- From: Catherine Roy <croy@communautique.qc.ca>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:34:10 -0400
- To: "Miguel A. Amutio Gómez" <miguel.amutio@map.es>
- CC: 'eGovIG' <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Hi, On this latest proposal, I have the following comments. Sub-section "How Can Multi-Channel Delivery Be Achieved?" I would suggest adding a bullet that suggests the use of accessibility guidelines (such as WCAG) or related government accessibility standards (such as Section 508 in the US, CLF-Accessibility in Canada, RGAA in France, etc., depending on where you are). Sub-section "Accessibility" I must reiterate that this whole section does not work if you are to keep it with the heading "Accessibility". What is being talked about in this sub-section is *Access* of which accessibility is a part. For WAI's definition of accessibility, please see [1]. For W3C's definition of access for all or what they are now calling the “Web for Everyone” (what they used to call “universal access”[2]), please see [3]. As it stands now, you are redefining one of W3C's already accepted definitions for the concept of accessibility. I would also suggest that reference to section 508 be removed from this section as I imagine this document does not only address US concerns. Finally, I think the first paragraph, which seems to be adapted from my e-mail from last night, only adds to the confusion and was not meant to introduce this sub-section in this manner. It should therefore be removed. Best regards, Catherine -- [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php [2] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/ [3] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission -- Catherine Roy Chargée de projets Communautique 514.948.6644, poste 222 http://www.communautique.qc.ca Miguel A. Amutio Gómez wrote: > Hello all, > > I have added a little thing. > > There is a paragraph about the investigation whether the service can > be divided into distinct steps and explaining that sometimes the full > transaction could take several steps which might involve different > channels. > > I have added an example: > > For instance, in order to renew the citizen´s ID card in Spain an > appointment can be made through a web site, then the citizen may > receive a confirmation with an SMS message through the mobile phone > and then the last step is made face to face in an office of the > administration. > > Best regards, > Miguel A. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Multi-Channel Delivery* > > The objectives of this issue are as follows: > > * > > /Identify ways to facilitate the deployment, delivery and > availability of multi-channel services by governments:/ Identify > any gaps to be filled in creating a complete suite of standards > to enable services that can be located, accessed and consumed by > all potential users, through different networks, terminal > devices or platforms and interfaces, satisfying quality and > security conditions. > > * > > /Gather information about best practices in multi-channel > delivery of public services./ > > *What is Multi-Channel Delivery?* > > Channels are different means used by service providers to interact > with and deliver services to their user community. Multi-channel > service delivery is the provision of services through different > networks, terminal devices or platforms and interfaces, in an > integrated and coordinated way, with comparable levels of user > friendliness. > > Governments, like other sectors, also interact with citizens through > different channels, from the traditional ones such as the counter or > face-to-face and postal delivery to the electronic channels such as > Internet web-sites, e-mail, SMS-messaging, fixed phone, mobile phone, > interactive voice response systems, digital television, fax, > self-service terminals (ATMs), etc. Governments also have challenges > in relation to the elimination of barriers in the access to their > services and in relation to the provision of choices about how to > access their information and services. > > Mobile devices, digital TV and others are opening new ways of > interaction between citizens and governments, so that electronic > services are no longer limited to the PC. This is possible thanks to > the evolution of terminal devices with better features in terms of > processing capacity, memory, power autonomy, screen size and quality, > on one side and to the improvement of networks, protocols and mark-up > languages on the other side. > > Industry and citizens are getting used to these new electronic > channels taking advantage of their possibilities and new services and > there is an expectation that governments may be able to do the same. > > These new electronic channels require the adoption of new > architectures and systems able to provide the top of their > functionalities. > > The Web is a main channel to access government services permanently > available and it should be possible to offer the citizens such > services through any device incorporating Internet access. This would > allow a significant increase in the usage of government services by > means of any kind of widespread channels such as PDA,s, smartphones, > WAP, WebTV, and others; in this way the access to government services > would be really anyhow, anywhere, anytime through mobile devices. > > Governments should clearly prioritize distribution and accessibility > options which do not pose barriers which would result decrease the > amount of information distribution. At the same time some > consideration to disabled users, users without high bandwidth and high > cost devices, as well as devices, platforms and websites with smaller > audiences should be taken for high priority information as well as > possible on-demand conversion services. A low-barrier method which > could serve as a base from which to achieve these accomodations would > be a central text-based multimedia index feed containing hyperlinks to > content in open formats. This feed would be searchable from both text > based mobile and internet browsers and contain context information > which would allow replication of the content posting which were > created on non-government websites by government officials. > > *What Public Policy Outcomes are Related to Multi-Channel Delivery?