Archive for April, 2006
-
Government websites report
I got ansked some questions about the recent government report by a reporter for the e-government monitor. I thought I might share them and the answers:
- how did you choose which sites to survey?
we analysed the same sites as in previous years, the only change being that the Inland Revenue has joined forces with HM Customs and Excise creating the new HM Revenue & Customs, which meant that we were able to include a new site into the 32, Ofsted.
The 32 sites can be looked at either as a whole, or as two discrete groups. The first group contains the sites of 16 big Government departments, including the Prime Minister’s and Deputy Prime Minister’s own sites and one of the national assembly sites. The second group is a selection of 16 sites, which are representative of those most likely to be accessed by a member of the public seeking to perform an online task, or to access information, and/or advice. We have called these two groups, “Department” and “Citizen-Focused” sites.
Broadly speaking, the Departmental sites are responsible for providing information on their responsibilities and publishing their policies, research and plans for the future, and the citizen-focused sites are aimed at facilitating the public in their everyday dealings with the Government.
Inevitably in some instances there is a cross over, since some sites in the citizen-focused section are “divisions” of larger Departments with wide-ranging responsibilities, for instance Job Centre Plus is a part of the Department for Work and Pensions and the DVLA is part of the Department for Transport. However, citizen-focused sites were looked at with particular reference to their ability to deliver clear and comprehensible content - and to deliver functionality relative to those aspects of their activities for which they are known to the general public. For instance, in the case of the DVLA, we were looking at the ease with which a driving license might be obtained online, and the quality and ease of use of the information provided.
- what were the most surprising results?
There were no obvious surprises, other than the fact that given the general improvement of government sites some sites have remained steadfastly the same. These were usually the poorer sites.DVLA, Welsh Assembly, DSA, OFT.
- what was the most noticeable difference about the web sites in general compared with last year’s survey?
Most noticeable is the fact that the overall standard continues to rise, see below:
“We suggested last year, and maintain this year, that sites that scored 65% or less was in need of immediate attention. The figures below show that year on year there has been an improvement in the number of sites that come below the “cut off point”:
· 2002 - 75% of the 20 sites
· 2003 - 58% of 31 sites
· 2004 - 50% of 32 sites
· 2005 - under 19% of 32 sites
These figures demonstrate a marked improvement in the Government’s web site provision the most impressive aspect of which is the fact that since 2002 there has been marked and continual progress. Also impressive is the fact that there is only a 6% spread between the winning site and the 12th ranked site which means that there is a distinct increase in the overall quality of the sites featured.”
- I have the top three sites in the press release - why were these chosen?
There is no single reason why any of them were chosen, and in fact “chosen” is really the wrong term since the criteria used are intended to be as objective as possible and are wide ranging (I have attached a detailed explanation of the criteria used along with a summary of all the results site, by site)
In general though the top three were chosen for their clarity, simplicity and anticpation of the audiences’ requirements.
- why were the worst three chosen?
They were “chosen” for various reasons, but mostly because they failed to anticipate their audience’s requirement, or facilitate them in their quest for information. They are also guilty of schoolboy errors, which anyone with a passing appreciation of web design and IA would be able to identify. It is also worth noting that the DSA and DVLA have committed wholly to deliver their online services via the Directgov site, which leads me to suspect that they no longer really care about the sites currently since they are going to have to change. Also the Welsh Assembly is fully aware of the shortcomings of its site and is in the process of redeveloping it.
- in your view, have government sites reached the expected standard or would you expect them to have been better or worse than they are?
There can never be an expected standard since the web is an organic medium and people’s expectations of what it should offer are continually changing. Technically in terms of meeting current standards we found the sites to be constantly improving, and to an extent setting the agenda for other large organisations to follow in terms of compliance. (these are the higher profile sites, and we should expect this I suppose, but this view is contrary to some other recent reports (notably Southampton University) that suggests that all government sites are appalling in these terms)
- do you feel most web site developers/designers/managers have the ‘tick-box’ mentality when it comes to developing public-facing web sites?
Certainly this is a view we have expressed in the past particularly when they were all first trying to get all government services online by 2005. There was a very distinct tick box culture at that time as evidenced in the ESD reports from the Cabinet Office where putting a “service” online seemed to be putting a pdf document about it somewhere on a website. I think that the better departments and agencies have evolved from that “rush to get it all up there” and are now much more focused on communicating through their sites,and delivering to people’s needs and requirements This is reflected in the fact that the e-gov unit seems to have forgotten about the 2005 target, or assumed it accomplished, certainly I have not seen an ESD report for a while, and now concentrates on a strategic approach as described in its most prominent recent document Transformational Government – Implementation plan.
- you say in the press release some sites are “. . . still wallowing in public sector silos.” can you explain this comment in more detail?
Essentially this is to do with the delivery of information. Government departments are organised in a way which makes sense to those that work there, it is the administrative division of responsibilities and services. However to the public these divisions (or silos) mean little. The better sites break through the barriers of their own internal structures to deliver coherent messages and services to the public based on their requirements. The worse sites presnt themselves externally in the same way that they think of themselves internally expecting us to know where to look for information. In truth there is less evidence of this nowadays, particulalry at the higher level of sites.
