Skip to Content

Survey Results

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friend

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: 
19 March 1997

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.

How to cite this article

John MacColl. "Survey Results". March 1997, Ariadne Issue 8 http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue8/survey-results/


article | by Dr. Radut