Survey Results

John MacColl presents a selection of the comments arising from the first Ariadne readership survey [1]. This article appears in only the Web version of Ariadne.

Here are some concise comments, both plus and minus, regarding Ariadne:

What respondents like about Ariadne

  • That on the whole it is written in English rather than technospeak (but with significant lapses).
  • Thin. Readable - varied, some good intelligent writing - information.
  • Up to date information.
  • Glossy, some interesting items. Good production values.
  • Nice format. Easy to read. Up-to-date, informed articles. A good way to keep up to date/informed about 'key' issues.
  • The coverage.
  • Excellent idea - But haven't got time to look at or even the print online version at work, so read the print version at home in the evening instead - just like an ordinary journal!
  • Relevant to my job - coverage.
  • Well designed, easily digestible.
  • Relevance of the articles. Level/content of the articles.
  • That it keep me up-to-date with electronic developments in library and information world.
  • It is lightweight and portable and so can be read on the bus/at home, unlike the Web version. Its content is relevant but succinct. Who has time to read Ariadne on the Web (at work)?
  • Up-to-date. Well-presented.
  • Covers a broad spectrum and is lively.
  • It is brief and keeps me, somewhat up to date with "electronic happenings" which I especially need, not being connected to the network.
  • Topical, interesting, related to job! Light-hearted at times. British view.
  • The way it is researching the two different versions (print/web) - how best to use which.
  • Concise, current, regular.
  • Hand information on e-lib projects and odd useful http address.
  • Crisp, concise articles.
  • Up-to-date information on variety of topics. I'd like to read the Web version but print is still more convenient.
  • There is just enough informative "meat" in it for a tube journey, leavened with touches of humour.
  • Clear and attractive format.
  • Good information about Digital Libraries.
  • Looks good, well-written articles, up-to-date. I would prefer to read the print version because it looks nice and I can take it home with me - also Netscape is too slow on my PC at work. However, it would be a bit Philistine of me to insist that we pay for something which is available on the Web - that's the whole point, after all. Good luck.
  • Professional, informative, understandable.
  • Sexy, and occasionally (probably unintentionally) erotic.
  • Improves my awareness.
  • Informality, cartoons, some articles.
  • Brevity and up to date.
  • Problem-solving articles. The Web version (to "dip in and out") rather turned the print version (to "plough through").
  • Concise coverage. Lively but sensible balance of style.
  • It helps to keep me up to date with new developments in Library, Information and Computing activities.
  • Easy to read and useful. Very little rubbish.
  • Short news items.
  • Forward information, summaries of Elib project. Thought-provoking main features.

What respondents dislike about Ariadne:

  • Occasional pretentiousness.
  • John Burnside. Sideline.
  • Boring print format. All columns look alike.
  • High proportion of waffle. If it didn't arrive on my desk I doubt I would seek it out.
  • It might be nice to have slightly more academic articles. Looking more at concepts/implications of digitisation of information etc.
  • Wish web version in print.
  • Nothing in particular!
  • Nothing - given it is available in print form.
  • The print version doesn't publish URLs - you have to read the web version for them - even if you only want to record them and pass them on to someone else.
  • Assumes background knowledge.
  • Trivia + humour/less articles. I haven't got time to read things no use to me in my job.
  • Nothing in particular.
  • I can't read the extras in the Web version on the tube (yet) and there is too little time during office hours.
  • Dominated by librarians who are not always up-to-date on technology available.
  • I'm a bit serious and not over keen on the more light hearted/chatty articles - it's my problem not yours!
  • John Burnside.
  • 'Chatty' bits.
  • Waffle articles. There is too much to read. Shorter items would be better.
  • Slips into jargon.
  • I have to look at it twice in case I miss anything and I don't like reading long articles on screen.
  • Nothing! except why do people insist on daft acronyms for their work?
  • The shiny paper! Articles often dry, technical and boring. Cannot use Internet version as too busy doing my job!
  • Shiny paper!

References

  1. The Ariadne readership survey - Web version,
    http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ariadne/issue5/survey/

Author Details

John MacColl
Managing Editor, Ariadne project
Email: lbajam@tay.ac.uk
Date published: 
Wednesday, 19 March 1997
Copyright statement: 

This article has been published under copyright; please see our access terms and copyright guidance regarding use of content from this article. See also our explanations of how to cite Ariadne articles for examples of bibliographic format.