Getting to grips with Web 2.0

This Friday I'm off to the Scottish Web 2.0 Unconference in Edinburgh - "an informal, bar camp style event allowing participants to listen, network and share experiences with those who have designed and are managing Web 2 services".

To prepare for this I thought I'd have a quick recap of what Web 2.0 means to me.

Wikipedia describes Web 2.0 thus:

Web 2.0 is a term describing changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aims to enhance creativity, secure information sharing, collaboration and functionality of the web.

What qualifies as Web 2.0 can sometimes be in debate, and Tim Berners-Lee himself has questioned the value of the term, but for me the above keywords 'sharing, collaboration and functionality' strike at the heart of the matter. We're talking about a concept in which previously passive users become contributors, where content can be pulled apart and seamlessly put back together again, and where new ideas and innovations can more easily be built upon existing platforms.

So what does this mean for the local gov web developer? The public sector is traditionally very slow at responding to trends and change, so many of us are currently in a situation where we're locked out of the playground whilst the rest of the world has fun playing this new game. Why? Because of risk.

The perils of public opinion

The risks to which I'm referring are fairly obvious. Post a Youtube video and you may get negative comments; set up a MySpace profile and you don't know who you'll be making friends with; start a blog and people might find out you don't have a clue what you're talking about (*cough*). In essence, Web 2.0 is about giving power to the people - the Information Superhighway is no longer a one-way street (actually, it hasn't been a one-way street for a long time, it's just that continuing developments are making it easier, quicker and cheaper than ever to get involved).

Is this something that local government has the confidence to open itself up to? More often than not, regrettably, no. Once something is out there, there's no bringing it back in. The lack of control is something that I've found to be a major sticking point. But the obvious rebuttal to this is that conversations are going on out there, whether we're involved or not. Surely it's far better to be playing the game badly than not playing at all?

Getting it wrong

Well, not always. There have been some good examples of why dipping your toes in the Web 2.0 waters can often lead to losing a pinkie. And although the biggest mistake would be to ignore Web 2.0 completely, there's plenty of reasons to pause for thought. Bad examples we've seen recently include Youtube videos withdrawn because of inappropriate messages (someone forgot to dis-allow commenting) and social networking accounts shut down through lack of interest (very embarrassing to learn you have no friends).

So how can we avoid the pitfalls? Stephen Dale, in his excellent article on Utilising Web 2.0 in local government, gives the following tips:

Simple guidelines for Web 2.0 deployment

• Don't think about Web 2.0 or e-government as being just about technology. It is about saving time and making life easier and more efficient for citizens.
• Make sure you are resourced to cope. No point setting up a blog that encourages comments if you can't respond to each comment.
• Carefully plan your strategy if using blogs. If it's a council blog, make sure it's part of a wider communications strategy and not the domain of one or two keen individuals.
• Consider the reputational risks of publishing un-moderated citizen comments in online forums or blogs. Don't assume comments represent universal opinion.
• Identify the audience you are trying to reach and use the appropriate channel. Not everyone has an account on Facebook, Myspace or Bebo, and not everyone has broadband. Know who you are excluding and plan for this.
• Ensure there is a staff policy for using social media sites during working hours.
• Most Web 2.0 solutions are relatively cheap to deploy. If you are planning to spend more than £100k on an enterprise solution you're doing something wrong - or you have particularly complex requirements.

From Stephen Dale's Utilising Web 2.0 in local government

I'll post more thoughts after Friday's conference, but one thing is certain - it's going to be a long and winding road.

WCAG 2.0 and WAI interview

There's an interesting article in the latest e-access bulletin, produced by Headstar. As they haven't yet updated their website with this bulletin, I've reproduced the article below. For more information about the bulletin see www.headstar.com/eab.

Global Standards Giant Gears Up For Battle
by Dan Jellinek.

With the long-awaited appearance of version 2 of the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) now expected in December, the spotlight is set to fall once more on the workings of this key international standards body.

The consortium, known as W3C, was founded in 1994 by the inventor of the web Tim Berners-Lee, who remains its director. It functions as a developer and repository of key technical standards and protocols that are needed to be shared by technology companies and users to ensure that the web remains open and universal.

