The events were a chance for users to get involved and see and hear about our plans for content consultation and output delivery.

After an introduction, the itinerary for each event covered topics such as:

01 Output Strategy
03 Dissemination Plans and a Proof of Concept demonstration
04 Disclosure Control
05 Output Geography
06 Output Content
07 Future Consultation

At the shows we got the chance to hear some initial feedback and questions from uers, and we are always happy to hear more, or from anyone who was unable to attend an event.

Whether you attended an event or not, but have more questions or want to provide more feedback (either about the events or the topics covered), then please add comments below or head over to the forum and add to, or start a new thread in, the 2009 Roadshow category.

by ONS_Brendan

Topics that will be covered included:

• Output strategy
• Disclosure control methods
• Dissemination plans
• Output geographies
• Output content
• Future consultation procedures on outputs

The dates and venues for the events are:

Tuesday 13 October - London
Civil Service Club, 13-15 Great Scotland Yard, London SW1A 2HJ

Wednesday 14 October - Wales
Cardiff Marriott Hotel, Mill Lane, Cardiff, Wales CF10 1EX

Monday 19 October - Gateshead
Newcastle Marriott Metrocentre, Marconi Way, Gateshead NE11 9XF

Tuesday 20 October - Manchester
Manchester Malmaison, 1-3 Piccadilly, Manchester M1 1LZ

Wednesday 21 October - London
Civil Service Club, 13-15 Great Scotland Yard, London SW1

Thursday 22 October - Leicester
Marriot Hotel, Smith Way, Grovepark, Enderby, LE19 1SW

Places at each event are limited, so if you wish to attend, please complete and return the registration form to ku.vog.isg.sno|secivresremotsuc.susnec#ku.vog.isg.sno|secivresremotsuc.susnec as soon as possible, and by no later than 2 October.

For more information about the events please email: ku.vog.isg.sno|secivresremotsuc.susnec#ku.vog.isg.sno|secivresremotsuc.susnec

To ask questions, or raise or continue discussion points about issues covered or missed in the events, talk about them in the dedicated roadshow section of the forum.

Future consultation
Following the launch events, there will be opportunities to get involved in more direct consultation on specific topics, such as specifying the statisitcal outputs to be published and defining their geographies.

These further consultation exercises will run from November 2009 through to the middle of 2010. Since the launch events have limited capacity, users unable to take part will be invited to attend subsequent rounds of consultation.

Give us your views
Consultation includes specific arrangements for you to submit comments for review and further discussion. However, we always welcome any feedback, which you can leave as comments below, or in forum. Census Customer Services also welcome comments on any aspect of the census at any time from individuals, communities, user groups and organisations. These will be considered and responded to by the relevant specialists.

by ONS_Brendan

If you could not attend a meeting, or if there are issues or questions relating to 2011 Output that were not raised at a meeting you did attend, then please let us know by adding comments below.

We are also keen to see contributions and comments added to the wiki section. Two sub sections are beginning to be developed, one covering 2011 output influencing methodology issues, and one specifically for comparing 2011 and 2001 census data. As content is added, please comment and have your say, or just join in and add your own content.

Finally, we are interested in hearing about any experiences you have with new or innovative uses of 2001 Census data, or plans for 2011. This might be products or applications you have either developed or just found useful. If any are online, then let us know the web address, and we will compile a listing in the wiki.

by ONS_Brendan

The first paper 2011 Census Output Plans is downloadable as a pdf file and covers

• the current census portfolio and services
• the needs of different user communities
• strategic aims for 2011 output
• key milestones, and the following key decisions points

The second paper 2011 Census Geographies (England and Wales) is also downloadable as a pdf file and covers an overview of 2001 output geography and outlines plans and proposals for 2011 including

• administrative boundary changes
• proposals for producing Workplace Zones
• updates from 2007 consultation
• sub-optimal Output Areas
• plans for Further consultation

Both papers can be downloaded using the links above or viewed on the National Statistics website in the Advisory Group papers section.

by ONS_Brendan

We now need to get some detailed feedback and opinion about the form and level of 2001/2001 comparisons you want to see as part of 2011 output.

We are now beginning work on assessing the comparability of intercensal data and the factors and issues that must be considered and overcome in order to allow users to access and make the most effective use of intercensal comparisons.

So, this is your chance to let us know your concerns and needs at an early stage, and really influence the direction of development and the form and content of comparable data delivery.

Some specific areas we are keen to have your views about are:

• Do you want to see intercensal change counts in significant volume (excluding the sort of simple total population change figures in 2001 output) included in an integrated form within tables as part of standard 2011 output? If so, to what extent - what sort of variables and to what level of geographical detail?

• Perhaps you would prefer not to have 2011 tables 'muddied' with the inclusion of change data, but instead will want to be able to access data via a system (perhaps web based) that lets you select some 2011 data and then select some 2001 data, and then perform a comparison?

