Accessibility

The topic of accessibility is extremely important – not just when talking about website evaluation. It is important for ensuring equal access to information for all persons, regardless of their physical and cognitive abilities, and especially when you see the numbers – 54 million Americans have disabilities (Jaeger, 2006). Also, note Jaeger’s reminder that this number will only grow as the baby boomers age.

John presented on accessibility last year in Evaluation class (I believe that website accessibility is his preferred research stream), and I remember that he said this about accessibility – the area has relatively clear standards, but little evaluation is being done. Thank goodness for Paul Jaeger and (not brown-nosing here) the Information Institute, or probably even less would be done!

Most of you probably know that 1. Chuck loves multi-method iterative evaluation and 2. the Institute conducted an evaluation of the Florida Electronic Library, so you can probably guess that #2 involved #1 (Bertot, Snead, Jaeger, & McClure, 2006). That study combined functionality, usability and accessibility testing, getting back to a point Chuck highlighted in class when I discovered the problem with the button location on (I think) USASpending.gov. I had enlarged the text on the webpage but then couldn’t click the “Go” button because the link hadn’t shifted with the text. Chuck asked if that was a usability, functionality, or accessibility issue. Now that I have been properly indoctrinated, I of course knew the answer – D. All of the above. So not only is accessibility important in its own right, it’s important to overall usability and functionality as well.

I do find it interesting that Section 508 has exemptions since I don’t really see why any federal electronic and information technology system should NOT provide equal access for all persons, regardless of ability (IT Accessibility & Workforce Division, n.d.a, n.d.b). And I was especially interested to see what the exemptions are – systems used for military command, weaponry, intelligence, and cryptology, also back office equipment used by service personnel for maintenance, repair, etc. Um, the military and intelligence departments can discriminate against differently-abled persons, and that’s OK? And repair men (and women, I suppose), cannot be people with any disabilities? What? Congress didn’t see the problems with this? Meanwhile, there’s the “undue burden” exemption, yet another example of vague language. Section 508 actually includes a definition of undue burden [I was really excited], but it means “significant difficulty or expense” with NO definition of the ever-popular significant [suddenly I was less excited] (IT Accessibility & Workforce Division, n.d.a, n.d.b).

But, it’s great that we even have Section 508. That’s a huge step forward. Now, if only it were implemented, which Jaeger reminds us is not happening in any standardized, government-wide way (2006). Jaeger’s policy analysis revealed that Section 508 requirements and guidelines, if correctly implemented, should produce websites accessible to most or all disabled persons. So why aren’t they? One possibility that agencies don’t all give accessibility the same level of importance. Another is lack of funding. And education. So, what can we do about this? There needs to be stronger enforcement of Section 508, and that probably requires some punitive impact on non-compliant agencies since we know the carrot approach to motivation does not work well with civil servants.

References

Bertot, J. C., Snead, J. T., Jaeger, P. T., & McClure, C. R. (2006). Functionality, usability, and accessibility: iterative user-centered evaluation strategies for digital libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 7(1), 17-28. Retrieved March 14, 2008, from Emerald Insight database.

IT Accessibility & Workforce Division, Office of Governmentwide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration. (n.d.a). Section 508 standards [Electronic resource]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, IT Accessibility & Workforce Division. Retrieved February 27, 2009, http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12

IT Accessibility & Workforce Division, Office of Governmentwide Policy, U.S. General Services Administration. (n.d.b). Summary of Section 508 standards [Electronic resource]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Services Administration, Office of Governmentwide Policy, IT Accessibility & Workforce Division. Retrieved February 27, 2009, http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=11

Jaeger, P. T. (2006). Assessing Section 508 compliance on federal e-government Web sites: a multi-method, user-centered evaluation of accessibility for persons with disabilities. Government Information Quarterly, 23(2), 169-190. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from WilsonWeb database.

E-Government

Electronic government holds the promise of improved government services at reduced costs (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), but the challenge to fulfilling that promise is not minor. There are lots of tradeoffs to consider here, many of which relate to all electronic services, not just electronic government services.

Let’s take customization for example. People increasingly want customized, personalized services (West, 2008), but they do not necessarily understand what they have to give up to get them – total privacy. How do you maintain your privacy from the system (meaning not identifying who you are) while simultaneously asking the system to be customized for you. This is quite a conundrum. Either the system knows who you are and what your preferences are, thereby enabling personalization, or you remain anonymous. But then, if you are anonymous, the system cannot be personalized to your tastes.

