Raising Awareness

"The IWMW event provides an opportunity for those involved in the provision of institutional Web services to hear about institutional case studies, national initiatives and emerging technologies and to actively participate in a number of parallel sessions."

IWMW 2011 is the fifteenth workshop.
IWMW logo

Institutional Web Management Workshop 2011:
Responding to Change


A Google Form was set up to collect feedback from participants (including remote participants) at the IWMW 2011 event. A total of 62 responses were received.

Note that a summary of the evaluation is available on the UK Web Focus blog.



On a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) the overall average rating for the content of the event was 4.02, with 19 scores of 5, 28 scores of 4, 13 scores of 3, 2 scores of 2 and 0 scores of 1.

The overall average rating for the ev3nt organisation was 4.16, with 25 scores of 5, 26 scores of 4, 7 scores of 3, 4 scores of 2 and 0 scores of 1.

Comments on Overall Views

Some of the comments receicved for the question "Please give your overall views on the workshop" include:

  • Still a totally essential part of the HE web management calendar. Not only are the talks and sessions really useful and thought provoking, the networking element is so reassuring. It's fab to discover that everyone is tacking the same issues.
  • Again another excellent event. Thanks to everyone involved.
  • As ever, an excellent chance to catch up with colleagues and stay abreast of web (and wider digital issues) in the Education section. Remains a 'must attend' event in my own diary and for my team.
  • Always a good workshop to go to - loads of things learned to take back to my institution.
  • It is an essential part of my year and cannot imagine it not running, I thought that there was easily enough content for a 3 day conference. The topics covered were current and key issues that we are grappling with on a daily basis. I felt that the old model allowed a chance to build on the content in workshops and this year felt rushed.
  • I found it very useful this year - as always. It is the most relevant/only event aimed at HE and public sector web professionals and I look forward to it each year.
  • Very enjoyable and very relevant topics covered. Good to be able to discuss issues etc. with other delegates given it was a very sociable crowd.
  • A very useful, engaging event. As a parallel session leader, I gained useful insight into how my work fits into the work of web managers.
  • Crammed! I had two early starts either side of a late night with a lot to take in both days; it's still sinking in now. It was my first, so I can't be sure, but the description in the concluding session of why the longer version was better sounded convincing.
    Content was great - you can see that above - and social side worked well too.
  • Another enjoyable IWMW. Lots of interesting content and speakers and far more positive than last year!
  • Lots of thought-provoking ideas that I can bring back to the workplace.
  • I found the workshop very interesting and relevant. I've not been to many workshop/conferences before and this was my first IWMW. I found it very tech savvy which is right up my boat. The workshop enabled a good chance to meet others on the same level doing similar things.
  • Very good coverage of 'hot' topics. Good opportunity to network (but was better in three day workshop). Maybe a little more discussion would be good.
  • Really good stuff, there was a lot to take away from this year's conference!
  • Once more the workshop has presented topics of relevance in a highly engaging format. It will take me several weeks to review what I have learned in order to bring out the many valuable insits that will be applied across the institution.
  • A fantastic event... and my annual CPD!
  • I thought the programme was the most consistent and coherent of all the ones I have attended, and also probably the most relevant. Much as I've enjoyed forays into the unknown (eg FOAF/RDF) in previous years, this was a very practical and useful programme. It was good giving the DevCSI geeks some bigging up as it would appear that they can do useful things ;-)
    The balance of plenaries and parallels worked for me and the timings were good.
    The organisation was faultless as usual.
  • This is my second, or third..? time coming to IWMW and I'm continually impressed
  • A wide range of topics covered, all of it interesting. Given that most of us are speciallists, it's inevitable that many topics were not of immediate practical use to any given delegate. Is insitutional web too big a subject to cover in one workshop? Would more parallel sessions and fewer plenaries help?
  • Really enjoyable, and great to get to know people who are in the same industry, with it's shortcomings as I am in.
  • It was as useful as ever but rather cramped into one overnight.
  • It was quite good, good to meet with some old and new people. Good points overall were made.
  • Really high quality presentations this year. They are normally of a good standard but I thought this year they really hit the mark in terms of relevance, interest and useful 'takeaways'
  • The workshops gave good ideas of how to apply knowledge to the domain but very little in the way of leading edge ideas and information.
  • I only attended the one work shop and the content was excellent and very interactive which is always helpful for getting multiple opinions on a topic
  • I've been to the IWMW twice now. On each occasion I found it an excellent opportunity to meet with the people working in same area as myself and learnt a huge amount. Coming from IWMW2011 I have new ideas for improving the way we work and communicate to managers and some great new contacts that should may lead to improving personal development of resources across institutions.
  • I had a very enjoyable first IWMW and look forward to attending in the future
  • I only managed to see a few talks, since I've been off on leave during the conference, but what I saw made me wish I was in the office and able to watch them all day!
  • It was very well-organised and had a really friendly atmosphere that encouraged the sharing of ideas and expertise.
  • Very good, talks a bit down on last year, but main benifit is the networking
  • As usual really hard to know what to attend because of diversity of options. Good sessions though the Top 10 Legal Issues was not quite focused enough of 'application' - felt as though he knew his stuff but not how it related perhaps to us. The rooms and food were fine, bbq v tasty, long queues for drinks meant less time to mingle! I brought two of my team and both were really impressed though some sessions of less value as they are both quite experienced in both marketing and development issues. May be an idea next year alongside the descriptions of sessions to state who they are most relevant to, and what level of knowledge assumed?
  • Both workshops were well targatted with information which was useful and relevant to me. They were managed well with a good combination of talk from the workshop leader and discussion from the group.
  • One of the strengths of IWMW is the opportunity to meet others and to network. With the shorter format, everything was rushed and there was less time to catch up with people.
  • This event is brilliant value for money, expecially compared to the eye-wateringly expensive events my colleagues in the Marketing department attend (eg CASE). My institution benefits hugely from my attending every year, because we are a small HEI and can't afford: (a) outside consultants to buy in expertise and new thinking, or (b) a big team to cover all the specialist areas related to the web. I especially value being able go the IWMW website to download presentations etc, when I get back.
  • Best conference hands down for Web folk in Institutions, not just managers.