* > > Multi-channel policies developed by governments generally address the > following goals: > > * > > /Facilitating e-Inclusion, avoiding digital divide and reaching > the disadvantaged citizens/. For instance, the Lisbon > Ministerial Declaration [MD-LISBON] > <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/docs/lisbon_2007/ministerial_declaration_180907.pdf> > refers to multi-channel delivery in relation to inclusive > eGovernment. Also, the ICT PSP work programme 2009 [EC-CIP] > <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/ict_psp/index_en.htm%20>* > *focus the multi-channel service delivery to the socially > disadvantaged and opens this entry explaining that one third of > the European population is currently considered socially > disadvantaged, most of it suffering from multiple difficulties > leading to social exclusion (economic, physical, cultural, > geographical factors etc.). > > * > > /A closer government to the citizens, providing transparency and > openness and expanding citizen participation/ in public policy > decision making. The Obama administration's memo on Transparency > and Open Government [OB-MEMO > <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/>] > emphasizes these questions. Also it is an issue in the the > Lisbon Ministerial Declaration [MD-LISBON]. > <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/docs/lisbon_2007/ministerial_declaration_180907.pdf> > > * > > /Making available egovernment services to large part of the > population. /This is specially interesting in countries with low > computer penetration as explained in the case of the > “Multi-channel Citizen Service Centers in Greece” [EV-PAPA] > <http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/csckep%20>. It has to be taken > into account the world wide expansion of mobile networks and the > forecast that by the end of 2010 there may be four billion > people in the world with access to a mobile phone. > > * > > /Expanding citizen´s choice/, extending and providing citizen > centric and personalized services; also referred in [EC-CIP]. > <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/ict_psp/index_en.htm%20> > > * > > Multi-channel delivery of government services in support to the > process of /combined service delivery across different > administrations/, also referred in [EC-CIP]. > <http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/ict_psp/index_en.htm%20> > > * > > /Reusing data and applications independently from the channel/, > reducing the costs of providing services, included in policies > oriented to efficiency and effectiveness. > > *What are the Main Benefits of Multi-Channel Delivery?* > > Main benefits of multi-channel delivery may be for the user community > and for the service provider: > > * > > An increase of /flexibility/ in terms of anytime, anywhere, > anyhow and accessibility for the user. > > * > > An increase of the /choice /according to the user´s preferences; > access to the same information and services through different > channels. > > * > > /Wider usage and impact /of government services; a higher > population or user community reached by government services. > > * > > /Cost savings/ along the delivery chain for the service provider. > > * > > /Quicker deployment of services through new or additional > channels/ which may provide easy, accurate and personalized > content delivery. > > * > > /Integration of government services/ in the front-office. > > *How Can Multi-Channel Delivery Be Achieved?* > > * > > /Developing a multi-channel strategy./ > > As a starting point governments develop strategies so that the access > to their Web sites may be available through mobile devices offering > more choice to citizens. More global approaches design strategies > which combine face to face offices, call centers and web sites, as in > the case of the multichannel initiative consisting in a website > (www.060.es), a network of offices (more than 1.600 in March 2009), > and a telephone number in Spain [Red060] > <multichannel%20initiative%20consisting%20in%20a%20website%20%28www.060.es%29,%20a%20network%20of%20offices%20%28more%20than%201.600%20in%20March%202009%29,%20and%20a%20telephone%20number.