Openness

Obama takes another step toward open government with this advice to federal agencies to release records and information to the public unless it will result in "forseeable harm," although I think we all know that it's pretty hard to forsee all possible harm. At least we're shifting the burden back to government having to show forseeable harm instead of the burden on the FOIA-request-making public to have to show need.

Signing statements

I was going to write about signing statements last week when Obama issued one, but then I saw that Melissa had posted on this topic, so I just commented on her blog with my thoughts. Now, the NY Times editors are weighing in. Melissa was definitely correct in saying that people will be watching Obama to see if his actions match his words. The NY Times editors say "...the speed with which he issued this statement, and the number of provisions he objected to, raise concerns that he may use these statements too aggressively. It will bear watching."

Indeed.

OMG - the Government Gets Proactive

For once, the Feds have identified a potential problem BEFORE it gets out of hand and are proposing an amelioration. Here's hoping they move at industry speed and not government speed, or even this radial proactivity will end up reactive.

See "Improving Grants.gov" from Benton

Federal Website Assessment

OK, so this is not the first time I have assessed a website. This is actually a topic I have taught to undergrads. And I completed a usability test of a non-federal but still government website last year in Chuck’s Evaluation class (with Aaron). So, some of this week’s reading are familiar territory. But, I have never really thought about web assessment from an information policy perspective.

I know what works and what doesn’t when it comes to web design, based on usability readings and my own background in printing and newspaper layout (bet y’all didn’t know that). But knowing what works and what doesn’t has very little to do with actual implementation. I am forever arguing with my undergrads about the difference between making a website for yourself, where you can use any design you like, and making a website at the behest of a client. With a client, you HAVE to do what THEY want. All you can do is offer suggestions, provide options, and try to make the strongest possible case for a website that follows usability and accessibility guidelines (i.e. the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services usability guide on Usability.gov and Jakob Nielsen’s recommendations on UseIt.com).

[Side note on functionality: No matter what you have to give in to regarding usability, accessibility and aesthetics, all features of any system should always FUNCTION. For goodness sake, what’s the point of non-functioning features?]

In class, my students usually choose a for-profit business or a FSU department for their web redesign project. In the fall, though, one group chose the FAFSA website, which I agree is pretty awful. [FAFSA is the Free Application for Federal Student Aid in case any of you are blessed not to need student aid and don’t know about the FAFSA.] Anyway, the group made changes to the website that would put it in violation of federal laws. For example, they didn’t know they have to include a privacy statement and a link for FOIA requests.

When you are designing a web site for a Federal agency or department, the first step should be identification of all information policies and regulations that relate to web site assessment (McClure, Sprehe, & Eschenfelder, 2000). At the very least, start with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Policies for Federal Websites (2004). Obviously, not all Federal web sites are designed this way since so many violate the Section 508 accessibility regulations (West, 2008), let alone usability issues.

But failure to follow existing guidelines is not the only information policy issue related to web assessment. The scope, implementation, and enforcement of existing policies are also critical (Eschenfelder, Beachboard, McClure, & Wyman, 1997).

Yes, there is Section 508, but is it current? Is it relevant with current assistive technologies? I am guessing no, but someone needs to actually verify my guess.

Also, we know the potential value of E-Government to open government, cost savings, etc. (Freed, 2009), but do we know exactly how much return on investment (ROI) the Federal government is getting by utilizing electronic technologies? And do we know how much ROI they COULD be getting, e.g. are they getting less ROI than they possibly could get? Nielsen explains how much ROI governments could get by increasing usability, something that suggests that E-Government services are not getting the overall ROI they could get. Nielsen says that on average, websites increase desired metrics by 135% following a usability redesign (2003), although this figure has declined some (to 83% in 2008). He also explains the ROI that government agencies get from usability, especially when they engage in e-commerce (2007), something Freed tells us they do fairly well (2009).

Meanwhile, we know from the American Customer Satisfaction Index that Americans seem satisfied with E-Government services (Freed, 2009), but the satisfaction level of 74.1 out of 100. That’s a C. Hardly what I’d call satisfaction, more like complacency. There is a BIG difference between satisfaction and success. Aaron and I found that out last year when we did a usability test on MyFlorida.com. The five test participants said they were satisfied with certain aspects of MyFlorida.com that they did not use successfully. For example, there were tasks that the testers “completed” because they found an answer, but it was the WRONG answer. Yet, they were SATISFIED. This is satisficing, and that is a far cry from success.

And there’s another issue with Americans’ satisfaction with E-Government – the comparison between that and traditional government service. Apparently, satisfaction with E-Government is higher than satisfaction with traditional government. But who is reporting their satisfaction? You know that voluntary surveys are full of methodological holes so how reliable are the ACSI data (Grob’s argument for good enough evaluations notwithstanding)? Consider the fact that last year they reported a three-year low for E-Government satisfaction but not it’s an all-time high (Freed, 2008, 2009). How weird does that seem? And there’s the possibility that Americans have higher expectations of traditional government than E-Government so even equal service quality could get a higher satisfaction rating for E-Government than traditional government. Going back to the usability test Aaron and I did last year, most of our testers indicated they started with REALLY LOW expectations of MyFlorida.com. So even though they were “satisfied” with the services, that’s based on a low starting point!