There is also a tradeoff when asking systems to be more interactive and convenient but maintain your privacy. The FAFSA website (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) has been criticized for being a too complicated online process. Right now, students and their parents have to dedicate well over 30 minutes to completing this form online, when most of the information is the same information you have already sent to the IRS when you filed your taxes. Wouldn’t it be great to just click a button when submitting your taxes that says “Send My Tax Information to FAFSA”? I think so, but to do that, we are asking two federal agencies to share our information between them. And there are certainly privacy issues there. Once the IRS is sharing your tax information with FAFSA, it’s not too many steps for them to share it with other federal agencies. How far do we want to go in the name of convenience?

A possible answer lies in the idea of “opting in.” Opting in means each user chooses for himself or herself whether or not to provide the information necessary to personalize the system to his or her preferences. This way, users who wish to maintain their privacy can do so (at the expense of personalized content, of course), and users who wish to reveal some of their identities in exchange for personalization can do that.

References

National Archives and records Administration. (n.d.). E-Government Act of 2002 [Electronic resource]. College Park, MD: The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved February 19, 2009, from http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/egov-act-section-207.html

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

The Homeland Security Act

There’s obviously plenty to talk about regarding the Homeland Security Act (just like with the USA PATRIOT Act), but I thought I’d concentrate on something that entertained me (just like with the USA PATRIOT Act). Mosaic theory.

Mosaic theory says that aggregated unclassified information can reveal highly classified and other sensitive info (McDermott, 2007). This actually makes a lot of sense. You get a lot of disparate information together, and voila! You can see the whole picture. Certain members of the former Administration have used mosaic theory as supporting evidence that virtually all information needs to be classified (albeit informally) since all of the information has the potential to inform terrorist activities.

Of course, those same clever politicians wrote the Homeland Security Act to allow mosaic theory to work for law enforcement and intelligence agencies by facilitating cross-agency information sharing (Relyea, 2004). This is yet another example of what’s good for the goose is NOT good for the gander. When it’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies, information sharing is a good thing, but when it’s the rest of us, information sharing is an act of potential terrorism. We’re back to the definitions roulette game I talked about in relation to the USA PATRIOT Act.

I was also amused to note that the Homeland Security Act established the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (6 U.S.C. § 705). In case you’re interested, “The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties assists our dedicated colleagues to secure our country while preserving our freedoms and our way of life” (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2009). Sounds like the language the DOJ used in their über-unbiased Report from the Field, doesn’t it? Wonder who’s actually writing this stuff.

Meanwhile, at the same time that the federal government is protecting its own information, it can be prying into your information, sharing that information among law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and doing mysterious other things with it (Seifert & Relyea, 2004). For all we know, they could be selling our information to the highest bidder, never mind the dubious security measures in place to protect our personal information from leaking all over the place. I’d hate to think what all my personal information, in the aggregate, would say about me!

References

Homeland Security Act. (2002). 6 U.S.C. § 101.

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

Relyea, H. C. (2004). Homeland security and information sharing: federal policy considerations. Government Information Quarterly, 21, 420-438. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from WilsonWeb database.

Seifert, J. W., & Relyea, H. C. (2004). Do you know where your information is in the homeland security era? Government Information Quarterly, 21, 399-405. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from WilsonWeb database.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2009). Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties [Electronic resource]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/editorial_0371.shtm

The USA PATRIOT Act, the most impressively clever acronym EVER

This week’s readings about the USA PATRIOT Act bring up a few questions in relation to the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and the definition of a record. I am confused how the same people who wrote that “tangible things” include “books, records, papers, documents, and other items” (Pub. L. No. 107-56 § 501) and these have been interpreted to include electronic records (Doyle & Yeh, 2006) can subsequently say that e-mails are not records. Notwithstanding my confusion about how “tangible” items can be electronic (have we consulted the dictionary ever?), how can records include electronic records when they are the library and Internet records of suspected terrorists but exclude electronic records when they are the President’s and Vice President’s e-mails? Either a record includes both paper-based and electronic materials or not. This is like defining information as a thing when we are concerned with systems-based design but information as a process when we are concerned with user-based design. It’s BOTH definitions ALL of the time, not pick your definition to suit your personal interests.

Meanwhile, I had a good laugh at the way civil liberties are simultaneously taken away and protected by the same legislation. According to the USA PATRIOT Act, these tangible things can be requested regarding a U.S. person (side note: does this mean resident or citizen?) only when the investigation “is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution” (Pub. L. No. 107-56 § 501). Um, what activities are not protected by the First Amendment? Reading library books? Using library computers to search the Internet for information? Pretty sure those are protected under free speech, but apparently not. Apparently, the USA PATRIOT Act is protecting our civil liberties by stipulating that investigations cannot include requests for information protected by the First Amendment while we are interpreting all activities to, in fact, not be protected by the First Amendment.