> > and the Multi-channel Citizen Service Centers in Greece [EV-PAPA] > <http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/csckep%20>, with equivalent > experiences to this one in other countries. > > The study about “Multi-channel delivery of government services” > elaborated by the Program IDA of the European Commission [EC-MCD] > <http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3119> elaborates on how to > develop a multi-channel strategy; this study includes a list of > possible channels with their main features, proposes a channel > selection framework and provides implementation guidelines of the > multi-channel strategy. This implementation may require a number of > steps such like the following: > > * > > Identify candidate services for multi-channel delivery. > > * > > Investigate whether the service can be divided into distinct > steps. Given one service, sometimes one specific channel can > satisfy the full transaction; in other cases the full > transaction could take several steps which might involve > different channels. For instance, in order to renew the > citizen´s ID card in Spain an appointment can be made through a > web site, the citizen may receive a confirmation with an SMS > message through the mobile and then the last step is made face > to face in an office of the administration. > > * > > Carry out research and segmentation of the target user community. > > * > > Analyze organizational changes including business processes, > back end and front end applications, staffing. > > * > > Analyze technical solutions. > > * > > Determine the channels to be implemented. > > * > > Quantification and evaluation. Statistics of access through the > different channels enabled. > > * > > > /Using standards: /URI, XML, XHTML, WML, SOAP, WSDL, ... > > * > > > /Using the Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0/ [W3C-MOBILE] > <%20http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/%20> : Design for One Web, > rely on Web standards, stay away from known hazards, be > cautious of device limitations, optimize navigation, check > graphics & colors, keep it small, use the network sparingly, > help & guide user input, think of users on the go. And verify > the result [W3C-VALIDATOR] <http://validator.w3.org/mobile/%20>. > > *What are the Main Issues and Limitations with Multi-Channel Delivery?* > > *General requirements of the user and of the provider* > > * > > /General requirements of the user, /as pointed out in [EC-MCD] > <http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3119>: flexibility, > accessibility, usability (easy to use), quality, security. > > Some of them are specially relevant like security providing trust, and > simplicity so that the content may have a similar appearance from any > device, providing transparency from the point of view of the user. > > Many people uses the mobile phone only for phone calls and are not > aware of the rest of possibilities of the device, because its > operation may result difficult for them. This inhibiting factor > decreases the usage of the offered services. For instance, trying to > write an URL in a mobile may be a difficult task because certain > characters (“@”, “/”, “?”, “&”, “:”, …) are hard to find and the > writing task is generally troublesome. The user usually has to > remember a crowd of short numbers, key words, URLs, while using > impulsively a mobile device with low help capabilities and requiring a > quick answer to solve an specific problem. > > * > > /General requirements of the service provider, /as pointed out > in [EC-MCD] <http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3119>: > efficiency, effectiveness, security. > > *Limitation of mobile devices and adaptation of information and > services provided* > > * > > /Limitations of mobile devices/, as listed in [WIK-MB-LIM] > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Internet%20>/: /Small > screen size, Lack of windows, Navigation, Lack of Javascript and > cookies, Types of pages accessible, Speed, Broken pages, > Compressed pages, Size of messages, Cost - the access and > bandwidth charges, Location of mobile user, Situation in which > ad reaches user. > > * > > /Adaptation to the access to the Web through mobile devices/, > which may require, between others, the reduction of download > traffic and the processing consume, because of the need to keep > the battery, reduce the cost by traffic and the time response > perceived by the user when used intensively or when downloading > contents. > > The ideal scenario is that introduction of new electronic channels > would be as non-intrusive as possible; for instance without having to > modify content managers used for the production of information for the > Web. > > This may require the deployment of intermediate elements which adapt > or format the content taken out from the web appropriately according > to the kind of device involved in the transaction. > > * > > /Management of contents that can not be showed in a mobile > device/, have a large size very costly to download and memory > consuming (images, PDF documents). > > *Coordination and integration of different channels* > > * > > /Coordination and integration of different channels/ is > necessary to provide a focus on the user, a consistent approach > to data and databases available or shared by all channels and > consistent look and feel. > > * > > /Interoperability/, discussed above in this /note/. > > *Accessibility* > > Accessibility has already been well-documented and defined by W3C, > through WAI, as well as by other related stake-holders. The following > paragraphs discusses the problem when it lumps together device > (interoperability), bandwidth (connectivity) and access by persons > with disabilities (accessibility) within the general concept of > Accessibility, but in any case within the concept of universal access > or universality (also traditionally defined by W3C). > > Accessibility is determined by 3 factors: > > * > > device, > > * > > bandwidth, > > * > > and user disability in using the device (commonly known as 508 > standards in the US). > > Device and bandwidth issues together with the lack of accessibility > are typically talked about as the ‘digital divide’. Both wider > broadband distribution and accessibility of information on mobile > devices can help to solve this issue. > > One of the ways in which governments are broadening broadband access > is through free internet enabled computers at libraries and kiosks. > The type of