On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Dilwyn Jones <dil...@evans1511.fsnet.co.uk>wrote:
> > The main survey page is here: >> >> http://www.nonstickglue.com/QL_Hardware_Library/Survey.html >> > > Nicely laid out, Dave. > You can thank the survey website for the layout. I just had to convert the XML and javascript behind it to make it behave on a different website. > Some comments, for discussion, based on just a quick look through the > results earlier this morning: > > Question 1: Only 3% with a 128K or 640K QL. Seems to fly in the face of > Geoff's survey for Quanta a few years ago when a surprising number of > members were using a basic QL. But, add in the first 4 results (above QXL) > and it suddenly becomes 26% of people using a QL with any type of expansion > up to Super Gold Card. I did rather expect that the QL emulators section > would be the single largest category, even if 45% (commercial) plus 5% > (free) seemed larger than I expected. And 9% using Q40/Q60 as a main QL > system surprised me, I'd expected about half that. > Given that two people answered "other" and then put a commercial emulator, the figure is slightly more in the emulator's favor than the bars indicate. The response for unexpanded QLs was only two people, so the statistical error can be quite large - just one more or less vote for that is +/-50%. It's only when minority answers with so few votes get grouped together that accuracy increases. Thus, unexpanded + expansions + GC + SGC = 26% (19/74) gives a margin of error for "systems using the original QL in some form" of +/-4% or so. > Question 12: glad I'm doing something right! > It does seem to be the only question upon which there was a unanimous answer. Congratulations! > Question 13: 95% able to program in SuperBASIC. Rather surprises me, but > assuming replies came mostly from list-members, I've always thought that > most people on this list might consider themselves more experienced than, > say, a lot of Quanta members or QL Today readers? Does that sound elitist? > Wasn't meant to. > > Question 14: 56% able to program in Assembly Language - Norman Dunbar's QL > Today articles have obviously worked well here! > > Question 16: given that the survey was mainly publicised through ql-users > list, I'm surprised only a third of people said they subscribed to it??? > Not so. This question allowed people to answer multiple checkboxes. 59/74ths (80%) answered that they use ql-users, but that was only 34% of the total readership as many also subscribed to other answers too. (59/172 total responses) > The low percentage of people subscribing to Quanta and QL Today probably > speaks for itself (although later answers substantially increase these > figures), but could be partially due to people who are not as active on the > QL scene as they used to be, but remain in contact with the QL scene via > this list, which is probably why this particular survey gives Quanta and QL > Today a poor result. I suspect we've seen plenty of comments on this list > including someting like "I no longer subscribe to Quanta/QL Today, but...". > The question is, do people remain on this list just to keep in touch without > the cost of subscribing to anything (no real reason to subscribe if they are > not regularly using a QL), or is there something that both organisations > could do to entice these back? Comments from people who are on this list and > not subscribing to either organisation welcome. > The obvious suggestion of this answer is that people who are more inclined to get information from the internet will be less inclined to subscribe to a magazine or club. > Question 17: 15% members of Quanta in Q.16, 29% here. Is the doubling a > statistical blip caused by a fairly small number of responses, was one of > the questions worded so as not to extract the same reply or what? > ID 4347254: The response about the overseas delivery, "...belief that > sending the newsletter to foreign countries should come AFTER all the > domestic members received their and thus show an inability to factor in 10+ > extra days of transit -- THAT is symptomatic of how they view the World > and/or the membership ... i.e., it's a local club that they allow others to > contribute to" > I'm not quite sure what to make of this - I presume that John Gilpin has > been sending ALL issues out at the same time (not checked with him), and if > so, is the suggestion that Quanta should hold posting UK mags back for 10 > days? I've been a member of Quanta since 1984, my postal copy regularly > seems to arrive one or two days after other UK members get theirs, even > though it's the same British postal system (probably just the usual "West of > Chester" syndrome). > Look at the votes and not the percentages: 26 people said "Quanta" in Q.16 and 26 said "I am a current member" in 17... It looks very consistent. It seems some people did not understand the structure of Q.17 as I did not explain clearly - they were supposed to check a box for each decade they were a member, and if they are a current member (all that apply) . The "Yes in [decade]" answers seem low, but given that it seems about half answered incompletely, the other half did answer completely. It suggests that the 90s were Quanta's heyday, and that they still are doing slightly better for membership in the 00s than in the 80s. Though I did not participate in the survey myself for impartiality reasons, I was a member of Quanta in the 90s only, so it seems to fit my personal experience. > Question 18: As with the Quanta figures, this shows 50% more QL Today > subscribers than the original Question 16?!?! > Again, 41 said QL Today in Q.16 and 41 answered again in Q.18 - only the percentages differ because Q.16 was multiple answers allowed. > Question 20: 71% sharing files via email - to be expected in this day and > age, figure may be a little higher here as this is a survey where all users > by definition use email to know about this survey, but the 21% still using > floppies surprises me. > > Question 21: 78% using their QL for programming and personal use. In line > with my expectations. > > Question 22: I'm surprised the response wasn't even higher in citing > internet access as "critical". Of course, QPC2, QemuLator and uQLx have the > base ability here, but we only have Jonathan Hudson's programs as > applications. Dave - get working on those apps you mentioned - they'll do > well! > I suspect users who consider internet access "critical" have it via an alternate means. I am using the Mac version of Q-emuLator, so I am awaiting the next update with anticipation. > Question 24: 46% using a Windows system, no surprises there. The figure for > OSX is a little higher than I'd expected, but it looks like Daniele > correctly predicted the need for a OSX QemuLator here. > Given that almost half the laptops sold now are Macs, 11% is in line with global internet access data, sales, and other sources which put OS X usage at between 9-15%... I find that people who grew with alternative platform tend to stay with them - eg: I went from a QL to Acorn a410 to Risc PC to PC with Linux to Mac... I suspect that happens more often than we'd give credit for. I suspect we'll see an increase in the Mac figures now a consistent, reliable and supported emulator is available for the platform. In summary, this survey was a fairly smal and limited one, as others have > remarked. Hopefully, the experience from this one should mean even better > results from the next one. Well done to Dave for putting it together quickly > and getting the results out pronto (even if the list did sabotage his first > results effort). Thank you. The next survey will be longer, more detailed, better publicised, and written with a great deal of consultation... I hope the timing works out to allow QL Today and Quanta members/readers to participate. Dave _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