• How will you approach comparing data from 2001 and 2011?

1. Will you want to view 2011 data for 2011 geographical areas, and then see what has changed by projecting forward 2001 data and comparing?
2. Will you want to view 2001 data for 2001 geography, and then see how 2011 figures compare when can are cast back to 2001 areas?
3. Will you want to do both, or something else?

• What range and depth of standard geography do you want to see comparable data for?

• What type of variables to you want to be able to compare, and to what depth of classification?

• Greater volume and granularity of geography and classification may introduce disclosure issues, and certainly the integrity of comparability will be effected. Where this, or the effect of differences in methodology, definitions, and classifications becomes so great that the integrity of comparability is degraded too much, and exact comparisons are not possible, would you want to see some form of 'indicator of change' available instead? If so, what from might this take?

But, we are not just interested in answers to these questions. So if you have any others views about intercensal data comparability, let us know.

by ONS_Brendan

If so, then head here to find details and direct links to the feeds we have available.

If not, then read on to find out all about RSS feeds - what they are, how you can subscribe to and view them, and which standard RSS feeds are available from the Census consultation site.

What is RSS?

RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication.

RSS is a common web feed format used to publish web content in a standard format. Feeds are typically used for content that is updated frequently, such as blogs, news headlines, or forum contributions.

An RSS feed includes full or summarized text, as well as metadata such as publishing date or authorship details, but without necessarily included full rich formatting.

What can I do with RSS feeds?

RSS feeds let the producers of web content syndicate the content to users automatically - letting them know when website content changes are available, and making them instantly viewable.

Content changes can be when something has been added, something has been deleted, something has been edited, or when someone has written a page comment, etc. Instead of opening a website or frequently to check if there's something new, RSS feeds check automatically per given time interval, collect the updates, and make them available to view.

Users can subscribe to feeds from all of their favourite websites to receive timely updates, and can collect many different feeds together to access updates from all the sites in one convenient place.

How do I use RSS?

Users can subscribe to and view feed content using software called an 'RSS reader' - also commonly referred to as a 'feed reader', or 'aggregator'. There are many popular aggregators available which can be used to access feeds on a computer, a number of which are web based and require no download or installation, Many applications also allow feeds to be viewed in other ways, such as on mobile devices. Becuase RSS is based on a standardized XML file format, the information is published once but can be viewed by many different programs and platforms.

Once you have chosen an aggregator, you can go to a website you would like to monitor for change and look for the link or icon that will indicate it has RRS feeds available. Most sites that support RSS will make this obvious by using the RSS logo

This will provide the URL details which you can either enter into your aggregator to subscribe to the feed, or click on in a browser that initiates the subscription process.

Once subscrived, the RSS aggregator will check the subscribed feeds regularly for new work, download any updates that it finds, and provides a user interface to monitor and read the feeds.

What feeds are available on this site?

We provide a number of RSS feeds that can help to you keep informed about changes to the site. There are separate feeds for all additions and changes to pages on the site, one just giving updates for the blog, one feed with all comments and page discussions, and one with all new posts in the forum.

The feed details you can use in your preferred feed aggregator are on our RSS page along with direct links to the add the feeds to a selection of the most common aggregators.

Each of our feeds can be customised or extended, to provide for example, updates just to certain page categories (such as the wiki or glossary), updates to pages with specific tags, just new forum threads, or new forum posts within specific threads.

So, if you like using RSS feeds, and would like short cuts to other custom feeds, let us know.

by ONS_Brendan

Over time, efforts were made to begin expanding upon presentation of the pure 'Census in numbers'. This was seen through select online commentary and the series of 'Focus on' reports.

Select Census statistics continued to feature in non-Census specific ONS articles and publications, and the overall richness and value of the Census data was also exploited and demonstrated via third party products.

The online output questionnaire asked users for their views about the need for commentary to support the data for the 2011 Census, asking:

Question Is it important for your work that the Census Offices produce reports which provide analysis and commentary on 2011 Census statistics or are the tables of counts sufficient?

Around half of respondents say that it is important for the Census offices to produce reports which provide analysis and commentary in addition to the census tables, with the other half saying that just the tables of pure counts would be sufficient to meet their needs.

Members of the public, local government, academics and health sector users are more or less evenly split on this issue.

Central government, regional government and the commercial sector are the most likely to say tables of counts on their own will be sufficient.

Third sector users are the most likely to need added analysis and commentary.

If you want commentary, then what commentary do you want?

In the questionnaire, the respondents who want analysis and commentary on census tables were asked which census topics they will most like to see this added analysis for.

The topics most commonly selected are:

• Demographics (70 per cent)
• Households and families (60 per cent)
• Migration (60 per cent)
• Employment and workplace (58 per cent)

Do you want to see added commentary and analysis integrated in with the Census tabular data? If so, then are these broad topics similar to your own needs?

If not then which are?