access which is made widely available to citizens for free > at public locations as well as the bandwidth and devices available at > the lowest price points should be considered when choosing data > standards, platforms, devices and websites for the bulk of information > through social media channels. If broadly available access is not > compatible with how the majority of a country’s citizens use the > internet, then clearly public internet access is not adequate. > > The lower costs devices and the lower costs access in most countries > means that whether a website or platform makes text based information > available on low cost mobile platforms should be taken into account. > While most platforms are multi-media, there is still often the > opportunity to provide some information in text form for mobile access. > > The availability of multimedia information should also be announced > and searchable through text based services so that users who have > limited access to multimedia enabled workstations, can find out about > resources they need and go to a kiosk or library which access is > available. To prevent those without full access even to discover what > is available would effectively block its use, since time and context > when accessing the public internet is limited. > > *Conditions about the reuse of government information* > > * > > /Conditions about the reuse of government information by the > public/, as explained in [GSA-TRAN] > <http://www.usaservices.gov/events_news/documents/Transparency.pdf%20>. > > * > > /Multi-Channel Distribution Standards./ > > In an age of connected data, standards are not just about the format > of information but are also about accessible and fair distribution. > That having been said, a balance must be achieved so that distribution > of information does not become a barrier limiting the amount of > information which is distributed. > > In the digital age, information is key to both economic and social > development of societies. Therefore, governments need to prioritize > making the most information available through broadly distributed > channels over limiting information in order to make it most broadly > accessible and distributed. This is a classic 90/10 effort issue, > where the last 10% of effort to broaden distribution and accessibility > to near perfection would take 90% of the effort. Too often governments > have opted for an all or none method in information distribution and > it has resulted in less distribution and a lesser good for the public > as a whole. The amount of information is too vast given the current > state of information storage formats and technology to make all > information accessible through all conceivable methods and channels. > Accepting this fact and opening up government data needs to be the > priority. > > That having been said accessibility should not be discarded but rather > a system should be in place to determine which information warrants > the broadest, most accessible distribution and which information > should be posted but does not warrant extra effort to increase > accessibility. (Of course in both cases, the format chosen should be a > non-proprietary one so that the public may redistribute the > information if it chooses.) Concern for accessibility may be handled > by providing a government sponsored service which can provide specific > data in more accessible formats on demand. > > This is not a radical departure from traditional accommodations but > rather a continuation of choices which have become routine. An > excellent example to understand how this is an extension of existing > policies is to consider library books and the blind in the US. Library > books for the sighted are more widely available and more easily > accessible at libraries across the country, but Braille versions of > books can be accessed on demand through the Library of Congress’ > National Library Service for the Blind and Handicapped. A similar > program could be developed for on-demand access of multimedia material > for the handicapped. That having been said, basic accommodations which > can easily be built into websites to promote accessibility should be > addressed with social media providers by encouraging broad > accessibility to their material and links should be provide on > multimedia home pages on how to request more accessible versions such > as closed captioned videos. > > * > > /Fair distribution./ > > Fair distribution refers to the issue if government distributed > content through selected websites, platforms or devices creates an > unfair advantage for a particular device, platform, distribution > network, or website. It seems appropriate for governments to not have > to expend resources on wide distribution if the bulk of the intended > audience is on one platform or website, but some consideration should > be taken so that governments do not become unintentional monopoly > makers through their social media distribution choices. Again this > consideration should not take priority over wide distribution of the > bulk of information but be a factor in making policy choices. > > The nature of social media information is that it is posted on > locations which are not on government servers or control and is > distributed though social connections not through formal > organizations. Social media information is distributed on websites > which choose whom to allow access to the website and which behaviors > are acceptable for participation. Also a user’s activity and > connections on a social media website determines to some extent how > much exposure they receive to information available on that site. For > instance, someone is who is a friend of a person who participates in > government discussion boards will be more likely to be exposed to > government distributed information and the fact of its availability > than someone who is not similarly friended. Likewise, people who > belong to communities who choose to participate in smaller online > venues will not be exposed to the government distributed information > on the larger venues. For instance, what about the parent who blocks > Youtube on the household computer because of objectional material? > Some consideration to the unevenness of social media distribution > should be made. > > *Multi-media central feed.