With a current membership of more than 400 organisations, from large multinational technology companies to universities and charities, W3C has three main global bases: the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM) at the Sophia Antipolis technology park in the South of France; Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Computer Science and Artificial Technology Laboratory; and Keio University in Japan.

The consortium has a core staff of around 70, with around 30 in Europe, 30 in the US and 10 Japan. But the actual headcount of those involved in its work is more than 500 if a tally is taken of everyone in the consortium's working groups, interest groups, and the wider community.

The WCAG work falls under the auspices of W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), a programme that cuts across all the consortium's other areas. In a UK visit last month, two WAI staff Shadi Abou-Zahra and Andrew Arch met E-Access Bulletin in London to explain their work programme.

"WAI is one of the consortium's main work areas, and cuts across all the W3C's global locations," said Abou-Zahra. "One of our tasks is to cross-check all W3C's work such as that on [the web's core protocol] HTML to check it supports accessibility, because if standards like HTML don't support accessibility, you won't have accessible websites.

"This is really one of the most important pieces of work we are doing, though it is the least visible to the outside world. What's most well- known about WAI's work is its development of three guidelines - WCAG, ATAG (Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines) and UAAG (User Agent Accessibility Guidelines).

Authoring tools guidelines relate to content management systems, and are aimed at ensuring these systems need to create accessible content, while user agents are tools like browsers and media players, Abou- Zahra says.

"Other areas of our work include education and outreach, which is really important, because most people who make inaccessible websites are often unaware of the issues for people with disabilities."

One major new piece of work undertaken by WAI is the EC-funded WAI-AGE Project ( http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/ ), a look at the implications of an ageing population for web access, given the older people are more likely to have disabilities and may also be less familiar with new technologies.

"Demographics worldwide are dramatically changing at the moment,"
says Andrew Arch, who works with Abou-Zahra on WAI-AGE. "The proportions of older to younger people are changing as well as the numbers. We're living longer, and we haven't got the support behind us.

"Lots of things have got to change in governments and organisations - with an ageing workforce, you have to keep learning to stay accessible."

The WAI-AGE project is partly aimed at finding out whether there are any significant new pieces of work needed to ensure web accessibility for an older population, Arch says.

"We've looked at what research and user observation has gone on over the decade. There is a pretty big overlap between older people and others with disabilities - sight starts to decline, motor dexterity - and individually these overlap. But with older people there is often a lack of recognition that there is a disability there. For example some people might just say they can't remember so well, rather than that they have a cognitive impairment. Or people won't see failing eye-sight as a disability, it's just 'part of growing old'. But they are disabilities, and often multiple disabilities."

Having gained a grasp of current research the project returned to guidelines such as WCAG 2.0 to see if any changes might be needed.
"A large proportion of the needs of older people are met by the new guidelines, but other things might need to feed into the guidance we will issue on implementing the guidelines, for example guidance on how people prepare content for older people.," said Arch.

"Many older people have not grown up with computers, and may not realise their capabilities, for example that you can magnify text in your browser."

However as well as helping to address the problems of ageing it is also important to challenge myths and assumptions about older people such as none of them have any interest or expertise in using computers, says Abou-Zahra. "Social networking is an important part of ageing, for example. And making social networking sites more accessible for older users benefits everybody."

This argument is a development of the age-old mantra from the accessibility sector that people with disabilities want to use the web in the same way as everybody else - "it is a human right recognised by the UN," says Abou-Zahra. But he recognizes that businesses in particular will also be interested in the additional business benefits, especially in the current financial climate.

"With commercial organisations the return on investment is often an important argument. Well, a few years ago, companies might have said 'how many older people are online?' but with demographics changing they know the answer. And with the current surge in mobile phone use there is another incentive, since accessible sites work better on mobile phones."

Other financial factors include helping to hold onto employees as their average age rises through making internal web systems more accessible, though more work is needed on in all these areas, he says.
"We know there are not enough numbers attached to these business cases, and we hope for more soon. There is a business case document for accessibility on the WAI website, and we are updating it to reflect new developments."

