in Bangkok braucht. Der Kurs ist kostenlos und wir machen das um jedem diese interessante Sprache ein wenig näher zu bringen. Wenn dir der Kurs gefällt kannst Du uns aber gerne eine kleine Spende hinterlassen.Ist es schwer Thai zu lernen?
Thai zu lernen muss nicht kompliziert sein. In der Realität stellt man schnell fest das Thai eigentlich eine recht einfach zu lernende Sprache ist. Sobald man die Betonung richtig hat und über einen Wortschatz von ein paar hundert Wörtern verfügt kann man sich schon gut unterhalten. Die Grammatik in der Thai Sprache ist sehr simpel und so etwas wie Zeiten zum Beispiel gibt es nicht.Wie lerne ich Thai in diesem Kurs
Ich (Joerg) sage einen Satz in Deutsch und meine Frau Jo wiederholt ihn mehrmals in Thai. Danach gehen wir das Ganze nochmal Schritt für Schritt durch damit Du die Betonung nochmal hörst. Wir werden hier alle 10 Tage neue Folgen posten und thaikurs.de nach und nach mit mehr Informationen zu Thailand und dem Leben hier füllen. Wenn Du Anregungen oder Vorschläge hast was wir besser machen können schreib einfach an jo@thaikurs.deWillst Du Thai professionel zu Hause lernen?
Neben meiner Frau hat mir die Sprachsoftware von Rosetta Stone
Customer Loyalty Survey I
July 14th, 2006
Following the Software Usability Measurement Inventory (SUMI) (Kirakowski 1994), which is a method of measuring software quality from the user’s point of view, a survey was prepared. The goal was to get more detailed information about the user experience the site provided and some indications of what impact that had on loyalty. The questions about usability (q. no. 3, 4) were implemented to reassure that no usability problems existed, because these problems would have direct impact on user satisfaction (Froekjmr et al. 2000).
Furthermore, the survey had questions which could be categorised into satisfaction, loyalty, website characteristics and background information. The survey was promoted in several forums and one had to become a member and visit every personalised page at least twice on the website before the link to the survey became visible. 64 members participated in the survey but only 10 of these were site members before the survey was announced. Therefore, the overall findings of the survey represent an extended first impression. They could only deliver an indication of the impact of personalisation features because even though new members had to visit every site a second time, these features provide valuable results for users over a longer period of time.
The survey confirmed the previous findings that the site was perceived well by users. Overall users with personalisation features enabled rated the site slightly higher than users without personalisation features. Of all participants, 69.2% were in the age of the target audience and nearly the half (31 participants) were using the internet more than 15 hours every week and were therefore considered as internet-savvy.
The response to the question (q. no. 7) in which participants had to characterise the site showed that only 5.4% named attributes that were considered as not intended by the designer and therefore negative. 94,6% of the selected attributes described the site as affectionate, personal, pleasant, unusual, exciting, bizarre, structured, warm and beautiful. This shows that aesthetic fidelity has been achieved. A surprising finding was that 23.4% rated ‘Atmosphere’ below ‘Content’ with 39.1%, as the most liked aspect of the site (q. no. 
. This result is positive because atmosphere describes ‘an interesting, often exotic, effect’ (Webster’s New World Dictionary 1988) and is considered a general emotional quality (Webster’s New World Thesaurus 1997) that can have an impact on the mood of the viewer (The Hutchinson Encyclopaedia 2003). That shows that the site can make an impact on users’ feelings. Even though it does not show what atmosphere the site creates. The high rating on ‘Content’ is positive because content is the ‘classic way to increase loyalty on the web’ (Nielsen 1997, 1999) and a way to attract new customers to a site (Wurster et al. 1999). This high rating confirmed that the chosen content for the website was appropriate.
A negative finding was that there was a gap between the overall impression and the perceived value a user got from visiting the site (q. no. 1,2). Even though the ‘overall impression’ is a mix of various elements and ‘what the site provides’ can be understood as related to content, it showed that the site generated expectations which it did not completely meet. This was repeated in the two questions about usability of the site (q. no.3,4). The structure of the site was rated better than how the users rated how they could navigate on the site.
Despite these results, more than half of the participants voted either good or very good in all four questions.
The question (q. no. of whether a user would return to the site was also answered positively by 31.5% of participants who said they would definitely return and 57.4% who thought they would return. The data of their user profiles showed that 33.3% of members who said they would definitely return and 80.6% of users who said they thought they would return did not return and log in. Therefore this question seemed to be unnecessary in the second survey.
The survey showed that users could be considered as overall satisfied. The usability and structure of the site was well perceived and aesthetic fidelity has been achieved. Questions that needed further investigation were about the kind of atmosphere that the site creates and if the site meets the user’s expectations. Furthermore the impact of personalisation features on the site had to be examined in detail.