Harper Government Centralizing, Slashing Federal Web Info

[Ted Hildebrandt-2]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/vincent-gogolek/harper-government-websites-access-to-information_b_2838916.html

"In my last post, which looked at Tony Clement's not-so-open "Open Government" initiatives, I mentioned that the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA) had recently received leaked documents detailing a new federal government plan to make government websites a whole lot less informative."

Read More

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[James McKinney-2]

The slides are largely an orientation to what GOV.UK has been doing (and which has been universally praised). I think the author is reading a lot into the slides that isn't there.

On 2013-03-12, at 9:00 AM, Ted Hildebrandt wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/vincent-gogolek/harper-government-websites-access-to-information_b_2838916.html

"In my last post, which looked at Tony Clement's not-so-open "Open Government" initiatives, I mentioned that the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA) had recently received leaked documents detailing a new federal government plan to make government websites a whole lot less informative."

Read More

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[David Eaves]

Yes, "number of websites" is a pretty terrible metric of openess. More websites nor more webpages do not magically translate into more information - indeed it can often mean worse and more confusing accessibility. The gov.uk example is great as that site is infinitely more usable, accessible and navigable than than 50+ websites it replaces. 

Also silly is the critique of the line critical of "sorting by popularity", which makes a ton of sense as an option, and even as the default option - most people search for similar items as other people. As long as there is a search feature I fail to understand the concern. 

Of course I share the authors concern about items that don't get viewed might eventually being discarded - that would indeed be very distributing. There are real, valid concerns in this piece but a also I lot of poorly articulated critiques. 

--

www.eaves.ca

@daeaves

Sent from my iPhone

On 2013-03-12, at 11:29 AM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:

The slides are largely an orientation to what GOV.UK has been doing (and which has been universally praised). I think the author is reading a lot into the slides that isn't there.

On 2013-03-12, at 9:00 AM, Ted Hildebrandt wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/vincent-gogolek/harper-government-websites-access-to-information_b_2838916.html

"In my last post, which looked at Tony Clement's not-so-open "Open Government" initiatives, I mentioned that the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA) had recently received leaked documents detailing a new federal government plan to make government websites a whole lot less informative."

Read More

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

[michael gurstein]

All,

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of David Eaves
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:39 AM
To: civicaccess discuss
Cc: civicaccess discuss
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Harper Government Centralizing, Slashing Federal Web Info

 

Yes, "number of websites" is a pretty terrible metric of openess. More websites nor more webpages do not magically translate into more information - indeed it can often mean worse and more confusing accessibility. The gov.uk example is great as that site is infinitely more usable, accessible and navigable than than 50+ websites it replaces. 

[MG>] agreed…

 

Also silly is the critique of the line critical of "sorting by popularity", which makes a ton of sense as an option, and even as the default option - most people search for similar items as other people. As long as there is a search feature I fail to understand the concern. 

[MG>] I would need more information on this (for example whether some of the current (less visited) information will be archived or if the archiving of this information will be as ponderous as is the case for a lot of stuff that has slipped from the websites… the issue is of course, overall accessibility and including making sure that there is a useful process for folks to get to know what they don't already know i.e. to discover information that is available in the areas in which they are interested but which they don't currently know exists (a major problem with FOI stuff for example)

 

Of course I share the authors concern about items that don't get viewed might eventually being discarded - that would indeed be very distributing. There are real, valid concerns in this piece but a also I lot of poorly articulated critiques. 

[MG>] yes.. I think that what this piece calls for is some metrics that can be applied… Toby was working on some re: OGD but I'm not sure that they would apply directly here… there are other metrics around (including from marketing) that would be useful… a very good class project or Master's thesis I would have thought.. even a bibliography would be useful.

 

It would have been re-assuring to have seen some explicit reference to metrics that are currently being used by the GoC in these areas so that there could be some independent assessment of the appropriateness of the metrics and then verification of their suitable application.

 

Mike

 

--

www.eaves.ca

@daeaves

Sent from my iPhone

On 2013-03-12, at 11:29 AM, James McKinney <[hidden email]> wrote:

The slides are largely an orientation to what GOV.UK has been doing (and which has been universally praised). I think the author is reading a lot into the slides that isn't there.

 

 

 

On 2013-03-12, at 9:00 AM, Ted Hildebrandt wrote:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/vincent-gogolek/harper-government-websites-access-to-information_b_2838916.html

"In my last post, which looked at Tony Clement's not-so-open "Open Government" initiatives, I mentioned that the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA) had recently received leaked documents detailing a new federal government plan to make government websites a whole lot less informative."

Read More

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

 

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss