Information Online 2001 exhibition and conference

Conference papers

[ ALIA home | conference home | papers | photographs | search... ]

The web II

A Servant of Five Masters? The Parliamentary Web Review: Reasons, Findings and Future Directions

Catherine Gilbert

Policy Projects, Commonwealth Parliamentary Library, Canberra

Abstract

After several years of operation, a review of the design and organisation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary web site (http://www.aph.gov.au) was commissioned, specifically to examine issues of the accessibility of data required by users, provide advice on how to group and present material to meet user needs and recommend changes to the site compatible to the parliamentary environment which would improve user accessibility, including access by the visually impaired. The background to this review, its findings and future directions are discussed, especially issues that apply to any older web site with cross-departmental input and a large, diverse user group.

The Australian parliament's current web site (http://www.aph.gov.au) was launched in November 1997. Previous to this, the Parliamentary Library had maintained a web site for the parliament with minimal participation from other parliamentary departments. The current web site was the first real attempt to offer a comprehensive, single view of parliamentary information to the public, with active participation from all five parliamentary departments. Although now somewhat dated in appearance, the design of the web site was meant to be clean, integrated, follow standards and be as user friendly and accessible as possible.

Roles and responsibilities - the five masters?

The parliament appears to the world as a single entity but administratively consists of five independent parliamentary departments which each play a role in the parliamentary web site. These departments are the department of the senate, department of the house of representatives, department of the parliamentary library, department of the parliamentary reporting staff and joint house department (the 'five masters').

There are many problems with implementing any large scale or major changes to the web site in this environment. Not only are there five separate departments responsible for the web site, but the users of the site are not the primary clients of these parliamentary departments. The tensions associated with various responsibilities also explain some of the problems in presenting information from five departments under the guise of a single parliament. Operational matters relating to web site content are managed by the web manager from the staff of the department of the parliamentary library in conjunction with web managers group (WMG), which consists of representatives from the five parliamentary departments. In turn, WMG answers to the parliament's senior management coordination group (SMCG) for policy matters. Technical operation of the web site is managed by the department of the parliamentary reporting staff's technical services group. A formal Memorandum of Understanding was negotiated to define the respective roles and responsibilities of all groups. Nonetheless, despite a spirit of cooperation between all players, making changes in this environment can be a difficult process.

Some of these difficult areas are in such matters as who pays for changes to the site, who authorises changes to top level pages and particularly the Parliament's home page, and who members of the public can contact for problems relating to the web site or for more information on parliamentary information. The web manager by default plays a major role as a contact point for problems, but a range of staff in all departments have a part to play in this process. Although maintaining a separate web site, the Parliamentary Education Office also plays a major role in assisting school children and educators with parliamentary information. The role of assisting the public has been growing in recent years; in fact the House of Commons Library has formalised this role in the establishment of the House of Commons Information Office which acts as a central answering point for enquiries from the public. This experience has not been repeated in the Australian Parliament.

There is also a difference between the role played by the web site as a place for the public to find parliamentary information and the respective roles of the five parliamentary departments. Certainly, a large focus of these departments is internal rather than external, that is, fulfilling the important role of supporting Senators, Members and parliamentary staff in their work. This internally focused role contrasts with the role of the web site which is stated in the Memorandum of Understanding [1999] as such:

'... To improve the Australian democratic process by providing to the Australian public, and to other users, material on the role, functions and operations of and issues of concern to the Parliament, its Committees and the parliamentary administration.'

For example, the Department of the Parliamentary Library plays a major role in the web site. The library provides the parliamentary web manager and integral parts of the web site such as the Parliamentary Handbook, including biographical information on Senators and Members, bills digests which provide background to bills, other publications and significant information on past elections. This role contrasts with the mission statement of the Department which is internally focused:

'To support the parliamentary process by providing Senators and Members with quality information services, analysis and advice.'

The tension between the internal role of parliamentary departments and external responsibility through the web site helps to explain many of the difficulties in implementing changes to the web site. Resourcing is largely focused on internal matters and the way the information is often presented (that is, through the five independent departments) is related to the internal responsibilities and roles of the departments (such as providing information to the Senate or the House of Representatives). This is an issue that many outside the Parliament have difficulty coming to terms with, as they tend to see the Parliament as one institution not five departments. Likewise, the web site and those responsible for it are faced with the challenge of integrating the information provided by five departments into one unified interface.

Evolution of the parliament's web site

Since the its beginnings in 1997, a number of significant changes have occurred which have impacted on the web site:

Development of departmental intranets

When the current web site was established in 1997, the five parliamentary departments did not have intranets to serve their clients (that is, Senators, Members and parliamentary staff). Along with other electronic and non-electronic means, the web site served as a means of distributing information to these groups. Information distributed this way included publications and resource guides, set up to assist Parliamentary Library clients not the public. In the last three years, all parliamentary departments have established their own intranets which now play a role in the distribution of this and other information to Senators, Members and parliamentary staff. These changes suggest a need to re-evaluate the role of parts of the web site.