Comments on Most Valuable Aspects

Responses to the question "State up to three aspects of the workshop which were most valuable" included:

  • The chats over dinner/drinks are the number one for me. Getting to meet clients and non clients and to compare and contrast subjects from a HE and non-HE perspective. Having the time to detach a little from the normal work day and focus in on learning.
  • networking
    open data
  • Networking. Interactive sessions.
  • Networking with peers. Discussion of topical issues. Chance to discuss issues with experts.
  • Networking with other institutional web managers
  • 1. Networking opportunities.
    2. Hearing what is happening across the sector.
  • Chance to connect with peers across the sector.
    Some really exceptional presentations - some of which I will be forwarding to colleagues across the institution.
    Parallel session really very good.
  • 1. The networking opportunities with contemporaries
    2. The chance to expand my knowledge
    3. The chance to meet with suppliers
  • informative topics, especially on social media, open data, statistics analysis, SEO
    use of social media: iwmw & iwmwlive twitter and iwmw11 blog are great tools and help in terms of connecting, catching up and following up.
    networking with other university guys, getting to know their situations and problems, and how they deal with them.
  • Live interaction
  • Both parallel sessions contained practical information that we can start using straight away.
  • Weideman's session was great - mix of academic and practical, touching on less techie roles.
    Conclusions also inspiring, bringing in so many examples. Will try to cascade in Denmark!
    Obviously, being able to dip in from afar is fantastic, and Adobe Connect does it all - shame it costs!!
  • Networking, sharing knowledge, and seeing what others are doing for benchmarking etc.
  • Analytics
    The great cookie debate
    Ampliyfing events
  • 1. Time to talk with web managers about what's on their minds
    2. Finding out about new technologies being employed by web managers, both from the exhibition and from plenary sessions
  • Meeting people; contagious enthusiasm for the projects, tools and themes; information gathered.
  • Networking and question time
    The BBQ
  • Lots about measuring impact.
    Focus on data was very interesting
    Always useful to network with new and existing contacts
  • Particularly enjoyed the Drupal and silos workshop sessions
  • Seeing what other institutions are up to
    Social aspects
  • Opportunity to network with other web teams
    Ideas on how to best promote my teams good work
    Real examples of best practice
  • 1. The opening and closing sessions were really informative about the general state, direction and interesting developments of universities.
    2. Parallel sessions were very useful.
    3. Evening BBQ (social event) was great for meeting and getting to know people from other universities.
  • Meeting others. Finding out what is being discussed in the HE community.
  • 1. The 'Web cooperative' session / workshop was really, really useful -lots of shared ideas, and a real toolkit I'm starting to implement already.
    2. The 'cookie finder' presentation in the wrap-up: brilliant way to present easily-findable data, but resulting in a really great product for the end-user, eg up-to-date menus and 'where to buy' mapping.
  • The mix of plenaries and parallel sessions that enable the presentation of subjects in the most appropriate manner. The networking opportunities that move the engagement in the community to a higher level and should not be undervalued.
  • 1) Opportunity to share my own work and gain invaluable feedback and insight in my parallel session (which is why I haven't voted on it's quality!)
    2) Opportunity to meet and connect with others in my field
    3) Opportunity to hear from insightful and interesting speakers - Dave Raggett and Paul Walk were particular highlights for me.
  • The parallel sessions were very good.
    the talks were great and the food from the bar was lovely.
  • The opportunity to meet like minded professional with similar roles and challenges in straitened times in invaluable.
  • Business case stuff from Ranjit - invaluable
    Search stuff from the 2 speakers
    Paul Walk stuff was a great insight into another world - unfortunately I had to leave before the end.
  • Meeting people you'd "met" over email and Twitter face to face rather than pixel to pixel.
  • Discussing shared experiences
  • Contacts, Mobile session with responsive web design and break to be out from the office to think about role with similar people without work actually stopping me.
  • - Networking, especially talking to specialists
    - Learning about new things and seeing other angles
    - Finding out that Reading is actually quite a nice place
  • - Cookies
    - Privace
    - About involving third year students to the web teams of the universities
  • a) the shorter conference - got more for the time invested. i find it hard to justify 3 days out of the office
    b) excellent plenaries
    c) practical parallel sessions
  • 1. List of free tools for social media (A7)
    2. How to present value to management types (P1)
    3. RAD tools to build AR apps (B1)
  • Really nice atmosphere with open conversations between delgates and exhibitors
  • Networking with other web folks.
    Seeing what others were doing with the web.
  • - The ability to hear from others
    - Align this with our institutions activity
  • Interaction, content and attendance
  • Open Q&A after plenaries
  • ability to network with others in the community
    excellent plenaries
    opportunity to share knowledge in workshops
  • 1. Chance to network with colleagues across HE
    2. Seeing what are the upcoming technologies that we need to be looking to ourselves
    3. Idea on work processes and organisation
  • 1 Meeting old contacts
    2 Meeting new contacts
    3 Martin Hamilton and Dave Raggett's plenaries
  • The content - The galvanizing effect of hearing someone speak who understands the specific concerns and ways of working in-house at a University can't be underestimated.
    The feeds - a poor substitute for actually being there, but a feel for what's happing and the conversations still comes through.
    The organisation - great work being done in pulling together blog posts, links, video, chat. Almost too much content - but can catch up in the next few weeks.
  • The variety of sessions on offer, and just the fact that it's all focussed on higher education
  • networking, parellell sessions,
  • Networking
    Benchmarking my knowledge of stuff
    How to overcome common issues such as senior management not understanding digital - shared with lots of attendees on this one!
    Hearing about jisc projects and general stuff to be aware of
  • Legal issues - made me aware of a few new points whilst putting things in a sensible perspective.
    Web cooperative - gave an insight into web teams at other institutions: there appears to be no fixed model of which roles make up a web team but we all seem to face the same pressures and issues.
  • Finding out more about legal issues and website search optimisation.
    Meeting T4 to discuss Site Manager issues.
    Making new contacts and strengethening existing ones.
  • 1) Keeping up with new developments
    2) Sharing ways of addressing common issues
    3) Networking with peers
  • Networking/ communications
    Current trends and reactions of other Universities to climate/ changes in web and sector

Comments on Aspects Which Could be Improved

Responses to the question "State up to three aspects of the workshop which were disappointing or could be improved" included:

  • I preferred the feel of the 3 day event so would like to see it return to that format. I know organisers were keen to take account of the current work / financial climate but for many people, given the location, the event was a 3-day one anyway and to a certain extent, cost is not a deciding factor as long as the event remains under 500 per person. I felt the catering was mediocre, especially the lunch - houmous & dips is not a very bright option with ~150 trying to get fed at once. Wireless access was an issue - this is a conference which will likely see in excess of 200 devices connected; the host institution MUST take account of this to ensure amplification and backchannel activity is as impactful as possible.
  • 1. Not enough time to network - all had to be done on the evening of the conference dinner / BBQ. Please revert back to the 3 day setup for future IWMW's
    2. No hot water in the accommodation on the Wednesday morning
  • No hot water in the showers and not very clean in the halls!
  • cold water
    seating in main auditorium was awful
  • 1. Expensive location to get to.
    2. We need more inspiring speakers please.
  • It felt rushed
  • Oh. it's really hard to find any!
    just keep up!
  • Very high number of sessions run in parallel - feel like I've missed out on some of the sessions
  • It was a shame that there was nothing on KIS, perhaps in future events there could be sessions left empty to accommodate last minute issues? Alternatively some sort of bar camp-style sessions so that attendees can deliver short sessions themselves?
  • Fully appreciate you are trying out different amplification styles and tools, and I am a completist myself, but the plethora of info sources can be confusing.
    Again, appreciate that for this community it is feasible to expect people to eg upload slides, but Lanyrd was still looking a bit thin last time I checked. Am v interested in the role of organiser - no doubt this is something you will work through in the toolkit.
    V picky point - Marieke did add the name of who was speaking in the conclusions session, but I wonder if there is a way of adding a caption to the video window with the name of the speaker/title of session?
  • Lecture theatre not designed for attendees with various laptops, tablets and so on - no where to put them but on your laps and lack of power outlets. Given the nature of the conference and the delegates attending then think that the sourcing of a venue which lends itself to these key aspects would be beneficial (increased comfort for delegates leaving them paying full attention to workshops).
  • Too early a start on day 2, given the (valuable) social/liquid networking the night before!
  • Everyone will say cold showers, I'm sure. I don't have much else in the way of disappointments.
  • No hot water in the morning!
  • I think having two evenings is better than just one night - felt there wasn't quite enough opportunity to socialise.
    Personally I liked the barcamp sessions from the last couple of years, though the closing session had something of that feel about it.
  • Only 2 days Didnt really enjoy the BBQ food (rest fine) I didnt feel that there was a great theme running through it all this year.
  • A 2 day format was a little on the intense side, as I preferred the 3 day format, but still good nonetheless
  • Showers were cold ;)
    The funnelback presentation felt like a sales pitch so I swtiched off quite quickly
  • 1. Some presentations could do with a little 'get your attention back on track' activity. (Especially after the long journey in / evening social event)
    2. Possibly have a social event which explores/highlights the area (Reading)
  • Some of the topics seemed a bit low level (SEO and social media) but maybe this reflects the sector at present.
  • 1. It's a pity the 'Personalization' session had to be cancelled from the original line-up, as that was one of the topics that had initially attracted me to this year's conference.
  • Food wasn't so good.
  • The shorter format may have reduced the cost slightly, but reduced, or removed, some of the elements of the workshop ( such as barcamps). It also meant that for some people the journey to the workshop had to start extremely early.
    I would prefer the traditional format for the workshop.
  • 1) I found the closing session quite frustrating - with a long journey ahead I would have appreciated something that felt more organised or briefer, it felt like there was filler as well as useful insights in there
    2) The timings and hot water issues (which paid showering slow and unpleasant) on day 2 meant I missed some of the very interesting opening session. I think better responsiveness to the tweets about the hot water and more sensible planning around timings here would have enhanced my enjoyment and engagement with day 2.
