Initial Breviary Stats

Looking Back

When I set up the page code for the St Bede’s Breviary, I decided that it was important to track general—not individual—usage information. Thus, one of the tables gathers style, kalendar, and rite selections. Again—I don’t capture any user or computer data and am using this only to get a sense of what features are being used to better accommodate those who choose to use it.

I tapped into the table the other day and pulled down data that has been accumulating since December. Because I’m not tracking individual data, I can’t pull out the many times I’ve accessed it to test out various features. Too, due to the way the table is populated, there are some situations where data is not returned and blank fields are entered. I’ve not messed with these resulting in a margin of error equal to the blanks. That having been said, here are the breakdowns for various categories for the 6,376 visits logged:

Despite my preference for Rite I, breviary users are evenly split between Rites I and II. I’m pleased to see this as it indicates to my mind that advocates of both rites are well represented here.

I found at least two items in this data set of interest. First, the data seems to reflect my own difficulties. In trying to fit the offices into a full life with children, I find I’m more regular with Morning Prayer than Evening.  As over half of all offices prayed are Morning Prayer and Evening is roughly half of Morning, it seems I’m not alone… :-) Second, I note that the Little Offices (Noon Prayer and Compline) share an equal though low percentage (7%). I don’t know if this means that those who do Noon Prayer are also those who do Compline but it’s a likely conclusion.  At the end of the day it seems clear that the two principal offices—Morning and Evening—are indeed what people are coming to the site to pray.

This slide indicates that the breviary is serving its primary function. I specifically coded the breviary for flexibility—I wanted Anglicans of all stripes to be able to find a means of praying the office that fit their spirituality best and I consider this data set to be a vindication of that decision.

This data set indicates an almost filibuster proof preference for the BCP kalendar.

Going Forward

Ever since it’s been up the Breviary has had the tag “Beta test” which is entirely necessay. I’m trying to move it out of beta status though. There’ll be several sets of changes required to make that happen and given my schedule it won’t be complete anytime soon. However, I do have some concrete plans for next steps. These include:

  • finally getting around to implementing the BCP rubrics on the placement of the gospel readings—i.e., morning in Year 2 (thanks for the reminder, Bill)
  • inserting NRSV readings into Rite II
  • re-doing the guts in ways that (hopefully) no one will notice on the client-side but will streamline the server-side and under-the-hood functionality
    • chiefly this means moving from a table-based daily calculation system to a rule-based system
    • consolidating kalendar tables which will enable me to roll out the other kalendars that I’ve had on ice for a while
  • fixing innumerable design issues and irritants
  • providing music for the hymns (square-notation at first, modern notation perhaps later based on some promised assistance, sound files are but a hopeful dream at this point)
  • integrating the breviary into a more coherent web presence

I can say that one major undertaking on the horizon after these are incorporated includes provisions for sung offices. No ETA on that, however.

As always, I’m open to your suggestions and corrections. On that note, let me conclude with a big thank you to Richard and Ron, my faithful entirely voluntary proofreaders who mercilessly call to my attention every error they see in Rites I and II respectively. Thank you for your assistance and persistence!!

8 Replies to “Initial Breviary Stats”

  1. Derek, I know that we have moved to NRSV, but Rite II is tuned to RSV, which on the whole I find a better liturgical translation than NRSV, though not as beautiful as the Authorized Version. Is there a way to have more than one choice?

    Also, is there a way to make available a Rite I pattern in a Rite II language? I ask because Cranmer was no dummy when he organized things theologically in a more minimalistic way. Enrichment has nearly lost his theological formation of us.

  2. Has anyone tried it out on the iPad yet? I think getting it to the mobile devices of some type will produce a big leap in usage.

  3. I haven’t tried it on the iPad, but I certainly have used it on the Kindle. Works pretty well.

  4. Christopher, I agree that the RSV is a better translation. At present, however, NRSV is what I have as kindly provided by Fr. John-Julian. Adding a biblical version is a pretty involved process which is why currently the NRSV is only available in an external window.

    On that note, does anyone use the external window approach with Rite II? I don’t have anything tracking that usage…

    I’m not sure exactly what you mean in your second question, Christopher. If I’m reading it right, this would be accomplished by choosing “Old School” style with Rite II.

    Michelle, I’d love to have an answer to that question too… However, these mobile devices access regular ol’ internet sites—I’m not sure why it wouldn’t function on an iPad just as it would on a laptop.

  5. I did provide NRSV readings for Derek — but not because I LIKE them! I put them out under Holy Obedience!

    OJN began (1985) using the Jerusalem Bible. In 1989 we changed to the Revised English Bible and used it for everything until 2009. I am still deeply partial to REB. I was translated mainly for use in Britain by Brits, so the language is truly beautiful, and the main criterion for the translators was a version specifically designed for “public reading aloud.”
    I probably still have WORD files of REB readings if anyone wants them.

  6. Well actually, Father, if you’ve got them… Go ahead and send them over when you get a chance. That way I can load the tables with both and present the option of either.

Comments are closed.