Either way, perhaps we can move beyond broad topic listings, and hear some specific views about requirements in terms of detailed topic and theme, but also structure, timing and how integrated in with the data these should be.

Perhaps you have used excellent examples of 3rd party products in the past and feel that these will suffice in the future, or perhaps you just have examples of things we should all be considering.

We want to hear all views, so let us know.

by ONS_Brendan

This should primarily mean a substantially improved and revised web dissemination package designed to expand

• the volume and depth of data available
• the ease of access and breadth of the audience to which data is served
• the functionality present
• and the overall utility of the data.

There should still be a large role to play for hard digital media, either as discrete dissemination packages or simple delivery media.

But, is there still a role for the last legacy media option - printed results? And if so, how big should this role be?

The online output questionnaire asked

Question How important is it for the Census Offices to produce printed reports of 2011 pre-defined tables in addition to making tables available electronically ?

Table 14.1: Importance of printed reports of pre-defined tables

Making census tables available as printed reports in addition to making them available electronically was not important to two-thirds of respondents. The overall low average rating of 2.18 perhaps reflects the increasing acceptability of online and digital media by wider audiences in general.

For census users, respondents from the Third sector and members of the public were most likely to exhibit an opinion counter to this by saying that it is important or very important to have printed reports.

So, what uses will be made of printed reports beyond archival or library purposes? Are they still important to a wider audience than the questionnaire results suggest?

Are there perhaps one or two key or essential legacy census products that you see as must haves in a printed form for 2011?

If so, let us know.

by ONS_Brendan

Reflecting on 2001 metadata
As we discussed previously the most commonly used 2001 metadata product was the Definitions Volume. Questionnaire respondents were asked whether it would be sufficient to produce an electronic only version of this for 2011, or if there was also a need for a printed version.

The majority of respondents (75 per cent) said that an electronic version would be sufficient.

Of the quarter who said they also need a printed version, the highest proportion was among users in the public sector (36 per cent) and third sector (48 per cent).

Table 13.1

Potential 2011 metadata products

Ad hoc feedback from users of 2001 data has included thoughts and opinions relating to the range of 2001 metadata products. This feedback was used as a base for questions in the output questionnaire - providing a range of options for users to express a preference for or comment on in the question

Question In addition to the types of metadata produced for 2001 Census outputs listed previously, the following metadata products have been suggested by users for 2011 outputs.

a) How useful would you find the following ? (Options: Very useful, of some use, not useful)

Table 13.2

b) What level of priority would you give to each ? (Options: high, medium, low)

Table 13.3

If some or all of these metadata options are pursued as components of the overall 2011 metadata strategy, they could be either stand-alone products or form parts of a unified complete package, and some elements may be used in a higher level 'Guide to Census data'. We discussed such a possible guide in an earlier post where users were asked to contribute thoughts and ideas about what should be included in a guide.

Linking statistical data with metadata

The online questionnaire sought user opinion of how important it is to join up the data and the metadata from the 2011 Census, both in terms of timing of release and embedding one with the other.

Question How important is it that 2011 Census metadata are "tied up with/linked to" 2011 statistical output in terms of

(a) timing (having associated metadata published at the same time as statistical output)

(b) embedding (having associated metadata joined with statistical output as one product)

(Answer options: Important - as long as no delay to results, Not important, Important even if means delay to results)

In terms of timing, tying up the two was important to the majority of respondents, 70 per cent, but not at the expense of any possible delay to publication of results. 15 per cent of respondents felt it was important enough to accept delays, and 15 per cent felt it was not important at all.

For 62 per cent of respondents it is important to go further and “embed” metadata with statistical output, but again with the caveat that only if this means no delay to the publication of results. 26 per cent do not attach this caveat, and 12 per cent feel linking the two is not important.

So, do these results match your own views? Do you have more specific or detailed views about these aspects of metadata, particularly timing? Or maybe there are other issues relating to metdata you want to discuss? If so, let us know.

by ONS_Brendan

These changes have been made to make it easier for users to edit, track and add to content in the wiki and other pages, and to know instantly what pages, page comments, and forum posts have been added or updated recently.

The homepage now features a simplified summary of site updates, and also includes a short introduction section from the latest blog post. There is also a new links box providing quick access to pages which

• summarise pages that need author contribution
• let users submit their requests for new page or sections, and view older requests
• let users report site technical issues or bugs
• let users report page errors, typos or other errors that need correction.

There is also a new second tab on the main homepage section which now contains all of the site update summaries in a simplified version.

Every wiki page, and a number of other pages throughout the site now have quick access buttons that let you edit the page, view the page edit history, edit the page tags, and print the page.

Hopefully these small changes will make the site slightly easier to navigate and contribute to. Let us know what you think, and how else we can improve things.

by ONS_Brendan

However, a small number of questions did allow for more open form user entered answers or comments. So, from time to time we will select one or two to talk about here as a basis for further discussion, and ask for more feedback and comment.