    3) I think the feedback form for the workshop sessions might have worked better online but I was pleased to be able to see my feedback and what people thought of my session.
  • 3 days would be better though as it was hard to meet up with everyone you know and have a good chat with them.
    Barcamps were missed.
    a hack event would be good.
  • Perhaps not quite enough break-out time and one long and inefficient queue for refreshments allowed even less time to circulate between sessions,
  • Tom Franklin and Amber Thomas a bit basic for me.
  • Dreadful sessions by Melius Weideman - made up rankings that were being torn apart by colleagues - presenting subjective choices as objective data.
    Get the first parallels in sooner, as this is when you start to talk with people that you don't already know.
  • "The food didn't seem to be as top quality as normal.
    There seemed to be a limited supply of hot beverages, and none over lunch.
    Drinking water was extremely limited. Since it was such a hot day I'd have expected an over-abundance of water to be available. However on the few occasions it was on the table, it was of a limited quantity and the catering staff needed to be encouraged to get some more out the back when the bottle on the table had run out."
  • A minor niggle, but sign posts or a sketch map of venues would have been useful
  • Maybe the option of other food i.e. not all carb based, but generally can't think of anything.
  • Some of the talks weren't especially inspiring. Some also seemed quite disconnected from HE, it'd be good to have a stronger grounding in University web specifically and some of the challenges facing HE.
  • - one night is not enough
    - having parallel sessions on badge like last year was really useful
  • - 3 days is better than 2
    - The first day was for more management while the second was more techy, I will mix it so it is more interesting.
  • 1. A reliable Internet connection - there were attempts to interact and encouragement to tweet and, in the end, I had to rely on the 3G on my phone as the wifi just wasn't stable another (it was stressful!)
    2. It was stated that Universities are often years behind the private sector in terms of our activities but rather than just play catch-up, how about pushing some more leading edge ideas to get us to the front?
    3. 2 hours without a drink is too long - dehydration = reduced capacity to concentrate
  • There were fewer people attending than I expected.
    The room for stands and refreshments wasn't great.
  • - The order of some of the sessions.
    - The range of sessions avaliable
  • Signage, or lack thereof. If one is from another campus and never been to Reading, it is daunting to find everything.
  • well the workshop I attended was not on the topic I actually expected but i think this was down to me not reading abstract carefully enough! Nevertheless i found the workshop really useful
  • 1. I thought the main venue in general was too hot and the seats were very uncomfortable especially when trying to balance a laptop on one's knees for an hour and a half at a time
    2. The guest internet access was poor
  • Personally I was expecting "webmasters" to be attending. Instead I found a mix of attendees that consisted of very few real webmasters. I was disappointed to find a large mix of "public sector" workers who seemed more concerned with making life as easy as possible rather than "changing the world" :-).
  • Seems that it's tricky to balance the needs of people who come wanting to pitch with the audience. My feeling is that the audience is tolerant if it's not too obvious or long winded.
  • I'd have appreciated more indication in the descriptions of the parallel sessions about how technical (or not) the session was going to be. I think the workshop should cater for a range of audiences, so it's fine if some optional sessions are pretty technical, but that needs to be made a bit clearer.
  • Some generic talks
  • Both could have been longer!
  • Wireless network access was very unreliable.
    Information about parallel sessions and their attendees could have been given the welcome pack, or put on display on the wall.
    No clear communication about where the accommodation or evening venue was located. Again, could have been given in the welcome pack.
  • I think some sessions would benefit from being more explicit about how to do things, including taking people through worked examples, rather than just talking about doing things in general terms (for example: measuring social media).