For many, however, the key accessibility event of the year - assuming it does scrape into 2008 - will be the release of WCAG 2.0.

The WCAG working group held a face-to-face meeting in Boston at the beginning of October to examine the results of trial implementation of the draft guidelines on real websites, and now expects to finalise WCAG 2.0 as a fully-fledged W3C recommendation by December or at the latest by early next year, Abou-Zahra says.

The first version of the WCAG guidelines now dates back around a decade, and though it has proved a vital tool for raising awareness of accessibility issues it has long been seen as over-technical and complex and unclear in many situations.

Version 2.0 is set to address many of these problems by moving away from rigid technical 'checkpoints' to more flexible 'success criteria.'

Another change of style will be a greater separation between the core guidelines and references to specific technologies such as Javascript or browser types, Abou-Zahra says.

"The work needs to be coupled to technologies, but how do we do that in such a way as to not make it outdated the moment it is released?
This is the complex issue," he says.

"WCAG 1.0 was too technology-specific. Back then HTML was more dominant, and there was less use of multimedia, but today we have a flurry of technologies such as Ajax, so the first lesson we learned is don't write for a specific technology. Also, in the days of WCAG 1.0 we had to exclude Javascript because it was not sufficiently standardised and assistive technology could not handle it consistently, but now that has largely changed so you need to include it, to look at how any technology should be accessible. The requirements - such as tagging images with text - needs to apply to any technology you are using.

"So WCAG is more decoupled - but having said that, no matter how much you decouple it from specific technologies, there still need to be points of contact with real technologies, places where the tyre hits the road. It is an issue the group is looking to resolve by updating implementation guidance."

Another ongoing problem with the WAI web content guidelines is that they do not fully address the needs of people with cognitive disabilities, admits Abou-Zahra, though he says this is a challenging longer term issue that the organisation is working to resolve alongside the wider access community.

"We know it does not fully meet the needs of people with cognitive disabilities such as some forms of learning disabilities, we admit this up-front," he says. "It is a longer term project, maybe one for WCAG 3.0. I feel this is an issue that the accessibility community as a whole needs to address, more research is needed."

Beyond the publication of WCAG 2.0, W3C and WAI will continue to prioritise accessibility across all its areas of work, he says. "WAI's work is often reduced to WCAG in the public eye, but it is a whole lot more than content, it is about making the web accessible in its broadest sense."

UK accessibility survey

A UK taskforce of charities and associations has launched a survey to find out about ICT Accessibility awareness and practices.

The initial aim is to produce an ICT Accessibility Business Case with case studies and implementation plan, followed by other potential tools and information, to help companies plan and incorporate ICT accessibility. The business case is expected to be published in March 2009.

The survey is open until 1st November, and participants can opt in to receive the survey results and final business case once published. No previous knowledge of accessibility is required.

Find the survey at http://cs.createsurvey.com/c/45/45/survey/507-Z0TuTA.html

The taskforce is made up of the following organisations:

• AbilityNet
• British Computer Society (BCS)
• City University
• Employer's Forum on Disability (EFD)
• Intellect UK - Representing the UK Technology Industry
• Leonard Cheshire Disability
• Radar - The Disability Network
• Society of Information Technology Management (SOCITM)
• Worshipful Company of Information Technologists (WCIT)

Downloads - a helping hand

Never over-estimate your users' abilities...

Through user feedback on our Intranet we've picked up that not all of our staff are computer-literate enough to know how to properly handle document downloads. It appears many are opening forms online, filling them in within the browser, and then trying to save or e-mail - a technique which doesn't always work.

We've also got the added issue that our current Intranet is based on frames (tut tut) and unless you specify a target for document links, they will open within the frameset, compounding people's confusion.

The only solution to this is to try to educate our users, and to this end I've come up with the following short but succinct tip:

Opening, saving and printing documents

To open, save or print documents, such as Word or PDF files, right-click on the document link (or Ctrl + click on a Mac) and then choose:

• 'Open in new window' (to view online)
• 'Save Link As...', 'Save Target As...' or equivalent (to save the document to your computer), or
• 'Print target' (to print the document)

This tip can be replicated on all pages where there are downloads available, and is hopefully simple enough for all users to grasp. It takes account of the fact that we have multiple browsers within the organisation, but combines the instructions for brevity.

Trying to educate users of a public site is like pushing peas up a hill with a rake, but there's a much stronger return for doing it with an internal audience. Every member of staff you educate, in a way that saves them time, improves your organisation's efficiency and provides a real cost benefit. This is also why Help sections, FAQs and basic guidelines can be a great idea.

Info for non-mouse users

As a brief aside - the instructions above are only for mouse-users. This excludes people with various disabilities, such as those with limited or no use of their arms, or blind users using screen reader software. It was decided to omit keyboard-specific instructions for three reasons; firstly because including these details would have reduced the concise nature of the instructions; secondly because we can assume that such users will have a high level of support already available to them within the organisation; and thirdly because they will most likely already have the knowledge of how to open links and documents correctly with their preferred software or method of browsing.

Such assumptions can not be made for a public audience, and we would expect to offer guidance, perhaps as part of a Help section or via the Accessibility link prominent on every page.

Maximising Intranet usage

Keep them coming...
We launched our new intranet four months ago, and we're already seeing interest start to dip, with people going back to old habits. Used properly, the Intranet has the potential to be the most important channel of communication in the organisation - allowing key messages to reach staff instantly; providing a means of collaboration; and banishing the mental and physical barriers that serve to create silos across the departments.

There is of course a balance to be struck in any efforts to increase usage of a corporate intranet. Whilst you want people to use it, it must also serve the business needs of the organisation. So whilst there's room for the odd timewaster, this must be carefully balanced so as not to detract from the real purpose of the site.

Here are some things I'm already offering on the department's homepage:

Latest news

An obvious one really - pulling in press releases from the public-facing site, along with links to newsletters. This means the page will usually have something fresh to offer, and gives the user a feeling of being connected to the 'wider picture'.

Recent additions

A great way to promote new content.

Popular downloads

Again, a great way to highlight new files, but also to give people a shortcut to commonly accessed documents such as HR forms. The web stats for the site lends a hand here, highlighting the most popular files.

Dates and events

A really popular feature, and another one that gives the page a feeling of being linked to the wider world. Here we link to local events; such as festivals, lectures or exhibitions; as well as national and international campaigns (which for October includes Black History Month, International Walk to School Month and School Libraries Month).

So what next? We're somewhat limited by technology, but here are a few possibilities:

RSS feeds

It would be great to provide some external content - national news, weather, local events for example. Many sites offering this sort of information also offer RSS Feeds which we could quite easily pull into our pages. To this end I've created a test page with feeds from BBC news, Yahoo weather and a local events site. I'll be opening this up for consultation shortly, and hope the response will be a positive one. I'll also be encouraging suggestions for other feeds.

The feeds are pulled in using a nice Javascript generator available at itde.vccs.edu/rss2js.

Cartoon strips

Daily cartoon strips such as Garfield and Dilbert are very popular, but there is a syndication cost attached to using them, making it an unlikely option. Even so, for those with a budget they can offer a really strong daily pull factor.

public.tv vs youtube

I've been looking into the possibility of getting some of our Council's videos online, following a number of requests. Possible examples include footage of awards ceremonies , interviews with service providers, and content presented in British Sign Language as an alternative to text.

Part of the business case that I'm writing involves appraising the options for hosting such videos. Option 1, in-house hosting, seem an unlikely choice due to recent performance issues and the potential demands such content could place on our servers. Options 2 and 3 are outlined below:

Option 2 - Youtube

Summary

Youtube is an internationally recognised brand, now owned by Google. Nottinghamshire County Council posted a number of videos onto Youtube in January 2008, featuring the CEO discussing staff restructuring.

Costs and issues

Currently there is no charge for posting content to Youtube. A potential risk is that Google have announced that they intend to introduce advertising to Youtube videos in 2008 , and the nature and suitability of these adverts can not yet be ascertained. There are also no guarantees over the permanence or quality of service provided.

