Two boxes on a survey
The planning team for a local short-film evening sent out a survey with two choices: either the old theatre or the sports hall. The theatre had comfortable seats but a small screen. The sports hall had a large screen but poor sound. We argued about which problem was easier to solve.
Then a visitor wrote in the comment box: "Neither venue is easy for me to reach after the last bus." Until then, we had discussed equipment and capacity, but not the journey home. Another response asked whether the entrance at the theatre was step-free. Our survey had made the choice look simpler than it was.
We listed the requirements before choosing again: an affordable room, usable sound, a suitable entrance and a finish time before the last bus. A volunteer suggested the community centre. It was smaller, but we could hold two shorter screenings. Another proposed an earlier Saturday event instead of a late weekday one.
These ideas had costs too. Two screenings would require more volunteer time, and Saturday conflicted with some people's work. We did not discover a magical option that pleased everybody. However, comparing three possible plans gave us a more honest discussion than arguing endlessly over two buildings.
In the end, we booked one early screening at the community centre and kept a waiting list. We explained the capacity limit and asked whether a second date would be useful. The first survey had not been useless; its missing questions helped us design a better one.