Additional Comments

The following responses were provided for the question "Please give any additional comments on the event including the administration, venue etc."

  • A big thank you to all of the organisers!! Keep it up! Don't let this event be a victim of the recession.
  • "I didn't read many blog posts arising from the event - was there liveblogging? Have to admit I haven't looked...
  • Would be good opportunity for attendees to engage in a "festival of blogging", maybe showcasing things they get up to locally and want to show off. This might even just arise from a commitment to post comments on a series of round up blogposts? eg I pulled together a couple examples of campus maps If folk contributed links to anything innovative they're doing, with a brief explanation why its innovative, or as same ilk as something covered in the review, it would give Brian a batchload of ""free"" sector survey results for different themes?"
  • The venue was good and I found staff in Palmer Building very helpful. As a non eduroam user, the wireless was a little unreliable. I think having a three day / two evening event would allow for travel outside the campus and see a bit of the surrounding area (mentioned in the closing session). More involvement by the host Uni would have been nice. I love the reduction in paper also.
  • The UKOLN and local event team once again provided what I consider to be the premier personal and professional development event for me and my team. Long may it continue.
  • Nothing to add - administration was great. Thanks to Brian, Marike and the rest of the organising team. Ace, as usual.
  • Very nice halls of residence
  • "The main auditorium was painfully uncomfortable.
    The cold water issue was a bit annoying
    The campus was very pleasant.
    The workshop dinner was a bit too informal and could have been more of an 'event'"
  • "The adninistration was excellent. I am indebted to Michelle from the Events team who helped locate and get my iPhone returned to me - after I mistakenly left it in the black cab that took me from Reading Station to the University.
    The wifi at the venue worked well and generally the venue was a good choice."
  • "Administration: friendly hosts
    Venue: nice location and accommodation. I really enjoy living in the students' accommodation. It reminds me of good old times. Much much better than hotels."
  • Detailed maps of the venue would be a benefit, spend a lot of time meandering around due to the poor signage
  • Brilliantly organised, well done!
  • "As always, very good administration. Although this year I found the lack of signposting to the Palmer building meant it was difficult to find. Ditto for finding the way to the bar! At Essex there were signposts from the car park and between buildings, I think. I think the lunch worked better on the 2nd day when there were 2 tables for queue for food.
    Re the 2/3 day issue, I think I'd prefer it to stay as a 2 day event. There's just to much to take in if it were three days as well as it being a long time to be away from the office. Perhaps for those coming from further afield you could put on accommodation the night before registration and organise an event out in the local town for those who want to see the local area."
  • Loved the espresso bar next door!
  • A very well run workshop, and I hope we'll be able to deliver a session (maybe even a plenary if the theme's right!) next year too. A big thanks from us.
  • I had to go back and remind myself which speaker went with each topic in the grid at the top of this form - if you'd had visibility, embedding etc I'd have been able to answer instantly. Otherwise I thought the surrounding stuff - booking, emails, invoicing, lanyrd - all went very smoothly. Wifi in the venue not so much.
  • "Dear University of Reading,
    How, in a brand new building, did you not have enough hot water for the showers.
  • Admin excellent as usual. Venue great. Accommodation lacking hot water - but you know that already!
  • I think we should be compensated for the cold showers somehow! Apart from this, possibly needed better signage to places, didn't know where the Blue Room was and wasn't entirely sure where to go for breakfast. Was a lovely place though, really enjoyed it.
  • The administrations was, as always, fantastic. Shame about the cold water.
  • "Having all the sessions in one building was convenient. I also thought the BBQ was a success - having a less formal dinner than on previous conferences made networking and socialising easy.
    Have to say that signage on Reading's campus was pretty terrible, though! And it was a shame Eduroam didn't extend to the accommodation.
    Finally, although a majority expressed a preference for a 3 day event, I think having just 2 days was a benefit. On previous conferences I've been flagging by the third day (not just due to the booze, either), and if this year's had lasted 3 days I definitley wouldn't have been able to justify the time away from work. I suggest offering the flexibility to register for individual days, perhaps?"