We'll start by taking a look at the question which asked

Question Are there any other output products that could be produced for 2011 that you would find particularly useful and why ?

A sample response to this open question was

"A simple guide to everything available" which would let you "… know at a glance everything that is available".

Thinking about this, let's extend it a little, and ask what might be included in some form of "Guide to using Census data".

No guide as such is planned yet, but if it is produced it might be something similar to a refined version of the 2001 Census Output Prospectus - a high level guide produced at the start of the output release phase, to be supported later by a richer definitions volume.

It would be defined in advance in conjunction with users to include the things users most want to see. Perhaps a guide which not only introduces the data available, but also the product content, the release media, the planned timetable for release, and a suitable amount of high level information covering some background to the output development, the changes from previous censuses, how to use the products and data, and links to more detailed or technical information.

Considering the form and content, some useful questions to ask might me:

1 Is a guide to the Census output - with information covering such things as the schedule for releases, products, results, data, metadata, changes between censuses, geography and other supporting information - a useful one stop shop that users will find useful and appealing?

2 If so, what form should it take? Some or all of - a series of dedicated webpages, a downloadable pdf or other file, a printed pocket book or catalogue, or something else?

3 What should a guide be? A simple catalogue (similar to the online catalogue for 2001) and release timetable? A catalogue with some supporting information and links to methodology? A slightly more rounded and comprehensive document which at least introduces all facets of Census output and the considerations needed when using it, with links to deeper technical data?should be included?

We have a page in the wiki where users can contribute their thoughts about a possible guide, and help develop an outline of content.

Initially this is just a very loose suggested contents list. If you have suggestions for amendment, then just copy the contents list into a new comment on that page, and edit to add or remove section or sub section headings you think are missing or unnecessary. Also include some notes about your edits, and what you think

by ONS_Brendan

Both posts considered user responses to questions from the questionnaire that asked about previous use of comparisons by users, and their expectations or needs for making and using comparisons between 2011 and 2001 Census data in the future.

The first post also included a quick and simple online questionnaire (with 3 checkbox and write in response sections) that asks users for a little extra or specific informed opinion.

So far we have received a number of user responses to the extra questions, but need more in order to gather significant data to form a representative opinion base.

Work towards the development of systems to allow users to access and make the most effective use of inter-censal comparisons will be progressing in the next few months. So, it is essential that we begin with as much user input and feedback as possible so that we can work towards designing a system that best serves user needs.

The questions are short and quick to complete, so we encourage you to spend a couple of minutes to join in and let us know your views.

The second post talked about a possible guide to inter-censal comparisons. This is an area we will return to soon in future posts where we discuss 2011 metadata requirements and plans, and how this might fit in to that overall package.

by ONS_Brendan

Here we'll look at even more 'joined-up' data - the idea of bringing together Census results with statistics from sources other than the Census.

After the 2001 Census a series of 'Focus on' reports were produced. Each 'Focus on' report concentrates on a particular topic or theme such as Families. Each provides an overview that combines data from various sources, including the 2001 Census, to illustrate it's topic, and also provides links to further information.

Just under a quarter of users who answered the online questionnaire said they had made use of one or more of the 'Focus on' reports, so this shows at least a modest level of user need or interest in combined source statistics.

These reports were something of a first step into the area of coherent joined up data. It is possible that their use was not more popular either because users were not aware of them, or the reports did not quite match their specific need. Interest in combined source data for users of 2011 Census data may therefore be higher than for 2001.

To address this, the online questionnaire attempted to gauge user expectations or needs for 'joined-up' statistics incorporating 2011 Census data.

Question How useful would you find it if Census data were linked to other sources of data by:

• providing links from Census tables and reports to other data sets and reports on the same topics
• bringing together Census and other data sources at a high geographical level (similar to Focus on reports)
• bringing together Census and other data sources at low geographical level (eg as in Neighbourhood Statistics (NeSS)).

(Options: Very useful, Of some use, Not useful)

62 per cent of respondents say that they think it will be very useful to have links from Census tables and reports to other datasets or reports on the same or similar topics. Of these, users from the Academic, Health and Local Government user groups were the most likely to say this facility would be very useful, but the broad pattern of user opinion was similar across all groups.

This pattern is also reflected in user opinions about how useful bringing together Census data with other data sources at low geographical levels, similar to the Neighbourhood Statistics Service (NeSS), will be. Here, 71 per cent of respondents say that they think it will be very useful and the groups most likely to say this were the Academic, Health and Local Government user groups.

40 per cent of users, said that it would be very useful to bring together Census and other data sources at a high geographical level (similar to 'Focus on' reports), and 48 per cent thought that this would be at least of some use.

Although lower than interest in joining up small area data, these values far exceed the proportion of users who have used the 'Focus on' reports from 2001. So, it seems that users at least see the potential in this form of joined-up output, but perhaps feel that the potential has not yet been realized enough to exploit many of the benefits.

