Maybe I am getting a little focussed in what to see (like the world is full of letterboxes just after you needed one), but I feel there are more and more articles on archiving tools that deal with the actual usability instead of compiling a comprehensive but somewhat abstract list of features.
Like Matthew Hutchins said in his blog post:
I tried to make this project complementary to those [other surveys] , by selecting some different tools (but some in common), and by analysing the results in terms of the comparative usefulness of the outputs, rather than computational performance. This makes the results somewhat subjective, but at the same time illuminates many of the issues that make using these tools challenging.
I for my part don’t see any problems in some more subjective descriptions of experinces in the archiving business. On the contrary I believe it could ease the way to just experiment with the tools of the trade instead of regarding them as rocket science. Which is an easy mitske if you judge them by their output…
If I have to choose from two ways of illustrating, say automotive performance, I like “If you hit the pedal you don’t just get pressed into the leather, you become part of it” a lot better than “The tested specimen of the hmhmhm Carrera took under 4 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h”. Not that I don’t like numbers but sometimes you get a better picture if you use … pictures. Therefore again a thumbs up for more subjective assessments. Thank you Matthew!