Restricted access

A problem also exists in that Youtube is currently blocked by the Council’s web filters. A change in policy would be required to allow access either for selected staff only or on a Council-wide level.

Option 3 - public.tv

Summary

Many local organisations and government bodies have posted content to public.tv – a site owned by media company Ten Alps. This includes the Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament and the University of Edinburgh.

Costs and issues

There is no charge to post videos to public.tv. As with Youtube, there are no guarantees over the permanence or quality of service provided. The public.tv is not blocked by the Council filters. Advertising is present on the public.tv website, but does not appear within the video presentation itself.

Based on these findings my colleagues are now looking more closely at Public.tv to see what it can offer us. I'm excited by the possibilities that this sort of feature could present to us, and will post details of any progress here in due course.

Update 31st Dec 2008 - I've just noticed that the Public.tv site seems to be down, displaying only a 'coming soon' message. Not sure what's going on there...

Survey Monkey accessibility

I've been approached to take on some responsibilities for my organisation's Survey Monkey account. Survey Monkey claims that it has a single purpose: "to enable anyone to create professional online surveys quickly and easily". We use it for internal and external consultations, as a 3rd party alternative to the clunky CMS which is currently running our corporate sites.

The first thing I was keen to establish was whether Survey Monkey was accessible. If we're using it for important Council consultations and some of our users face barriers in completing the survey then we, quite rightly, risk claims of discrimination. Moreover, if the surveys are poor in terms of usability, the response rate is likely to suffer.

My first port of call was Survey Monkey itself, which had the following to say:

Your SurveyMonkey survey designs are now Section 508 compliant and accessible!

SurveyMonkey is now the only online survey application whose surveys are Section 508 Certified. We ensure that by using our standard survey designs, your survey will meet all current US Federal Section 508 certification guidelines. Our developers have updated our SurveyMonkey survey design system across the board in all accounts. All standard survey designs are accessible and 508 certified and compliant for respondents with disabilities. This has all been accomplished without changing the appealing look or function of your survey.

• You do not need to add any special settings or change anything within your survey design.
• If you are using a standard survey theme in your survey design, it is automatically 508 compliant.

This seems quite encouraging. However, compliance to Section 508 does not inherently mean complete accessibility, and is also not a legal benchmark here in the UK.

I next came across a Survey of Survey Tools done by the Web Accessibility Centre at the Ohio State University, looking at the accessibility of six of the top survey tools. This identifies a few issues which it suggests have not been solved by the recent efforts to comply with Section 508.

The overall grade given to Survey Monkey in this survey was B, meaning the majority of it was accessible. Problem areas included accessibility for sighted keyboard users, especially when in Windows' High-Contrast mode. It was also found that a keyboard user would not be able to navigate as an administrator. This means we could risk discriminating against our own staff as well as the end user.

I now intend to carry out some direct testing, and will publish the results here when that is complete.

WCAG 2.0 and I

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are a collection of guidelines intended to make web content accessible to all users (regardless of technology, disability etc). They were first published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 1999. Over the past few years there has been an effort to update these guidelines with a second version - WCAG 2.0.

WCAG 2.0 Candidate Recommendation

Earlier this year I was involved in the Candidate Recommendation stage of WCAG 2.0. This was essentially a chance for web developers and designers to 'test-drive' the guidelines to ensure they are usable in real-life scenarios. With a number of the guidelines up for review as potentially unworkable, this stage of the process was vital.

I submitted a proposal to re-design www.prettysimple.co.uk and this was chosen as one of the implementation sites in June 2008.

Implementation experience

On submitting my site re-design for the WCAG 2.0 Candidate Recommendation, I was asked to provide feedback on all relevant areas of comformance - detailing how I met each guideline. My feedback was as follows:

1.1.1: Non-text Content (A)

Alt descriptions for images with relevant content. Null alt attributes for decorative images.

1.3.1: Info and Relationships (A)

Semantic elements used to structure page and convey information. Includes using navigation lists and page headings, and using CSS for layout and formatting.

