The UK repository community's unmissable gathering | 1 & 2 August 2016
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.
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.
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.
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!
Making a draft schedule available sooner for delegates to arrange attendance with their respective management.
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)
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