* > > Therefore a government using social media to distribute multi-media, > should create a public location which announces distribution of > documents and content with links to their openly accessible location. > > A central text feed of all distributed info will serve four purposes: > > 1. Provide the public with a completely open and highly accessible > index to content provided through social media channels. > > 2. Provide the government content in a form isolated from other > content to broaden distribution to those who prefer to avoid mixed > distribution sources. > > 3. Provide other smaller content providers and websites methods to > have the same content as larger providers. > > 4. Provide a central reference location for any on-demand > accessibility service requests for government sponsored or partnered > services such as closed captioning or braille. > > This media index feed could be in the form of a searchable text feed > which link to the original documents. The text feed would be > searchable from text based mobile devices as well as web browsers. > Search would be provided through a tagging mechanism which at the > least allows those posting the information to create new search tags > and categories. It also may allow the public to tag items to create a > folksomy based search. Documents would be in a freely accessible > format, so long as that format allows for the same distribution both > in context and content to other websites as was carried by government > officials. For instance, if a document was associated on a social > media website with certain search tags, titles and description > attached, those tags should be indicated in this feed. If a document > had hyperlinks or embedded content placed in it by government > officials, those hyperlinks and content should be preserved in this > centrally stored format. > > Video and audio should be avaialble from a link on this central feed > in an instantly playable format such as a progressive player linked to > cloud based storage so high demand will not slow distribution, as well > as a downloadable format which can be used to replicate the > distribution on other websites. Again the meta or context data which > allows for duplication of the original post to the primarily > distribution site should be stored in the feed or the linked files. > > In the case of virtual world information distribution, some capture of > the virtual world experience would be attempted to replicate the > primary message in some way such as a video of the experience. If it > is possible to store in an open format 3-D objects or actions, that > content maybe also be considered for placement in this central data store. > > To the extent that an industry standard is developed to allow easily > subscription or importing of documents and audio/video content to > alternate media websites and platforms, governments should adopt these > methods to support their central feed. > > *References:* > > *[EC-CIP]* > > European Commission, COMPETITIVENESS AND INNOVATION FRAMEWORK > PROGRAMME (CIP) ICT POLICY SUPPORT PROGRAMME ICT PSP WORK PROGRAMME > 2009, > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/ict_psp/index_en.htm > > *[EC-MCD]* > > European Commission – Program IDA, Multi-channel delivery of > government services, June 2004, > http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3119 > > *[EC-MCEGOV]* > > European Commission, 'MC-eGov: Study on Multi-channel Delivery > Strategies and Sustainable Business Models for Public Services > Addressing Socially Disadvantaged Groups', > http://www.epractice.eu/community/InclusiveeGovernment > > *[EV-PAPA]* > > Evangelos Papanikolaou (Ministry of the Interior, Public > Administration & Decentralization) Multi-channel Citizen Service > Centers in Greece, http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/csckep > > *[GSA-TRAN]* > > GSA Office of Citizen Services and Communications, Intergovernmental > Solutions Newsletter, Transparency and Open Government, Transparency > in > Government,http://www.usaservices.gov/events_news/documents/Transparency.pdf > > > *[MD-LISBON]* > > Ministerial Declaration, approved unanimously in Lisbon, Portugal, on > 19 September 2007, > http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/egovernment/docs/lisbon_2007/ministerial_declaration_180907.pdf > > > *[OB-MEMO]* > > Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies on > Transparency and Open Government > <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/>, > B. Obama, > http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/. > > > *[Red060]* > > Red 060 (Network 060), http://www.epractice.eu/en/cases/red060 > > > *[W3C-MOBILE]* > > > Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0, http://www.w3.org/TR/mobile-bp/ > > *[W3C-VALIDATOR]* > > > W3C mobileOK Checker , http://validator.w3.org/mobile/ > > *[WIK-MB-LIM]* > > Wikipedia, Mobile Web, Limitations, > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Internet >
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 18:34:56 UTC