Changes in web technology

In the past three years, web technology has changed significantly. The Parliament's web site was initially a static publishing tool. This role has been changing as other opportunities present themselves for more dynamic (and possibly interactive) content.

Content Changes

Since 1997, there have been some significant content changes on the web site. Examples of some of the major content changes are found in the implementation of an interface to search parliamentary databases through the web, known as ParlInfo, designed as the Parliamentary Database System (PDBS) replacement. There is also an increase in bills tracking/committee information available on the site and the live broadcasting of Parliament on the site.

Complexity and Variety of Data

The complexity and variety of data offered through the web site has grown significantly in the last three years. A great deal of this information is either linked to other data or has potential to be linked, relating to the workings of the Parliament. For example, it is possible to link bills, explanatory memoranda and bills digests giving a background and context to bills, and also to track the progress of bills. This bills information is actually offered by a combination of several parliamentary departments. Likewise, it is possible to link the requests for submissions, sitting timetables, Hansard and reports of committees; again, this information can originate from more than one parliamentary department.. The site is highly complex and the level of complexity continues to grow significantly. This complexity and variety of information poses problems in managing and developing the site. And, of course, users do not want to work through this complexity.

The end result of all of these changes is that although the central purpose of the web site is the same as in 1997, the web site has needed to change in the delivery of information to the public. The need to review the organisation and design of the web site was recognised by web managers Group, resulting in the review process that occurred in 2000.

The review process

In late 1999, the Department of the Parliamentary Library took the initiative and, with the support of the other parliamentary departments, funded a consultancy to review the Parliament's web site. The consultancy was to be short and sharp and, rather than focus on the physical look of the web site, concentrate instead on assessing user needs, the appropriateness of the site organisation and the accessibility of the site. It was hoped to separate the review process from the implementation process and to employ someone from outside the parliament who could look independently at the site without preconceptions. In retrospect, a lack of inside knowledge of the administrative arrangements of Parliament may have caused a few hiccups in the process as the workings of parliamentary administration can be a difficult environment to the uninitiated.

The University of Canberra were selected to undertake the formal review which took place in the first half of 2000. A number of review mechanisms were used by the consultants to conduct the review. These included a survey placed onto the web site, focus groups with stakeholder groups as well as random sampling of user groups (such as the press gallery). The site was also evaluated against international guidelines for parliamentary web sites.

The review process was not without its problems. Some of these problems resulted from difficulties in contacting stakeholders, the need to involve all stakeholders no matter how much or how little they may contribute to the review and finally in getting agreement across five parliamentary departments and all stakeholders. A final report was presented to web managers group in May 2000.

Key findings from the formal review

The consultancy came up with 24 recommendations for the web site, ranging from the overall role of the web site, to presentation and organisation of information, accessibility and indexing recommendations and options for greater interactivity on the site.

Some of the key recommendations from the report are as follows:

It is recommended that the agreed statement of purpose inform all future decision-making with regard to redevelopment of the web site.
It is recommended that the structure of the web site be redeveloped to provide a more functional arrangement and approach to searching, which is required by the large proportion of users who are not familiar with the bureaucratic structure of Parliament.
It is recommended that until the web site has been fully redeveloped and is working smoothly, a 'trouble shooting' member of staff be appointed. Their contact details should be announced widely on the web site, and they should be available by both phone and e-mail. Their role will be to offer assistance with problems, help frustrated users find elusive information, locate material not yet up and get it mounted, suggest outdated material for deletion - in effect, fix what needs fixing on a day-to-day basis.
It is recommended that to the extent that it is possible, ordinary English be used instead of Parliamentary jargon, especially for navigation of the web site. For all terminology that cannot be expressed in more common words, there should be a hot link to a definition written in as plain English as is possible, or with an explanation in a drop-down box .
It is recommended that the best qualities of the current site be retained in any redesign of the homepage which accompanies the web site redevelopment along functional lines.
It is recommended that additional graphic views of parliament house and surrounds be added to the web site so that students and the public can appreciate its features, but that they be located at a lower level and that the size of the graphic files to be downloaded be clearly indicated.
It is recommended that the search engine be redesigned to overcome user problems, and that user friendly guidance on its use be provided. Users should be able to search the entire web site, to refine their searches, particularly by year, and to highlight search terms in retrieved documents.
It is recommended that listservs be set up for public debate of topical issues.
It is recommended that an e-mail alerting service be developed. The service would give interested people the option to be notified of additions to the web site generally, or according to a specific profile that they could prescribe - either by process (for example, passing of bills, release of new publications, announcements of committee enquiries, availability of explanatory memoranda, daily programs for the House or Senate, research service papers posted, seminars, parliamentary debates) or by keywords as new materials are added to the web site.
It is recommended that each person publishing to the web site understand the function and importance of metadata and have the ability to apply suitable metadata tags to the documents.

The parliamentary response

Response to the review was mixed. Some recommendations received total support, a couple were rejected as incorrect, a couple were considered too impractical to implement and some had been already implemented before or during the review process. Despite some disagreement, there was general agreement among web managers group on what changes should take place on the web site in light of the review recommendations.

The major areas identified for improvement are presented in an action plan. In summary, the major points in this action plan are:

Improve accessibility of the site to more fully comply with W3C guidelines
Develop a committee reports database
To add metadata to the site to comply with Australian Government Locator service (AGLS) guidelines
Develop an easy to use, plain English, 'functional' entry path targeted at new users of the site
Improve the 'whole of Parliament' approach through enhancing What's On and What's New on the site and presenting information in a more unified way
Provide additional graphical views of Parliament House
Review the design of the home page and navigation bars to take into account a whole of Parliament approach but to retain basic design concepts
Review the site to ensure that ALT tags and relevant contact information are included as per the existing guidelines
Undertake a feasibility study into the addition of listservs and subscription services
Review the current design guidelines and Memorandum of Understanding in the light of the above changes.

The web managers group also accepted the recommendation of the consultants that the good features of the site should be maintained and that any reorganisation should not alienate the site's existing users.

Government online

At the same time web managers group was considering its response to the formal review's findings, the federal government's GovernmentOnline strategy was launched, with the aim of placing all appropriate government services online by 2001. Although parliamentary departments do not formally report to the executive and, as such, do not have to comply with the strategy, the parliamentary departments decided to comply with the broad principles of the strategy, subject to operational timings relating to the parliament.

Some of the findings of the web review, especially those relating to metadata and accessibility compliance, tie in with GovernmentOnline. Some online information service obligations (OISOs) which are a part of the strategy also match recommendations of the review. OISOs are designed to facilitate easier access to Commonwealth information and services for all. They establish a minimum set of information that commonwealth executive departments and agencies must provide on their web sites. This includes basic information such as organisation contact details and other corporate information, media releases, speeches and legislative information. According to OISO guidelines, not only should certain types of information be provided, it should be provided in an accessible and timely fashion and should contain compliant metadata. It is also recommended by the guidelines that OISO information be conveyed in a meaningful way to users, that is, through common publications mechanisms, etc rather than scattered throughout the web site. In addition, material should conform with AusInfo's Guidelines for Commonwealth Information Published in Electronic Format.

The parliament's response to GovernmentOnline is being coordinated through web managers group and a parliament online group, with some overlap in membership of the two groups. The Parliamentary Library has taken the lead in a project to ensure Australian government locator service (AGLS) compliant metadata and a harvest control list are available on prescribed parts of the site. The Metabrowser tool has been used for applying a large part of this metadata. The Parliamentary Library is also taking a lead in educating the parliamentary departments in accessibility principles to ensure that the web site complies with W3C guidelines.

The next steps: A servant of one master?

Perhaps the best indication of the future of the web site should come from the stated purpose of the site from the memorandum of understanding:

'To improve the Australian democratic process by providing to the Australian public, and to other users, material on the role, functions and operations of and issues of concern to the Parliament, its Committees and the parliamentary administration.'

As recommendation 1 of the formal web review made clear, the web site is to serve the public and all future development should keep this fundamental point in mind. In other words, the parliament's web site is really not a servant of five masters, but a servant of one diverse master, that is, the public beyond the walls of the parliamentary confines.

As already explained, this is not an easy objective to achieve when there are several administrative units feeding into the one site, each of which has it own ways of presenting information and, in fact, its own separate reasons for participating. In addition, as the formal web review also made clear, the public is not one group, but rather consists of many diverse and overlapping sub-groups, each of which has its own needs.

There are however, several directions for the future of the site which can be identified:

A modernisation of the look of the site
A trend to more dynamic content, which has already been occurring through such things as the broadcasting of Parliament and its committees
The addition of further metadata to describe items on the web site more fully
Improvements to the Parliamentary search engine on the web site
More information for those unfamiliar with the Parliament
More information on the Parliament House building
Further improvements to make the site more accessible to those with disabilities and regional users

A web site is a constant work in progress; it is (and should be) dynamic and subject to constant change. There is a long way to go with the review process. The formal review may be complete but the site will need constant reviewing in the future to ensure that it continues to serve its one real master - the public.