  • Administration was up to it's usual high standard, and was appreciated by everyone.
  • "I enjoyed the event overall and would happily attend again in a similar role - as facilitator, speaker, or similar. I am not sure I took away enough from the day to attend only to listen and take part in the workshops but, as I have already said, I am not really the core target audience for this event.
    I thought the accommodation was excellent the first night but it was hard to overlook the lack of hot water on day two and that was a shame. I thought it was strange that there was no wifi in such modern halls although I was delighted to have access to proper broadband and this helped me keep up with work in the evenings. I was also able to liveblog thanks to Eduroam. I would have much preferred more comfortable seats in the theatre though - I arrived home with rather bruised knees from the seats in front! I really appreciated the availability of extension cords in the main theatre and thought that all of the amplifyers did a great job of managing the online and remote experience of IWMW. "
  • "Fantastic location. 100% excellent.
    Well done !!!"
  • "A lovely-looking campus with poor signage. Accommodation clean and comfortable but noisy fan in bedroom and cold water evening and morning. All reported on their feedback form.
    Lecture theatre old fashioned and not very comfortable fro lengthy plenaries. Breakout rooms a little tatty."
  • Aside from the cold shower it would've been nice to have breakfast earlier than 8pm. The rest was all wonderful.
  • "No hot water in showers - brrr
    Queues for food / tea too long - needed more service points"
  • Cold showers? I hope someone told FM, if the building can't handle a few conference attendee's how will it handle be full of students?!
  • "Although you decreased the cost of the event by decreasing the number of nights I felt most missed out on a lot.
    no 2nd night to look at museums etc then go out socialising/networking in local area.
    Those like me that just stayed one night had 2 very long days 4am -10-15pm so relistically I should've travelled down the day prior which would have increased the cost back to what it was.and I would've still go home at 10-15pm without the lunchtime'ish finish.
    v.little breakfast left by 8-30"
  • Seemed all fine to me.
  • Venue was good, beds were comfortable and rooms were larger than average. Food was fine and plenty of it.
  • "Nice campus uni. Nice bedrooms
    Wasn't sure about the exhibition area - it was just a corridor. I'd be surprised if the exhibitors were happy with the footfall on their stands. It wasn't very inviting and I preferred to spend my breaks outside!"
  • "The wireless Internet was unreliable.
    There was no hot water in the rooms.
    When I went for lunch, I asked the caterers if there were special meals and they said ""no"" only for them to appear 20 minutes later on the table after I've already filled myself up on the bread and fruit."
  • "- Check-in and the enquiries process was excellent.
    - Locations of rooms, and BBQ could have been more clearly marked on the map.
    - Poor Wi-Fi connectivity in the main hall, during sessions."
  • It would be good to get a greater opportunity to network among delegates. The schedule was very packed out and did not leave as much time to network as I had hoped. If there was the option for one to one meetings or more time to talk/socialise
  • couple of small glitches with accommodation but catering was good and the event was organized extremely professionally.
  • "1. I thought the main venue in general was too hot and the seats were very uncomfortable especially when trying to balance a laptop on one's knees for an hour and a half at a time
    2. The guest internet access was poor"
  • The above seems harsh but isn't intended to be. The organisation was top notch and pitched just right as far I'm concerned. The online work beforehand was impressive (just don't forget there's only so much people can read while having to work :-). Well done to all.
  • "The (non-eduroam) wifi was useless, had to login a number of times and it kept dropping out. Paid for 3G data on the second day instead.
    I was not impressed that there was no hot water in the Halls. "
  • Liked the venue. Would have been nice to have had the option of coffee/tea with lunch, but everything else was great.
  • Excellent. Room really nice (Lucky students!)
  • "Uni of Reading was a good venue - a few more signs to get to bbq would have helped. Definitely would be up for 3 days again."
  • I wasn't always sure where things were happening - for example the barbecue.
  • Reading campus was very nice and easy to get to.
  • "Can we get Tony Hirst to come next year? He is so great. His presentation (at the OU) on the perils of measuring social media was terrific."
  • Venue was better this year as all of breakout groups were in the same building/ close by

