|
|
|
|
Second independent report of “Flagship” Government Web sites
22 Dec 2003 The Second report into UK Government Web sites contains mostly good news, but also some areas of bad news. It commends, yet questions, the progress of online provision for the 2005 deadline. "Some good news, some bad news and questions" The second annual report of "Flagship" Government Web sites, which has benchmarked 31 Government Web sites against each other, and against last year's results, contains mostly good news for the Government and the Office of the E-Envoy, which published its Annual Report 2003 on its progress towards all things "E" this week. The results show that in general the Government's Web site provision has improved since 2002. The report also reveals some bad news, including individual Web site horror stories, and areas where the Government's provision is not matching up to expectations. The report concludes with general commendations, but also questions what the Government means when it says it will make all its services available electronically by 2005, and questions how the Government is quantifying, and qualifying, its claims to have two-thirds of all services "e-enabled" already. The Good News The report found:
The Report says that "the overall quality of Government Web sites has increased in the past year. The Guidelines, which were put in place by the Office of the e-Envoy in May 2002, to assist Web teams in the implementation of their organisation's Web sites, have begun to take effect. Levels of technical compliance and performance have increased, we are seeing more considered designs, particularly when redesigns have been implemented, and useful navigational provision on Government sites is extending into their lower levels. We have also noted that to a degree, and particularly on redesigned sites, the tone of the sites' content is beginning to be considered - and written for the Web - and in places consistent methods of presenting information are being put in place". Adrian Porter, the report's author comments, "we are really pleased to see a general improvement, it is evident that major steps have been taken in the right direction". He mentions that he "found it interesting that the sites we reviewed last year are generally better than the ones we added into the mix this year, we wondered whether we might have played some small part in this?" The Results The report found:
The report says, "We suggested last year, and still maintain this year, that any site that scored 65% or less of the available mark in the analysis was in need of immediate attention in one area or another. Last year this amounted to three-quarters of the 20 sites, this year of the 31 sites considered, 58% fell below the "cut off point". "Notable among those that improved were the DVLA (40% to 69.1%) and the Department for Culture Media & Sport (48.5% to 75.1%) - both redesigned sites, and DEFRA (46.25% to 68.7% ), which has consolidated its provision since its redesign, which occurred in the midst of last year's assessment. Of note also is the improvement made by the Prime Minister's Web site as a result of a redesign (40.75% to 64.1%), although the site is still below the 65% mark. The Bad News The report found:
The report asks "where do Departments such as that of the Deputy Prime Minister expect members of the public to direct queries relating to the workings of their Departments - why do they not provide a general email enquiry point? And secondly, given the very benign nature of our enquiry why would Departments such as The Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and Immigration & Nationality Directorate, need personal details and/or case numbers to be provided in order to generate a response?" Adrian Porter comments that "this seems to represent a backward step. While we appreciate the resource implications the advent of email must have had on the Government, surely this is a significant area where the Government can connect with the people, and the people can feel that the Government is listening to them" The report also says that "It is no surprise to note that the sites which rated highest in this category were also the ones who did best overall, suggesting that those sites, which take the design, navigation and performance of their Web sites seriously are also those that have a commitment to this interactive elements of their service provision". The survey sees that the methods employed in the Government's push towards the 2005 deadline as detrimental to the quality of much of its online provision, and in particular its publications. It quotes UK Online's Annual Report 2002, which claimed that the Government had "transformed the provision of information. Instead of the mass of information only available on paper, information is now easily and freely available on the internet 24 hours a day, seven days a week". The survey goes on to say that "In 2003 a similar claim has been made, which we do not dispute. However, is it OK for the Government to tick the box for information provision by transforming a ‘mass of information only available on paper', into a mass of electronic information, which is only suitable to be printed out on paper?" Regarding online transactions with the Government, the report fears that not much progress has been made saying that "The evidence in this report is that very little progress has been made since last year in providing publicly available online transaction services. It is perhaps poignant to note that the Driving Standards Authority Web site, which is featured in the OeE 2003 Annual report as a success regarding its online driving theory test bookings system, was rated as the second worst citizen-focused site in this survey, due to its lack of; design consistency, browser compatibility and accessibility". Porter comments, "We envisaged progress towards a time when we wouldn't have to go to the post office to get a form to send to the Government, and were hoping to see some movement towards that this year. However, it would appear that this is a long way off. You might be able to download a form, but having the majority of Government forms available for online completion and submission does not seem to be in the remit of the drive to 2005" The Questions In the light of the Office of the e-Envoy's, Annual Report 2003, the Interactive Bureau commissioned report of these 31 sites has added poignancy. There are two aspects of the OeE report, which grabbed the attention of this report's author. The first is the claim by Government that "two-thirds of central government services have been e-enabled". The second is the announcement of a new pilot scheme - a portal - aimed at providing a "single point for delivery of government services". This is to have "more user-friendly services, which are based firmly around customer needs", presenting "information in a consistent and useable way", and which will "enable common customers of different departments to access services from a single location". The report points out that in 2002 the Government said that "54% of services are now available electronically". It questions the Government's definition of "services", and how figures of 54 percent, or two-thirds, could be arrived at? Porter says "we are not questioning the figures per se, but we do wonder what they mean. The evidence is that in transactional terms the Government is now going to concentrate on key service delivery from a centrally controlled portal. Considering that this is a pilot scheme, and that 2005 is fast approaching, does this mean that 100% electronic service delivery was never meant to include any online transaction? Given the two-thirds claim, and the findings of our report, it would seem not". The report concludes by saying that the single point of delivery portal is an "eminently sensible approach", and commends the OeE for "taking the bull by the horns". However, it also asks a series of questions, which attempt to get to the heart of the Government's thinking:
Porter finishes off by saying "overall this report shows that the Government's Web site provision is improving. We wonder however, whether in terms of 2005 the goal posts might have moved. In truth we are not overly concerned if they have, since the plans that are being put in place appear basically sound. However, we would like to see the Government come clean with what it considers to be its realistically achievable aims for 2005, based on a qualitative rather than quantative approach". "The Second Annual Report Into Key Government Web Sites" - is published on Monday December 22nd, 2003 by Interactive Bureau, London. Price £425 + VAT. Copies can be obtained from Interactive Bureau, 9 White Lion Street, London N1 9PD. Tel: 020 7278 4352. Or email: enquiries@iablondon.com For further information contact: Mark Everest or Adrian Porter on 020 7278 4352 |
|
|
Back to News
