W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > October 2008

Re: Government and "web basics"

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 14:22:23 +0200
Cc: <michael.phythian@email.dmu.ac.uk>, <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9C48FA81-0541-47F8-A4DD-8E5801350802@w3.org>
To: "Oscar Azañon Esteire" <oscarae@princast.es>

Adding a couple bits to the discussion...

I was very glad to hear from the CIO of one of those countries leading  
the charts: "it's nice to be there, but what it really interests me is  
to transform our government in order to serve our citizens better."  
So, even them take those with a grain of salt. Fortunately, because  
there are many wrong assumptions. One that draw my attention last year  
was the new "user centricity" indicator in the 7th EU benchmarking  
study [1]. See p.23, and the part about Web Acessibility: "Site's  
compliance with international standards of accessibility
This indicator measures stated (text or logo) compliance with  
international accessibility

So, if the site has the logo is a +1, otherwise a 0? Yes, there *is*  
misunderstanding about what W3C and others do.

Oscar, the only report I found so far and I was *very* glad to read is  
that of Australia, that AGIMO issues on a yearly basis, called  
"Australians' Use of and Satisfaction with e-Government Services".  
Most recent at [2]. It was very informative for me and it's public! I  
wish more governments would do this.


[1] http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=3634
[2] http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/use-of-e-government-services-2007/index.html

El 03/10/2008, a las 13:50, Oscar Azañon Esteire escribió:
> This is an intesting point for me too! - I have the feeling (and I  
> could be completely wrong here, this is based on mere perceptions)  
> that the view from the Citizen is, in many cases, not incorporated  
> with the required importance in terms of:
> - which services could have the greatest demand or impact on a  
> broad / particular group
> - how the service is delivered
> - levels of quality
> - etc. etc. etc.
> I believe that, in some cases, these services are prioritized and  
> delivered from the administration (offer) point of view, as opposed  
> to the citizen (demand) point of view. These (offer and demand) may  
> match at the maximum utility point - or not - and the utility may be  
> perceived differently by public administrations and citizens.
> My question could be formulated as follows:
> - To which degree public administrations are gathering input /  
> feedback from their citizens - about which services would be mostly  
> preferred, how that service is provided, etc.? Surely it is a best  
> practice to measure usage of public services, but this does not  
> directly measure if the service is really a priority for the  
> citizen, or the level of dissatisfaction it generates.
> - Which experiences on these kind of consultations are we aware of?  
> And by electronic means?
> best regards
> ocr
> --
> Oscar Azañon Esteire
> oscarae@princast.es
> Tel: 985 10 5997
> Tel: 984 39 0628
>>>> "Michael Phythian" <michael.phythian@email.dmu.ac.uk> 03/10/08  
>>>> 11:12 >>>
> This has been an interesting debate and one of the reasons I started  
> my doctoral research!
> I was tired of national targets and league tables that were  
> meaningless from a citizen perspective and perhaps driving  
> development the wrong way!
> What I suspected was needed was a pragmatic view from below. Many of  
> the caluculations used at national level were also complex and  
> burdensome.
> I proposed something based on citizen satisfaction across all  
> channels, which I am now feeling just needs to collate  
> 'dissatisfaction' across all channels and direct improvement. Not  
> entirely systems thinking but at least focusing on variation and  
> using that to develop change.
> Mick
> at a 'District' council in England
> http://greatemancipator.com
Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 12:23:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:39 UTC