As part of DraCorOS, we conducted a small user survey to better understand how DraCor is being used, which aspects of the platform users find most valuable, and where they see the most urgent needs for further development. With 18 completed responses, the survey is not large enough to support broad generalisations, but it does offer a useful snapshot of an engaged and experienced user community.

Several findings stand out. First, overall satisfaction with DraCor was high. Most respondents described themselves as somewhat or very satisfied, and recommendation scores were particularly strong: 16 out of 18 respondents gave DraCor the highest possible score when asked whether they would recommend it to a colleague. This suggests that DraCor is already perceived as a reliable and valuable research infrastructure.

Second, the survey confirms that DraCor is used in technically and methodologically demanding ways. Respondents most frequently reported using it for network analysis, text analysis, and visualisation. TEI-XML was the most commonly exported format, followed by plain text, and many users stated that they integrate DraCor data into other environments and workflows, including Python, R, Voyant, and Gephi. API access also appears to be important for a large part of the user base. Taken together, these responses point to a community that both consult DraCor through the interface and works with its data in reproducible research settings.

Third, the results underline the collaborative dimension of the project. More than half of respondents had already contributed to DraCor, while most of the others expressed clear interest in contributing corpora or annotations in the future. This is significant because it suggests that DraCor is seen as a platform to use and a shared infrastructure to build collectively.

At the same time, the survey also points to several areas where users would like to see further work. Cross-corpora search emerged as the most frequently requested new feature. Open responses also emphasised the need for more corpora, especially in smaller or less represented languages, richer metadata and filtering options, more comparable subcorpora, improved educational resources, more transparency about how metrics are produced, and more advanced forms of annotation. Documentation is another area where the results suggest room for improvement, with a relatively high proportion of neutral responses.

In sum, the survey suggests that DraCor is well regarded by its users and already deeply embedded in research workflows, especially in digitally oriented literary and drama studies. At the same time, it also provides a clear sense of direction for future development: broader corpus coverage, better discovery tools, richer annotation, and stronger guidance for users. For us, this is perhaps the most useful outcome of the survey: not simply confirmation that DraCor is valued, but a more concrete sense of what its community expects from it in the near future.