If you have specific views in this area, including more detailed ideas and requirements for how output similar to 'Focus on' reports might be extended or improved upon, then please let us known my commenting here or posting in the forum. Alternatively let us know if you disagree or have views about other forms of such joined-up data. Many more users seem interested in joining up data at lower levels, so again we are interested in any further thoughts or requirements.

by ONS_Brendan

Traditional output models have been based purely on a fixed output approach that collects certain variables into predefined packages. Continuing developments see a transition to incorporate a larger degree of user defined flexible output that lets users select and package the precise data that they want, in the way that they want, from given sets of variables often held in cubes.

Plans for the overall dissemination model for 2011, and any role that flexible output may play, are still in development. The degree and shape of user interest, and other crucial factors such as disclosure control, will play a critical role in the precise form of the planning. To help begin to gather information to inform this, the online output questionnaire sought to gauge a level of user interest in such developments by asking:

Question Thinking about a 2011 Census Web dissemination system, how useful would you find, and what level of priority (high, medium, low) would you give the facility to create user defined tables from given sets of variables?

Table 11.1: Usefulness of the facility to create user defined tables

Table 11.2: Priority of the facility to create user defined tables

94 per cent of users responding say that user defined flexible output will be either 'very useful' or 'of some use', and just over half the total think that this should be a high priority. There is little variation in views across the different groups of Census users, so clearly there is a positive, widespread and consistent opinion of, at the very least, the potential offered by flexible output.

But, as a user, are you willing to see some form of reduction or difference in the scope and depth of standard output in order to benefit from a user defined flexible table construction facility?

While it theory it may be desirable to serve the complete cross section of the user community by delivering results from the 2011 Census in all combinations and flavours, there may inevitably be some degree of compromise or trade off required in any balance struck between the degree of fixed core output vs. flexible user defined output.

The questionnaire asked two further questions designed to capture user views of any balance and compromises associated with a fixed vs flexible output model.

Question Some National Statistics Institutes are moving towards providing more flexibility in their Census (and other statistical) outputs by providing users with the facility to generate their own user defined tables and producing less pre-planned output. Which of the following would you prefer ?

Table 11.3: Predefined tables or flexible output

Almost two thirds of respondents said they would prefer to have a smaller set of pre-defined tables supplemented with a facility to create their own tables from data cubes. A quarter would prefer that the status quo is maintained, i.e. a set of 2011 pre-defined table’s equivalent in scope and quantity to those produced from the 2001 Census.

The question allowed for a write in response is users chose the 'other' option. Here, users took the opportunity to either express the view that they wanted both the wide set of predefined tables analogous to 2001 output AND a full functional flexible facility, or to emphasize the need to ensure that any flexible output functionality is as simple to use and easy to understand as possible.

One issue that the questionnaire did not raise, and one that can probably only be addressed through wider discussion, is the impact that a reduction in standard core output will have in making 2011 data as comparable as possible with that from 2001. While all required 2011 tables needed for full comparisons to be made may be derived using flexible functionality, this may not be immediately obvious to all users, and certainly may not be as quick and easy to implement at the user end. If any users have strong opinions in this area then we would like to here them.

Question In general, where would you prefer the balance to be struck between pre-planned tables and flexible user defined output?

Table 11.4: The balance between pre-planned tables and flexible user defined output

In general, when asked where the balance should be struck between pre-planned tables and flexible user outputs, the scales were tipped towards flexibility, with a sizable minority (40 per cent) expressing a preference in neither direction.

Table 11.5: The balance between pre-planned tables and flexible user defined output, by user group

User opinions show little variation when broken down by user group, with all sectors showing only a small deviation from the overall average balance rating of 2.65.

As we noted at the beginning, this is an area undergoing continuing developments. As each statistics organisations begins to disseminate data from the current era of censuses, we have and will continue to see, new functionality and features appear in each implementation.

If you who have already used one or more flexible user driven dissemination tools, we would encourage you to share and discuss your experiences of what is out there - sharing views of best and worst practice, perhaps with attention not only to the range of data and functionality included, but also how the system works in practice - how easy it is to understand, learn and use.

by ONS_Brendan

We raised some questions about the which might be preferred - a single or multiple access points - and noted some high level benefits and drawbacks of each: question of whether multiple access points are

• multiple access points - not as constrained as a single access route that might represent a compromise or trade off in functionality/usability - each route better able to demonstrate functionality tailored to specific datasets and so able to offer as broad a range of features and functionality as possible, to suit differing requirements

• single access point - collects all data and supporting metadata in one convenient place which helps to minimise misunderstanding and the time and effort needed to learn and use each system, and might help to find additional or related data or information - but might not be able to include enhanced functionality to better exploit specific datasets.

When we say 'a single point of access', this could be a single point for each country and / or a single point for the UK as a whole. The online questionnaire asked questions to gauge user opinion about both of these options.

