|
|
|
|
Review report of 20 'Flagship' Government Web sites
03 Nov 2002 Three-quarters of the 20 "Flagship" Government Web sites surveyed in a new report by Interactive Bureau are in need of some attention. This gives a strong indication that hundreds of Government Web sites may well have problems that need attention too. Below please find a review of the overall findings of the report. Purchasers of the report will have access to detailed reviews of each of the 20 flagship sites, which include identification of key usability issues affecting each site, with relation to its design, navigation, performance and accessibility along with recommendations.
Three-quarters of the 20 "Flagship" Government Web sites surveyed in depth in a new report are in need of immediate attention in one area or another. This gives a strong indication that hundreds of Government and quasi-governmental Web sites may well have serious problems in them - and also need attention. This is the conclusion of the first-ever, independent report into the progress of the public-facing Web site part of the Government's £5billion, five-year programme to put the whole of government online. The 200-page report says that half way through that programme, there are worrying signs that the Web aspect of it is in trouble. It concedes that great advances have been made - "but these are of little value, if the Web site - the point at which the public meets its Government online - does not work properly or is not user-friendly. And all too often it is not." One of the worst sites of all is the Prime Minister's own site, which the report describes as a "mess - in need of a thorough overhaul from top to bottom". "What is the point," the report asks, "of the Prime Minister - the prime mover in bringing the Government to the people via the Web - having a site, which announces the opportunity for foreign journalists to ask him questions, yet gives no opportunity for members of the British Public to do so?" The site only scores 40.75% and is rated 19th out of the 20 "flagship" governmental sites tested in great detail against criteria based on the Government's own guidelines for them. "It scores so badly, because its navigation is inept, because of a lack of attention to detail, because it is poorly maintained, because the coding of it is of a low standard, because whole sections of it are inappropriately named, because of its slow speed of loading, because it does not work properly with some browsers - and because it allows no provision for members of the public to contact either the Prime Minister or his office," the report concludes. And it points out that if you type "Number 10" into the Yahoo UK search engine - the PM's site comes out below "10 Rillington Place". The best site examined was The Department for Education & Skills (78.5%). The worst was found to be that of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (40%). Second place overall was awarded to The Equal Opportunities Commission (69.5%), followed by The UK Passport Agency (68.75%), The Commission for Racial Equality (67%) and The Department of Health (65.5%). The report describes these sites as "beacons of excellence in a dark night." The second worst site was that of the Prime Minister (41%), followed by The Human Rights Unit (44%), The Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (46.25%) and The Department for Culture, Media & Sport (48.5%). The report says: "We suggest that any site that scored 65% or less of the available mark in this analysis - and that was three-quarters of them - is in need of immediate attention in one area or another." The report was commissioned by Interactive Bureau, London - the Web site strategy and design agency; and the research was carried out by Porter Research the UK's leading usability company - which also publishes an annual review of the FTSE-100 Web sites - and B2W, which is pre-eminent in technical assessment of sites. "The choice of the 20 sites - out of the 1000-plus Government and quasi-governmental sites - was made principally on the grounds that these are the sites we would expect to be the best - the flagships, if you like, of the drive to e-Government," says Rodney Tyler, MD of Interactive Bureau. "Ten of them are the sites of the principal public-facing Ministries, including the Prime Minister's own site - and the other ten are the sites of key public-facing "citizen-focussed" organisations - the ones where it is most likely the public is going to want to interact with its government." "Together, these are the 20 sites you would expect to be the standard bearers of usability and accessibility, good design and technical excellence. "By judging these, which should be among the best, we can get a fair idea of the overall state of the rest - and hence a benchmark of the progress of the Web sites in delivering e-Government. This makes this report highly relevant to those who run all the thousand or so "official" governmental Web sites. We believe it is fair to assume that there must be hundreds of them in need of attention in one area or another. "This should be a wake-up call for them." Among the common faults found by the report are:
"But perhaps the most widespread and aggravating fault is the presentation of information to the public, Says Adrian Porter of Porter Research. "All too often masses of material, full of unexplained jargon and convoluted incomprehensible English has simply been dumped into official Web sites with no thought of preparing it for the public, or helping them understand it. "Take for example the Child Support Agency site: In the section on How the CSA works, it states the following: "When Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) (and in the case of the PWC, WFTC or DPTC) is paid to a parent or to someone else for that parent, their assessable income will be taken to be nil. When the NRP is in receipt of Income Support or income based JSA they are required to make a minimum contribution to maintenance by a deduction from benefit unless they are exempt." This sort of experience is, alas, more often the norm than the exception. "It leads one to ask what is the point of spending all that money with the aim of bringing Government closer to the people, if the end result is the same forbidding "closed" mentality of officialdom writ larger than ever before?" And the report asks: "What is the point - particularly in the current climate of suspicion of HM Customs and Excise, because of its confiscatory policy towards people bringing drink and cigarettes through the Channel Ports - of replying to an email from a member of the public merely seeking to know what the rules were, by saying that they would not tell him, unless and until he first gave them his name and address?" The report adds that a recent survey pointed out that, despite all the money, the UK had the worst take-up of online Government services in Europe. "Is it any surprise," it asks, "when this report, which judges Government and quasi-governmental sites largely by the Government's own criteria, shows them to be so woefully lacking at the crucial point of delivery? "We suspect that this is only partly the fault of the politicians. Albeit, few of them appear to fully understand the nature of the medium. They probably rarely even look at their Web sites, let alone try to use them. (Certainly, if they did try to use them, they would be appalled at the way visitors to them are treated.) "But the worst allegation that can be levelled at them is that, in their rush to e-government, they have placed a vast burden of expectation on a Task Force, which is probably too small and hence constantly close to being overwhelmed. "Nor is it even the fault of that handful of civil servants tasked with bringing the Government's online revolution about. Interactive Bureau knows from its experience of working with them that they are a group of professionals constantly on the point of being swamped by the size of the tasks that face them. "We believe the fundamental problem is that there are simply too few people below the top echelon, who appear to understand that the creation of the Web site - the point at which the public arrives to see what its Government is doing - is a crucial mixture of three things:
"Forget any one of these three things, and you will fail. Alas many government and quasi-governmental sites fail on all three counts. As for the Government's target of full online government by 2005, the report says that, in Web site terms, this is "not realistically achievable." And it recommends that the Government pause its programme now. "It should stop adding to its Web sites now, pause, and concentrate for a moment on getting the ones that it has, delivering their information in a clear, appropriate, audience-focused tone and presentational style. "It is clear that the Government's current Guidelines, despite their eminently practical approach to Web site provision, are not being adhered to. Therefore, it may be that the only way to do this is to impose rigorous standards on Web masters, and to monitor their implementation, based on a Government-wide high level strategy. "The private sector has already started to learn the lesson. Few sites are built for our major companies now, without proper planning and analysis of audiences and expectations - without an expert in usability casting an eye over them, without all content being re-examined and re-purposed for the Web - and without regular technical assessments of their performance. It is time the Government began to do the same." The report adds: "Our purpose in commissioning and publishing this report, is not to attack the Government's efforts - we are fully in support of them - and we have played a small and, we hope, distinguished role in the drive to e-Government. Our purpose is as an independent outsider, using two independent agencies, to pinpoint the current state of play with the sites and to signpost the way forward for all Government and quasi-governmental Web sites." "A Report Into Key Government Web Sites" - was published on Monday November 4, 2002 by Interactive Bureau, London. Price £425+VAT.
Copies can be obtained from:
For further information contact: |
|
|
Back to News