Even more laughter came with reading the DOJ’s Report from the Field. First of all, I am pretty sure the DOJ is not protecting both American lives and liberty but is in fact protecting lives at the expense of liberty (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). I also did not know that the DOJ was waging the war on terror “…with a constant awareness of its obligation to preserve freedom and with scrupulous attention to the legal and constitutional protections for civil liberties” (28-29). I think I missed their scrupulous attention, unless they mean the attention to removing protections for civil liberties. For goodness sake, they gloat that § 210 allows them to obtain subpoenas for information about people’s electronic communications “without requiring investigators first to undertake the time-consuming step of applying to the courts.” (18) Yeah, those processes that protect civil liberties are really more a hindrance than anything else.

In contrast to the DOJ who assures us the government is protecting our civil liberties while cracking down on terrorism – and child pornography, and other non-terrorist criminal acts that are suddenly covered under the anti-terrorism laws, EFF reminds us that the government has in fact taken away civil liberties, and this was done without ANY evidence whatsoever that possessing civil liberties was a hindrance to intelligence gathering (EFFector, 2003). It’s pretty hard to read any of this week’s readings with a straight face since it’s all heavily biased, but it is easier to read something written by an organization that shares my biases towards the intrinsic value of civil liberties (in case you thought for one nanosecond that I am a conservative).

References

Doyle, C., & Yeh, B. T. (2006). Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Retrieved February 5, 2009, from http://www.opencrs.org

EFFector. (2003). EFF analysis of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that relate to online activities (October 31, 2001). San Francisco, CA: Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Report from the field: the USA PATRIOT Act at work. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Justice.

Policy Analysis Methodologies

Let me start by saying I am a little confused. First, I think that Chuck believes that it is not possible to be objective and empirical in the social sciences (I agree!). Then, Chuck says to explain how I will objectively and empirically analyze the issue I am proposing for my final issue brief. Ok … am confustigated. Anyway, let me talk about policy analysis techniques in the context of the readings and stop worrying about this oxymoron.

I already know from taking Evaluation of Networked Information Systems that Chuck is a big fan of outcomes measurement, and I see that Anderson (2005) agrees with him about its utility. Yes, it is important to identify and measure policy outcomes, or the consequences for society, but as Anderson notes, this is also really difficult. The consequences of a policy for society are hard to operationalize and hard to measure, never mind the inestimable number of years you might have to wait to see what the consequences has been for society.

Yesterday in Seminar in LIS Education, Kathy Burnett talked about how you can’t evaluate an issue while it is ongoing by looking at current literature trends. Instead, you have to wait 10, 20, or more years to see how the issue played out. (This was about the iSchool movement for those of you not taking that class.) The same can be argued about policy issues. Yes, policies affect us in the here and now, and we can certainly look at past policies and see what impacts and outcomes they have had SO FAR, but to determine the consequences a policy has had on society, we would really have to wait decades, or maybe centuries.

Causality is a whole other issue – Anderson reminds us that causality is extremely difficult to determine in social science research (2005), and we know Chuck’s view on this issue, and then I read Pawson and he’s explaining some “model of generative causal explanation” in which he combines outcome patterns, generative mechanisms, and context to determine causality (2006). Leaving aside the dubious nature of the generative mechanisms, is it really enough to combine three measures and POOF you determine causality? I kinda doubt it.

Not to brown nose, but I was much more impressed by the descriptive assessment described in McClure, Moen, and Bertot (1999). “Descriptive assessment relies primarily on existing policy and literatures, and is the process by which it is possible to describe and analyze a policy area” (p. 314). No determination of causality, just using a multi-method approach to gain a multi-viewpoint explanation of what is going on regarding a policy issue/area. Boom. Sounds simple (relatively compared to Pawson’s approach), believable, and DOABLE (really the most important). [Side note: we know for sure that Chuck approves the multi-method approach since it is also lauded in McClure & Yaeger, 2008.]

I especially appreciated the realistic (note that is REALISTIC not Pawson’s REALISM) approach to reviewing related policy instruments – comprehensive OR selective. That’s what I mean by DOABLE. But then of course, McClure et al. say that “Descriptive assessments do not replace empirical study” (p. 328, emphasis in the original) which leaves me in dire straits since I have to identify a method by which I will “empirically and objectively” study the issue I am planning to use for my issue brief. A conundrum.