The questionnaire asked

Question Is it important to have one access point to all 2011 Census data for each individual Census office (e.g. all England and Wales census data available from one access point)? Rank 1 to 5, 1 being 'Not at all important' and 5 being 'Very important'.

Table 10.1

The results show a clear and strong desire for single access points among all user groups regardless of which country's data they use. The average ranking given is almost 4, and in all classes the majority of users rank the need for single access points as either 'high' or 'very high'.

A slightly higher dgeree of importance is expressed by users who use data from more than one Census office compared to a single office, which is perhaps to be expected as users who already need data from multiple countries will prefer to source that data from only a single source in each country.

The questionnaire explored the need by users for data that is even more 'joined-up' by asking

Question Is it important to have one access point to all 2011 Census data for the UK? Rank 1 to 5, 1 being 'Not at all important' and 5 being 'Very important'.

Table 10.2

Chart 10.1 Average ranking of importance of single access points

Click here to view full size chart

Chart 10.2 Ranking of importance of single access points

Click here to view full size chart

Here we see some small but interesting differences emerging among the different user groups.

In each group, average rankings indicate that the need expressed by users for a single access point from which to source UK wide data is lower among every user group than the corresponding need for data sourced from a single point for each country individually.

This is largely to be expected - the user groups who only use data from one country should not, in general, be too concerned with a single access point for UK wide data. It might therefore be somewhat surprising that the average rankings for a single UK access point are quite so high as they are, particularly for England and Wales, where almost 50 per cent rank the importance as 'high' or 'very high'.

Unlike the results for single access points for each country, where the average rankings were fairly similar across user group, here we see a more noticeable difference for users of Scottish data, where the average ranking is significantly lower, and only a quarter of users rate the importance as 'high' or 'very high'.

How do these results compare to your own thoughts about single points of access?

A common entry point for accessing data is clearly desirable, but are there systems and services out there that include functionality to offer better presentation and manipulation that is significant enough to justify alternate routes for specific or more complex datasets?

Let us know what you think.

by ONS_Brendan

We gave a brief introductory overview of these results in the first results blog posting Profiling the respondents. Now, let's take a look at how users say that they access data in more detail.

Question How/where did you access these 2001 Census products? (Tick all that apply)

We'll look at the question results broken down by whether users made use of data from:

• a combination of the three Census offices
• just England and / or Wales
• just Scotland
• just Northern Ireland

A number of the options that were listed are online services which are all linked below:

Neighbourhood Statistics (NeSS)
NOMIS
National Statistics (NS) website
CASWEB
Web Interface to Census Interaction Data (WICID)
Scottish Census Results Online (SCROL)
Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics
GROS Website
Northern Ireland Neighbourhood Information Service (NINIS)
Northern Ireland Census Access (NICA)
NISRA website

Different users have tried and used some, none, or all of these services. For users who have used more than one service, we are interested in gathering your views of the user experience of similar or complimentary services.

If we look at results for users who use data from only one of the three Census offices, and compare the percentage use of a 'broadly' comparable service that provides that data, such as Neighbourhood statistics, we see that the proportion of use is similar.

This could be because these were the only means to get certain data in a certain format for each country, or that the services offered the best common features or functionality of those that serve this data.

We are interested in gathering user views of how such similar services compare and contrast:

• which services have the best features or functionality
• which services did you find the easiest or most useful to use
• which services have room for improvement
• what are the examples of the best features or services that you would like to see in the optimum online web service for providing 2011 Census data.

Let us have your views either here or in the forum.

If you have not used any of the services before, then we recommend you try some and see what you think - they may help to identify and express features and options that you want to see in a 2011 Census web system.

As the results above show, many users have taken advantage of the broad range of data access routes available, both for accessing a single county's data, and especially for the expanded choice of options for the 179 users who use data from multiple countries.

So, do you think the broad array of options is overall beneficial. Or, maybe you find the decentralization inconvenient, with the array of options too confusing, and the amount of time needed to learn how to use and exploit all of the different features too great?

Let us know what you think.

In the next blog post we will take a look at the results from the questionnaire which asked for user views about a single access route for each Census office, and a single point of access for the UK as a whole.

by ONS_Brendan

The ONS website contains a summary of

• the reviews made of 2001 Census SDC policy
• the completed initial stages of user consultation and research for SDC plans for the 2011 Census
• a timetable and plans for the ongoing process of research, consultation, reporting and communication, and selection of final SDC policy.

Knowledge of SDC
The online output questionnaire asked several questions relating to SDC, so, let’s start by considering what users mean by or understand as being SDC. The questionnaire asked ….

Question How do you rate your knowledge of SDC methods that could be applied to Census tables and their effects? (Tick one only)

At first glance this question seems to have produced some surprising results. A high proportion of respondents (23.5 per cent) indicated that they were not previously aware that SDC methodology of any kind was applied to Census data. A further 35 per cent indicated that, although they are aware that SDC is applied, and that it can be applied pre or post tabulation, or both, they do not have an understanding of the different types of SDC methodologies and the different effects each might have.

