W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2009

Re: "Improving Access to Government through Better Use of the Web" review comments

From: Jose M. Alonso <josema@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:28:36 +0200
Cc: eGovernment Interest Group WG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, Kevin Novak <kevinnovak@aia.org>
Message-Id: <0D633170-88D7-440E-8EE9-56C961E9BB77@w3.org>
To: <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com> <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com>
Attaching this one to ISSUE-24, also related to ISSUE-10 and ISSUE-13,  
and copying Kevin who is in the main author of those sections.

-- Jose


El 30/03/2009, a las 11:19, <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com> <Anna.Zhuang@nokia.com 
 > escribió:
> Dear eGOV IG,
>
> Some high level comments to "Improving Access to Government through  
> Better Use of the Web":
>
> * I don't think the language this document is using is the right one  
> for a guideline produced by a standardization body.
>
> * Abstract: "governments and their citizenry" sounds like Her Royal  
> Highness the Queen and Her subjects. That is not the right  
> terminology for a standard. Also this phrase ommits the fact that a  
> government page may be accessed by a citizen of another country for  
> various reasons like e.g. aspiring a new job in a new country. So  
> there is no need for any distinction between so to say citizenries.  
> I assume that some government pages must be universally accessible  
> whereas some pages are accessible by providing e.g. social security  
> number.
>
> * The end of the first sentence in the abstract is not clear on  
> "departments and divisions". It probably refers to the earlier part  
> of the sentence explaining parts of government bodies. So the whole  
> sentence should be simplified to say that eGovernment should serve  
> the purpose of communication with the people, communication between  
> gifferent structures within a government and for communication  
> between governments of different countries.
>
> * I started reading and editing the Introduction but then gave up  
> reading it alltogether. Again the language is wrong. Don't say "so  
> called Web 2.0" or "wild wild web". This document is not a place to  
> judge technologies or make jokes.
>
> * The Introduction is too long and does not serve the purpose of  
> introducing the document. It  is more of a prologue. The  
> Introduction should be reduced to several paragraphs that  
> concentrate on the scope of the document, what issues it tries to  
> address rather than giving a history of WWW development.
>
> * Background subsection of the Intruduction seems to explain the  
> scope of work of the eGovernment working group. If this is important  
> message to deliver as part of this guideline,  why not to isolate it  
> as a separate section and may be change the title to "Scope of  
> Egovernment WG work". However if deliverables of eGovernment group  
> are well exposed in the document, this Background section should go  
> alltogether.
>
> Best regards,
> Anna Zhuang
>
>
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 16:30:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 April 2009 16:30:35 GMT