In case you were confused by what I said and think I enjoyed the Pawson reading, let me clarify a little here. I was extremely suspicious of any methodology espoused by someone who names his kids Rhino and Rosebud and likens evidence-based policy to a tryst. Never before have I seen such romantic language in a methods book –

“Evidence-based policy is much like all trysts, in which hope springs eternal and often outweighs expectancy, and for which the future is uncertain as we wait to know whether the partnership will flower or pass as an infatuation.” (Pawson, 2006, p. 1)

References

Anderson, J. E. (2005). Public policy making, 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

McClure, C. R., Moen, W. E., & Bertot, J. C. (1999). Descriptive assessment of information policy initiatives: the Government Information Locator Service as example. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 314-330. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from Wiley InterScience database.

McClure, C. R., & Yaeger, P. T. (2008). Government information policy research: importance, approaches, and realities. Library & Information Science Research, 30, 257-264. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from ScienceDirect database.

Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Patrice's Prescriptions

I agree with McDermott that the citizenry needs to pay attention to what’s going on, should be outraged by limitations (or complete walls) to access, and should get involved (2007). But, and I hate to sound negative here, it is simply not realistic to think that billions of people all are going to pay attention to information access issues. Some have other concerns, and rightly so. Should a doctor be more concerned about the quality of information access of the quality of health care? McDermott would argue that information access affects everyone, and she’s right, BUT most people have too much on their plates and have to prioritize. Personally, I would rather the doctor I see in the ER be more concerned with the quality of health care s/he is providing than the level of access to government information.

So – then whose job is it to pay attention to information access issues? The people who are information providers, for a start. That means librarians/archivists, library and i-school faculty, journalists, IT folks, etc. Also, people who scrutinize politics such as policy analysts, political scientists, journalists again, etc.

Much of the problem has to do with knowing what information is out there, indexing it, and making it searchable and retrievable across systems (hello the Holy Grail of interoperability). I think those of us who have taken the Seminar in Foundations of LIS know whose job that is. Not government, that’s for sure. It’s a little unreasonable and a lot unrealistic to ask people whose job is politics to do the job of information professionals. That’s OUR job. Why would we even want them doing it? Then what would we do (besides engage in a never-ending debate over the definition and nature of information, no thank you)? A useful solution would be if (and I know how big of an IF this is) government would commission studies on access from experts on access, listen to those experts, and hire real archivists, librarians, database engineers, etc. to organize and make accessible all of the government’s information.

So, is this a question of forcing implementation and regulation of existing policies? Or, is this a question of advocating new policies that make explicit the need for trained information professionals in government positions where they can organize and make accessible government information? I think both. We certainly need FOIA to be enforced. We certainly need the Presidential Records Act (as written and not as interpreted by certain members of the Axis of Evil) to be enforced. But part of that enforcement requires those trained information professionals. You really can’t expect management folks, budget folks, or any other non-information folks to know how to compile a finding aid, organize a catalog, or make any of it searchable through metadata. That’s what we have librarians, archivists, and other information professionals for!

Anyway, we have a little ray of hope right now since we have a new administration, one that at least says it favors openness and accountability, and one that is more inclined than the previous administration to hire/appoint qualified people (as opposed to “favor” appointments) to government positions. So, now is the time for information professionals to begin lobbying for stronger positions in government where we can actually make a difference.

References

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

Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)

Let me start with a definition from my trusty Oxford College Dictionary –

Eliminate: completely remove or get rid of (something)

By that definition, one would expect that the Government Paperwork ELIMINATION Act would be about completely removing or getting rid of (paperwork). Ha ha ha. Yes, it is important that GPEA allows Executive Branch agencies to use and collect electronic signatures and electronic forms. Yes, it is important that GPEA established the legality of these e-sigs and e-forms. But, NO, GPEA does not eliminate anything. It only stipulates that the agencies must provide an alternative method of submission besides paper, when “practicable” (see note below). It does not say these e-forms are replacing, or will ever be completely replacing, paper. So what exactly is being “eliminated” here? Still don’t know.

References

Government Paperwork Elimination Act. (2006). 44 U.S.C. § 3504. Retrieved January 27, 2009 fro Lexis/Nexis Congressional.

Lindberg, C. A. (Sr. Ed.). (2007). The Oxford college dictionary, 2nd ed. New York: Spark Publishing and Oxford: Oxford University.

Note – Defining Practicable

Thanks again to the Oxford College Dictionary: able to be done or put into practice successfully; able to be used; useful. Based on this, I am not sure GPEA really expects any agency to do anything about e-sigs or e-forms since there is NO measure given of success. If there is no measure of success, then you can’t determine if the action can be practiced “successfully,” therefore it is not “practicable.” I don’t even want to think about what “able to be used” or “useful” mean in a government context. Grr.