Only 15 per cent say that they have both a good understanding of SDC methods and the ability to take the effects of SDC into account in any analyses they conduct (given sufficient supplementary information).

We might expect individual user responses to be influenced by the user sector they are from, so if we look deeper, there may be some user sector bias influencing results and unbalancing the representation of the overall level of user SDC knowledge.

* Third sector - Community Group / Voluntary Sector and Charities

View full size chart

As we might expect, members of the public (no organisation) and users in the third sector are the most likely to say that they were not previously aware that SDC was applied to Census tables, (50 per cent and 44 per cent respectively).

Commercial, academic, central and regional government users are more confident, not only that they understand SDC methods, but that they can take SDC effects into account in their analyses. Generally, however, there appears to be as much variation in the levels of SDC knowledge within many of the user groups as across them.

SDC methodology
SDC methods are applied in order to ensure an acceptable level of data protection to meet either legal or policy requirements, and to foster public confidence by ensuring a degree of personal data confidentiality. However, SDC methods differ in the methodology and the way they are applied - each can vary greatly in terms of complexity, visibility, and effects on table characteristics and data quality.

The questionnaire sought to gather user opinions of SDC policy by asking users to rank a number of qualitative SDC characteristics in terms of their potential effects on output. Users were asked to ….

Question Rank the following SDC features in order of importance, 1 to 7 (If additivity is the most important feature to you rank it as 1. For the second most important, rank it as 2 and so on)

View full size chart

The SDC feature that received the highest average user ranking was the need for the data to remain as accurate as possible.

The two next most important features were table additivity (that tables add up internally to column and row totals) and consistency (that cell counts are consistent across different tables).

When broken down by user type we do not see a great deal of variation in the results. Accuracy is consistently ranked as the most important feature by respondents from across all the different user communities.

Consistency and additivity are the second and third most important features for academic, local government and commercial users. An SDC method that is easy to understand is ranked highly for members of the public and users from the third sector.

Any room for compromise?
So, in aggregate, the most important characteristic for users was that an SDC methodology be as accurate as possible. But, how far are individual users prepared to sacrifice such accuracy in order to ensure or improve the presence of another favoured characteristic? What degree of trade off might be acceptable? To try and gauge the level of trade off that users might find acceptable, the questionnaire asked ….

Question Should the Census Offices aim to produce counts that are as near as possible to true counts (within the constraints of legal and policy confidentiality requirements) or would you be prepared to accept less accurate data to ensure particular characteristics (e.g. additive tables)

i) I want most accurate data possible regardless of other considerations

ii) I would be prepared to sacrifice some accuracy to have particular characteristics (detailed below)

Given the strong ranking for accuracy in results from the previous question, it is not surprising that overall only 27 per cent of users who responded are prepared to sacrifice a degree of accuracy.

Of those that are willing to make a trade off, the characteristics that are most preferred are additivity and consistency.

When broken down by user sector, the single type of users most likely to accept any trade off, those in the commercial sector, also agree with the overall user preference for additivity and consistency.

View full size chart

SDC is a very important area, and we will return to this topic in future blog posts to address other questions, for example relating to SDC and licensing.

The questionnaire sought only to capture qualitative responses and rankings, with minimal scope for open form answers. We are always happy to hear more detailed user thoughts about SDC principles, applications, and implications, and encourage further open discussion here of in the forum.

As the SDC research and selection process for 2011 is developed and finalised, we will be reporting on the decisions made and outlining the potential affects on output. We will also seek user thoughts and feedback to help us provide the best information possible that helps users to understand what it means for the data and your use of it, and how the effects can be managed.

by ONS_Brendan

Question: Finally, thinking about all aspects of 2011 Census outputs, what would you say are your top three priorities ?

After some filtering and consolidation, the responses with the highest frequency were

There was only limited variation in responses across the different census user groups, with respondees identifying broadly the same top priorities, varying only in the order in which they tended to rank them.

Timeliness of output was the highest ranked priority for all census user groups with the exceptions of the Third Sector and members of the public. These two groups ranked 'Ease of access/Accessibility' higher than other census users.

Another exception was for commercial users who ranked the availability of output for download in machine readable formats as the third most important priority. This area was explored in greater detail in an earlier blog post here.

by ONS_Brendan

The online questionnaire included questions aiming to gauge, at a very basic level, the extent of user interest in basic online visualisation options such as charting or mapping. Users were asked to express how useful they feel provision of such tools will be, and to assign a loose priority to them.

Question: Thinking about a 2011 Census Web dissemination system a) How useful would you find the following types of functionality and flexibility? b) What level of priority (high, medium, low) would you give these types of functionality?

