Event Feedback

Repository Fringe 2016 Feedback Survey Results

There were 47 responses to our feedback survey – here’s your ideas and suggestions!

  • ‘’Digital preservation; more of a representation from archives and cultural heritage collections, copyright and licensing related challenges; standards and case scenarios for moving data in work spaces to open access sharing platforms; measures for open access data sharing.’’
  • ‘’Repositories as part of the digital ecosystem – both within an institution as part of institutional digital content management – but also out in the wider world as a provider of content to/for other systems and re-users.’’
  • ‘’Metadata – lots of things come down to this!  Looking after software.  Visualisation layer as part of / on top of repository services.’’
  • ‘’New areas where repositories and the repository community might be involved; the future of repositories is beyond reporting for HEFCE.’’
  • ‘’REF / reporting / OER / RDM is one set of issues, but let’s extend the vision to find out how UK libraries / UK “head librarians” are thinking. Where is UK scholarship and UK science heading, and how can the repository community support / facilitate that. LET’S OPEN UP our thinking beyond the confines of the REF.’’

More subject suggestions:

  • Having more repository software options

  • Including publishers point of view on repositories

  • Including competition for exhibition stands

  • Including data visualisation

  • Support for Arts and Humanities

  • Improving user experience

  • Data and impact – using repository for Knowledge exchange

  • Some participants would like to see the impact theme continued, and look more into end-user/researcher perspectives

  • More Wikimedia projects!

  • Maintaining diversity in the event.

The pros and cons

There was a consensus on what made the event great:

  • Diverse themes and community

  • Good variety of content and speakers

  • Great opportunity for networking

  • A number of people enjoyed the short and wide-ranged 24×7 presentations

  • Excellent venue and food, with emphasis on the networking aspect of the drinks reception and the central location of the event

  • Good organisation and structure of the event and excellent ordering of sessions

  • The workshops and opportunities for discussions during the 2nd day of the event

  • Hearing from researchers about their experiences and needs.

What could have gone better?

Technical issues and timing confusion:

  • Some participants expressed dissatisfaction with tech issues during many presentations, and strange buzzing sounds in each auditorium

  • Some delegates suggested using better AV tech in the future – especially for the 24×7 sessions

  • Some participants felt it would have been useful to have a techie person on hand to help with any problems with presentations etc.

  • Others suggested using more suitable laptops

  • Two delegates pointed out the technical issues with Powerpoint and time spent to get the presentations working. On this note, it was also suggested putting the presentation slides online immediately after the event ended

  • Four participants expressed concern over the timings of concurrent sessions which resulted in them missing keynotes (especially on the second day of the event)

  • One person found the schedule confusing.

24×7 presentations:

Thoughts on our 24×7 presentations:

  • Some of you found them hard to keep up with

  • Others felt they were unbalanced in terms of time (speakers using up more time)

  • Some delegates suggested having breaks in between

  • One person found the sessions interesting – still suggesting a break, or better structure so as not to limit speakers’ time

  • Some delegates found the sessions fatiguing.

Suggestions:

  • Having more breaks in between sessions, in order to facilitate networking opportunities

  • Having feather sessions to run alongside main sessions
  • Improving the structure of concurrent sessions

  • Not scheduling user groups alongside parallel sessions

  • Including open education and scholarly communications and developments

  • Adjusting the 24×7 presentations using seven or fourteen slides in seven minutes

  • Or allocating ten minutes for each presentation.

Other comments:

  • Some participants found sessions too long : ‘’Some of the talks were a bit long with little interaction. This event was great for wiki and data lovers, but perhaps some of the folk who dealt with other aspects were less catered for – me, I am happy with wiki and data’’, while others thought they were too short.

Other suggestions :

  • Better lunch options

  • Less technical sessions

  • Generally less formal format

  • More opportunities for formal discussion

  • Longer slots for user sessions

  • Exclusive poster sessions

  • Having a delegate list available

  • Placing more emphasis on new developments (JISC Shared Services, plugins, etc.)

  • More funding for repositories!

  • More workshops

  • Making a draft schedule available sooner for delegates to arrange attendance with their respective management.

Venue:

Generally delegates were happy with the venue – except future venues should:

  • Have better signage

  • Accept exhibitor equipment delivery.

How did you hear about the event?

  • Everyone knows about repository Fringe!

  • Mailing lists (JISC, Repositories, DCC, other various)

  • Twitter

  • Colleagues/work

  • Past events, word of mouth and call for submissions/invitations.

And the figures…
1= Strongly Disagree; 6= Strongly Agree

  • Was this your first Repository Fringe event? Average: Yes 46.8%

  • I enjoyed the conference –  Average (mean): 4.96

  • I found the conference useful – Average (mean): 4.76

  • The presentations were informative and interesting. Average (mean): 4.65

  • The opportunity for discussion was sufficient and useful. Average (mean): 4.39

  • I am motivated to get more involved with Repository development. Average (mean): 4.17

  • The balance of the programme was appropriate in terms of the event themes.

    Average (mean): 4.54

  • The information supplied before the day was adequate. Average (mean): 4.87

  • The venue was appropriate and comfortable. Average (mean): 5.11