I obviously have a lot to say on this topic. Good thing I am presenting this week!

References

Eschenfelder, K. R., Beachboard, J. C., McClure, C. R., & Wyman, S. K. (1997). Assessing U.S. federal government websites. Government Information Quarterly, 14(2), 173-189. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from Science Direct database.

Freed, L. (2009). American customer satisfaction index: E-Government satisfaction index. Ann Arbor, MI: ForSee Results. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.theacsi.org/images/stories/images/govsatscores/0109q4.pdf

Freed, L. (2008). American customer satisfaction index e-government satisfaction index [Electronic resource]. Available from http://www.theacsi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=178&Itemid=181

Grob, G. F. (2003). A truly useful bat is one found in the hands of a slugger. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(4), 499-505. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from Science Direct database.

McClure, C. R., Sprehe, J. T., & Eschenfelder, K. (2000). Performance measures for Federal agency websites: Final report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, School of Information Studies, Information Use Management & Policy Institute.

Nielsen, J. (2008, January 22). Usability ROI declining, but still strong. Alertbox [Electronic resource]. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/roi.html

Nielsen, J. (2007, February 12). Do government agencies and non-profits get ROI from usability? Alertbox [Electronic resource]. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/government-nonprofit.html

Nielsen, J. (2003, August 25). Usability 101: introduction to usability. Alertbox [Electronic resource]. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html

Nielsen, J. (2003, January 7). Return on investment for usability. Alertbox [Electronic resource]. Retrieved March 29, 2008, from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/roi-first-study.html

Office of Management and Budget. (2004). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies: Policies for Federal agency public websites. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-04.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Research-based web design and usability guidelines [Electronic version]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines.html#1

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Usability.gov [Electronic resource]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from http://www.usability.gov

West, D. M. (2008). State and federal electronic government in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Dangers of Google Docs

1. I hope I don't get banned from Google for posting this article.
2. I stopped using Google Docs a while ago, but not for security and privacy reasons. Just because Google Docs deleted all your MS Word formatting which is hugely annoying.
3. At least Google is honest about their security breaches.

Check it out: "Google Privacy Blunder Shares Your Docs Without Permission"

Lieberman also wants public access to CRS briefs

So Patrice is not alone in lamenting that more CRS issue briefs need to be made public. Lieberman agrees. I do too, but I hope there isn't a secret brief hiding in there about Nicole and my topic for class, or if there is, that it remains secret until we're done. Otherwise, what are we going to do?

Obama names new Chief Information Officer

So Obama has named a CIO - Vivek Kundra. Here's the scoop -

From the NY Times.
Kundra speaks.
Lynn Sweet calls the new CIO Obama's E-Gov czar.
You know you've made it when you get a Wikipedia entry.

Hmm ... usability/accessibility of my own blog

After ruminating on last night's class, I decided to change some of the colors and the font size in use on my blog. Hopefully, it's more readable now. :)

Who will run the GPO?

I know most of my classmates probably noticed this, but I thought I'd post it here since I was just talking about the GPO - "Web Archivist Campaigning to Head GPO."

Note Malamud's 7 point plan to improve GPO -

1) Lead the effort to make all primary legal materials produced by the U.S. readily available. [LAUREN says - What does readily available mean? (Since we all know just putting a document on a website, or in GPOAccess, does NOT mean it's "readily" available!)]

2) Work more closely with libraries and reform the Federal Depository Library Program to give them more support. [LAUREN says - REFORM to give MORE support, sounds suspicious to me!]

3) Establish a United States Publishing Academy to provide workforce development and vocational training for students on how to print and publish effectively. [LAUREN says - What does effectively mean in the electronic environment, and is he even talking about e-publishing or is he still talking about old-school print publishing?]

4) Form a blue ribbon commission to reexamine the design of passports and other secure documents. [LAUREN says - To what degree is this a valuable use of anyone's time?]

5) Create more materials for the public domain, both as fully produced books as well as freely available master files for others to use and remix. [LAUREN says - Not sure the concept of MORE printed materials will fly.]

6) Radically change how the government presents information on the Internet by means such as installing a cloud for .gov to use or upgrading the government's video capabilities. [LAUREN says - Whee! Do we think this is realistic, and on what timetable?]

7) Be fully transparent in its own financial affairs and a forceful and effective advocate for the public domain. [LAUREN says - Really? Because I am pretty sure the mission statement already says they advocate for the public domain, but it's good to continue pushing this.]

For extra fun, check out Malamud's "prepared statement." Love the uber-subtle likening Malamud to Ben Franklin, America's first public printer, inventor of bifocals, and no friend to those who would forsake civil liberties in favor of security ("They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety").