Table 1: Usefulness of charting and mapping functionality

Chart 1: Usefulness of charting and mapping functionality

Table 2: Priority of charting and mapping functionality

Chart 2: Priority of charting and mapping functionality

Around a quarter of respondents felt that the inclusion of a charting facility in a Census dissemination system would be very useful. A further quarter expressed an opposing view. The inclusion of this functionality was a low priority for just over half of all respondents and a high priority for less than 15 per cent.

In comparison, support for the inclusion of a facility to map output within a Census dissemination system was somewhat more positive – 39 percent think it will be very useful and 44 percent at least of some use. A higher proportion of respondents feel that the facility to map rather than chart output will be very useful. Mapping output is rated as a high priority by just over a quarter of all respondents but a low priority for nearly a third.

When broken down by user sector the results do not prove to be too surprising. It is to be expected that users who are experienced and regularly use and analyse data in depth would have their own methods and systems in place to perform their analysis either visually or otherwise. More casual or infrequent users, or users outside of an established data handling environment, are more likely to want and use predefined visualization tolls provided with the source data and this is reflected in the results. Members of the public and respondents from the third sector were the most likely to say they would find the functionality to chart output very useful, 46 per cent and 50 per cent, respectively, and third sector respondents were the most likely to give this type of functionality a high priority. The pattern is also reflected for in the results for mapping of output.

Table 3: Usefulness of functionality to produce chart output by user group

* Third sector - Community Group / Voluntary Sector and Charities

Chart 3: Usefulness of functionality to produce chart output by user group

View full size chart

Table 4: Priority of charting by user group

* Third sector - Community Group / Voluntary Sector and Charities

Chart 4: Priority of charting by user group

View full size chart

Table 5: Usefulness of functionality to produce maps of output by user group

* Third sector - Community Group / Voluntary Sector and Charities

Chart 5: Usefulness of functionality to produce maps of output by user group

View full size chart

Table 6: Priority to produce maps of output by user group

* Third sector - Community Group / Voluntary Sector and Charities

Chart 6: Priority to produce maps of output by user group

View full size chart

There is a clear desire from a significant section of the user community that responded to these questions to have the facility to chart and map Census data. However, it is similarly evident that users in general would not wish attention to such functionality to take precedence over other aspects of the output dissemination system development process.

So the question becomes – is it important that we, the Census, develop a form of direct data visualisation integrated within the Census dissemination system, or is it better to provide a pipe into the data so that specialist 3rd parties can easily tap into the data source.

This is an area that has seen rapid growth in the last decade both in terms of volume and range of applications available, and such growth will no doubt continue during and beyond the development programme of output from the 2011 Census.

If you are a user who said you would like to see visualisation functionality, then you probably already have experience of using these tools and techniques from other existing online sources.

If so, then let us know about your experience of using and interacting with such services. Let us know about some examples of best (and perhaps the worst) practice you have encountered, perhaps with some details about the specific features and functionality which are appealing and useful.

Also consider if you would prefer that, rather than potentially developing its own system, priority is given by the Census instead to ensuring that access to an online data repository is as open and flexible as possible. This might better enable real-time access by 3rd parties who have a wider developer base and consequently wider choice of visualisation options, while at the same time allowing Census development resource to be applied other initiatives.

Let us know what you think.

by ONS_Brendan

There was also an additional question which asked about metadata to support users is making or using comparisons.

Question: In addition to the types of metadata produced for 2001 Census outputs listed previously, the following metadata products have been suggested by users for 2011 outputs. How useful would you find the following?

These questions were separated from the related data questions on the questionnaire, but we would still expect the responses to show some continuity and consistency. So let's look back at some summary results for the data questions.

Question: Will you have a requirement to compare 2011 Census output with 2001 Census output ?

If we take the 'very useful' and 'of some use' responses to the meta data question (465), then we can see that it is comparable to the total of users who either expect to use comparisons, or indicated that they did not know (470).

Similarly, if we consider the most positively answered category to the question

Question: How useful would you find it if 2001/2011 comparisons of main statistics were produced as part of Census Offices standard output ?

we again see that the combined 'useful' and 'of some use' result (441) is somewhat comparable to that of the meta data question (465).

A guide to comparisons ?
Some form of census guide with information about changes between Censuses and guidance on comparisons to treat with caution is clearly seen as a worthwhile part of the overall meta data package for 2011.

So, the questions become what should be included in it and what form should it take?

What was your experience of making comparisons with 2001 and 1991 or earlier census data? What metadata was provided that you used and found useful, and what metadata was lacking or absent.

How were things presented well or not so well? What and how can things be improved?

Are there any exceptional examples of 3rd party products or solutions for Census or related material that you have used?

There is already a section in the wiki that has been created to begin to document the development and technical issues and potential solutions for providing and using 2011 / 2001 data comparisons. This area can also be used to list related thoughts, issues and solutions for comparison metadata. If you expect to use comparisons in the future then we urge you to get involved and let us know your thoughts.

by ONS_Brendan