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

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