John MacColl presents a selection of the comments arising from the first Ariadne readership survey . 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!
- The Ariadne readership survey - Web version,
Author DetailsJohn MacColl
Managing Editor, Ariadne project