Comments on Range of Topics

Responses to the question "Please give your comments on the range of topics covered." included:

  • Very good
  • Every year I wonder what could possibly be covered the next year but you seem to bring together a range of topics and speakers that interest the majority.
  • The range of topics felt well balanced. Not all were high on my priority list, but the discussion around the event balances this very well.
  • A good range of topics - well balanced to cover the different facets of institutional web management.
  • I dislike sales pitches in presentations.
  • very good and relevant
  • "The parallel sessions were excellent.
    Ranjit was his usual excellent self
    Some of the plenaries were less relevant to my role but that is to be expected since the workshop has to cover a wide audience of skills"
  • "social media (Nicola Osborne's A7 session) I do not have a chance to attend this session, but her Prezi slides give a lot of information and tips on this topic which I could learn from.
  • Linked data: Christopher and Dave have cleared up all the questions in my mind about this topic. I now have a better understanding on linked data, open data and RDF. Looking forward to practicals.
  • Statistics and SEO are something I know and sometime slipped from my hands. The talks re-enforced my understanding and implementation."
  • Very satisfied, most topics are cutting-edge and up-t-date
  • There was a good range of content and technical sessions. It would've been nice to have more opportunities to find out what happened at other parallel sessions.
  • I feel that many of the topics covered in the parallel sessions were probably applicable to the majority of the audience and therefore better suited to being plenaries. I'm not sure how the decision is made on which is more appropriate - perhaps it's whether audience participation is needed, which is more difficult in a plenary. I found it extremely difficult to choose between the A parallel sessions, and found some plenaries a bit 'niche' for my role and level of expertise. As slides are available from all parallels it's not a massive issue, but perhaps I would have found the whole event more useful if some of the plenaries were actually parallel sessions and vice versa.
  • Excellent range of topics. Attended at Aberdeen 2 years ago and have to admit attention did wander a bit but I was fully engaged with all the plenaries and parallel sessions.
  • A good mix of technical, organisational and strategy topics covered. A big strength is that most speakers come from within the community, so are aware of context and reality.
  • It was good. There could have been more about copy, perhaps; the Weideman speech talked about the value of getting a copywriter in for the microcopy elements. I can see that the technical prevalence probably reflected the interests of most of the room, but I'm very much a writer who's learned about web technology than the other way round.
  • "Interesting range and would have liked to have gone to more workshop sessions.
    Plenaries were interesting but not stunning and didnt feel greatly inspired by them."
  • A good range of topics for me
  • Was good range, there were two sessions on the second day would have liked to attend.
  • Really good range. It felt a little less techie than previous workshops.
  • All the plenary speakers were good, I got something out of all of them. I often find it hard to judge how relevant a speaker will be to my role / team (these day's I'm primarily a designer) from the session title alone, but this year they all exceeded my expectations. There was nothing too techy that I couldn't follow it, or at least see a practical application for.
  • Good range of topis at different levels and in different areas, but none were such that they did not have relevance across the sector.
  • "I think there was some tension between demand for technical/specific content and the very general. However the blend, especially depending on selected parallel sessions, was pretty good and interesting. I don't feel I am the core target audience for this event though and attend many specialist events in my field so there were some sessions where I know I did not get as much value from the sessions as I could have.
    As I attended the UKOLN event on metrics and impact I found Amber and Ranjit's sessions mostly very familiar material and that's a shame, I like to see something new from speakers if they are speaking at events with likely similar audiences.
  • I felt David Hawkings and Ranjits talks did blur into product demos. Personally this isn't as appealing as more generally applicable topics. "
  • a great range of interesting topics.
  • a good and relevant range
  • See above - practical and focussed.
  • Too much on search and search engines in lieu of information architecture and design
  • The topics covered a suitable range.
  • Thought a couple were edging closer to sales pitches, would rather have heard from people who are doing something within their teams that is pushing the boundaries a little more.
  • Good range, v interesting.
  • I found the plenary talks a little too management-oriented (on the first day) - I enjoyed the second day's talks more.
  • Really relevant and useful
  • A fantastically wide range of topics from marketing to technical.
  • Relevant and topical.
  • It is quite heavily IT focused it would be good to get a greater marketing perspective
  • very good range of topics
  • Interesting. Would liked to have spent more time to try more of the parallel sessions
  • Good. However the commercial parties presenting seemed bereft of real "products" or even methods or recommendations that could be deployed and used widely in HE. Instead we got examples of what they could do -- bespoke paid for development --- no different from thousands of other small companies. The "special" that comes from demonstrating something that everyone could do (as in Martin's marvellous presentation) was missing.
  • Pretty good. My particular interest would be how design is valued and baked in to web development. Would love to see/do some work to better understand how/where we are going wrong and how to learn from others.
  • I found the parallel sessions most useful. I found it difficult to choose between some of them because there were a number I would have liked to attend.
  • "Was hoping for more 'case studies' or 'how we did this' possibly on AV stuff, with range of digital services the teams are delivering just getting wider all the time. Hoping to catch up on sessions I didn't attend. Would have liked a KIS session."
  • Useful range of topics
  • Topics were more applicable and relevant than at previous IWMW
  • It was a good range. Although I am a Marketing/Communications/Content person and struggle to understand some of the techie presentations I'm always glad to have sat through them. (eg Chris Gutteridge from Southampton Uni on Open data was fantastic; what an exciting new development).
  • Can not fault