1.4.1: Use of Color (A)

Colours not used to convey meaning.

1.4.3: Contrast (Minimum) (AA)

High contrast for test achieved using a span background colour.

1.4.4: Resize text (AA)

All text can be resized by user agents, by at least 200%.

1.4.5: Images of Text (AA)

Non essential text appearing as images given very large font size and alternative attributes.

2.1.1: Keyboard (A)

All aspects of the site can be navigated and accessed by keyboard. Use of skip links.

2.1.2: No Keyboard Trap (A)

No keyboard traps present.

2.4.1: Bypass Blocks (A)

No keyboard traps present.

2.4.2: Page Titled (A)

Appropriate titles given to all pages.

2.4.3: Focus Order (A)

All elements appear in the correct order in the source code.

2.4.4: Link Purpose (In Context) (A)

Link text sufficiently descriptive to be obvious when read alone.

2.4.5: Multiple Ways (AA)

Main navigation links are supplemented by relevant contextual links within main content.

2.4.6: Headings and Labels (AA)

Heading used to highlight subsections of each page, where appropriate.

2.4.7: Focus Visible (AA)

All links have a highly visible link, visited, focus, hover and active state.

3.1.1: Language of Page (A)

Default language defined on every page.

3.2.1: On Focus (A)

Links do not open in new window.

3.2.2: On Input (A)

Links do not open in new window.

3.2.3: Consistent Navigation (AA)

Navigation is consistent on every page.

3.2.4: Consistent Identification (AA)

All functionality is consistent across every page.

4.1.1: Parsing (A)

All XHTML and CSS validated accordingly to formal grammars.

Acceptance e-mail and amendments

On Wednesday September 24th I received an e-mail from Loretta Guarino Reid, co-chair of the WCAG Working Group, telling me that my site had been evaluated and found to conform to level AA of WCAG 2.0, with just a couple of exceptions. These were:

Insufficient contrast for the main menu

This came about from a change in the rules for colour contrasts. I had used algorithms relevant to WCAG 1.0, due to a lack of many good tools for testing against WCAG 2.0. However, after a bit of searching I found the WAT-C Luminosity Contrast Ratio Analyser 1.1 and used this to bring the colours into conformity.

Use of color

It was noticed that some links could only be identified as such by their colour. By making all links Bold as well, this was resolved. This was in line with the advice given as part of the notes accompanying F73: Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.1.

Implementation report

I'm now hoping that my site will be included in the final report, which the working group hopes to publish by Christmas 2008.

PS: For an excellent account of implementing WCAG 2.0, from a fellow implementor, see Mike Cherim's article My WCAG 2.0 AAA Implementation.

Aberdeenshire Council blog

In September 2008 Aberdeenshire Council's web team set up a blog in order to communicate with the public and their own staff during the redesign of their corporate website. They asked for comments on the Public Sector Forum and I gave the following feedback:

This is a very interesting approach to gathering user feedback, and also interesting that you have used just one platform for both staff and the general public. It would be interesting to know how you are promoting the blog to the two groups, and whether your rules for comment moderation reflect those potentially disparate audiences.

The most attractive thing for me is that the blog has a very clearly defined raison d’etre. The fact that it will have a finite lifespan (i.e. until the delivery of the new site) means that you’ve set a realistic premise – most open-ended blogs die a death sooner or later which can look very bad for an organisation.

I do wonder whether it might be wise to offer more traditional ways for users to provide feedback as well, though. The blog itself offers no other method of contact - was it a conscious decision not to encourage that? Many users may not have the confidence to submit a comment, to be read and scrutinized by the public at large, and past studies have suggested that about 95% of blog users are ‘lurkers’, never contributing to discussions. There is also a risk that only the more technically-proficient will find and engage with the blog, excluding many of the users for whom your website improvements could most benefit. Perhaps you are planning other forms of outreach to counter these issues?

All in all, though, this looks like a great effort to involve your users from a very early stage of development, when significant change can still be effected without significant cost.

The response to my feedback was positive and very pro-active, with a Contact Us section appearing the next day. I look forward to seeing how this blog develops over the coming months.