Gaming in Libraries

So, librarians catch flak for not being with the times. Then, they try to be hip to attract new library patrons. Then, they catch flak for that (cf. "Nebraska Auditor Cries Foul on Gaming in Libraries"). Seems like a lose-lose situation to me! Grr.

Ironically, the VERY NEXT article in this week's AL Direct was "ALA Releases Gaming Toolkit" - talk about conflicting stories!

This seems to me to be an issue getting back to the unfunded mandate of libraries. If libraries were a mandate, with EXPLICIT descriptions of their mandate, i.e. whom they serve (including teens and children), how they serve (including using emerging technologies to maintain current), etc., then libraries would be less often subjected to such silly rebukes.

Federal depository libraries and the GPO

A lot of the readings on the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) talk about the future of the FDLP in the face of electronic information creation and dissemination (cf. Depository Library Council, 2006; Hernon & Shuler, 1996; Library Services and Content Management, 2009; Sudduth, 2008, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004, 2008). What I find interesting is how the E-Gov Act was passed in 2002, and 7 years later, we still don’t know what the role of the FDLP should be in the era of electronic government information. I know government moves slowly, but sheesh.

The mission of the FDLP is to ensure the American public has access to government information (Depository Library Council, 2006; Library Services and Content Management, 2009; Sudduth, 2008; U.S. Government Printing Office, n.d.) – an important responsibility if the American public is to have any knowledge of what’s going on in government (McDermott, 2006). In light of the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993, the mission of the federal depository libraries is shifting from simple repositories to facilitators in the federal information dissemination process (Depository Library Council, 2006). Some (i.e. Sudduth) even question whether “…a federal depository program designed for the nineteenth- and twentieth-century paper environment provide[s] adequate access in a twenty-first-century electronic environment?” (Sudduth, 2008, p. 7)

The Depository Library Council (DLC) identifies a few key issues related to the need for structure and standardization of methods to handle electronic government information (2006) – notably document and metadata standards, public tools development, version control, authenticity of documents, and public education. I agree these are critical issues for the FDLP, but I would argue these issues transcend the FDLP to be critical to libraries and other information resource providers in general. These are issues related to ALL electronic information, not just government information, especially when one considers DLC’s remark in the conclusion that the American public is increasingly bypassing libraries when seeking all information.

While it is necessary and important to bring these issues to the attention of Congress in the context of federal government information, it is equally important to make it clear to legislators and others in power that these issues need to be addressed and resolved at a meta level – ALL electronic information rather than just electronic government information. There do seem to be others out there who agree with me, note that the Federal Depository Library Program Strategic Plan, 2009-2014 discusses the changes to library services in the digital environment in the context of ALL libraries, not just depository libraries (Library Services and Content Management, 2009).

Meanwhile, Hernon and Shuler identify 4 assumptions of the FDLP that need to be questioned and reevaluated (1996). I was especially taken with the fourth assumption, that depository libraries would expand collections and services as more publications and information become eligible for depository distribution. No mention of increased funding, I wonder why. Apparently so do Hernon and Shuler who subsequently ask if depository libraries can and will take on more of the cost burden as GPO is downsized (and note Sudduth’s figures (2008) – the estimated federal budget for FY 2007 included only $1.5 billion for producing, gathering, and preserving government information, a mere 0.056% of the entire federal budget). I am guessing in the economic climate where libraries barely get any funding, the answer to that is NO. Even if libraries wanted to take on more of the costs (and really, who ever wants to take on more cost?), they couldn’t!

References

Depository Library Council. (2006). “Knowledge will forever govern” A vision statement for federal depository libraries in the 21st century. Location: Depository Library Council. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fdlp/council/dlcvision092906.pdf

Hernon, P., & Shuler, J. A. (1996).The depository library program: another component of the access puzzle shifting to electronic formats. In Peter Hernon, Charles R. McClure, & Harold C. Relyea (Eds.) Federal information policies in the 1990s: views and perspectives (pp. 259-278). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Library Services and Content Management. (2009). Federal Depository Library Program strategic plan, 2009-2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, Library Services and Content Management. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.fdlp.gov/home/about/237-strategicplan

McDermott, P. (2007). Who needs to know? The state of public access to federal government information. Lanham, MD: Bernan.

Sudduth, W. (2008). Federal government information policy and the electronic federal depository library. In Andrea M. Morrison (Ed.), Managing Electronic Government Information in Libraries (pp. 3-13). Chicago: American Library Association.

U.S. Government Printing Office. (n.d). About the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) [Electronic resource]. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://catalog.gpo.gov/fdlpdir/FDLPdir.jsp?mode=-2

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2004). A strategic vision for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Federal Depository Library Program, U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.fdlp.gov/home/about/237-strategicplan

U.S. Government Printing Office. (2008). Regional depository libraries in the 21st century: a preliminary assessment: final report to the Joint Committee on Printing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.fdlp.gov/home/about/209-studyofregionals