Getting on with Government 2.0 - Department of Finance and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 Open government — policy enablers The previous two chapters considered two major aspects of Government 2.0. This chapter discusses a range of issues which typically apply to both digital engagement and open PSI. 6.1 Accessibility and Web 2.0 Tools   Even with the legislative requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities, there remains a poor cultural understanding of the options for implementation of technology to meet the needs of people with disabilities. Applying Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) guidelines is not as straight forward as it may at first appear. People with different disabilities have different access difficulties and good application of the guidelines for one audience may conflict with the best application for a different audience. Different organisations will interpret the guidelines differently and will do so in the context of their own accessibility policies. Software designers also apply the guidelines differently. Because of the poor application of accessibility by some proprietary systems and the lack of development maturity in many third party systems, the use of Web 2.0 tools for Government 2.0 projects may present accessibility compliance difficulties. This situation is made more difficult by the pace of technology change, the vast choice of tools and the practice of the ‘perpetual beta’. Tools may never be made accessible before being replaced by a host of new ones. As a result, consultation projects may suffer major delays, initiatives may be abandoned or severely weakened in functionality. The result is that access is denied for everyone. Where user-generated content is included, it may be difficult to avoid inconsistencies in the application of the guidelines. An example is the online presentation of submissions to inquiries. These are often provided in a wide variety of formats, by organisations and individuals who do not have accessibility in the front of their mind and may not understand how to make such documents accessible. To make them accessible would require substantial resources and the time taken could make them less relevant by the time accessibility was delivered. Full compliance will mean that submissions may not be made public in a timely fashion or perhaps not at all, diminishing the value of the consultative process. The implementation of WCAG 2.0 adds complexity to compliance. Even the application of WCAG guidelines is not a one-size-fits-all approach. The aim of any publicly funded projects is, without question, good access for everyone. An approach based simply on compliance suggests that accessibility is something to be added on to projects. Engendering a culture of understanding and an integration of accessibility concepts into the core of the project is a better option. Accessibility within online tools and services within government and the wider community is the ideal. Cultural change is required to promote understanding, a thoughtful approach to accessibility decisions, accountability for those decisions and a consideration of accessibility from the outset of online projects: ●● Accessibility is a human issue, not a technology issue nor a compliance issue. Developing a deep understanding that accessible is best, and accessibility is the right thing to do for the audience, rather than because compliance is mandated. 66 Engage: <strong>Getting</strong> on with Government 2.0 | report of the government 2.0 taskforce
●● ●● In some cases agencies’ business requirements and time pressures mean they should be allowed some flexibility for non-compliance with accessibility — although even then they must maintain the aim of maximum accessibility compliance. This enables agencies to deliver timecritical and innovative engagement projects while maximising accessibility in the circumstances and providing alternative options for accessibility. There must be public accountability for these kinds of decisions. Decisions to initiate an online project without compliance must be subject to public scrutiny. Site visitors should know why the decisions were made, what the alternative measures for access are, and what the agency is planning to do to improve accessibility.   Such an approach will have significant positive effects: ●● ●● ●● ●● Agencies will expect Web 2.0 tool vendors and online service providers to improve their accessibility. Public servants will gain a deeper understanding of the requirements for accessibility, rather than the requirements for compliance. Software providers will build accessibility into their applications intrinsically if they better understand the interest and opportunities of the government market. Agencies will be accountable for their decisions, improving the quality of these decisions and ensuring maximum access for everyone within the scope and resources of the project. Ideally, Government 2.0 should create an online environment which is accessible by nature rather than through compliance. Through the use and development of open source systems, the Australian Government has an opportunity to contribute to improving accessibility in the wider community. To support the application of accessibility beyond compliance with guidelines, the taskforce has also recommended awards for agencies that recognise outstanding practice in the accessible use and impact of Government 2.0 tools to improve agency interactions with citizens, business and community groups. Recommendation 9: Accessibility 9.1 Significant cultural change is needed to enable greater support for the adoption of accessible Web 2.0 tools, collaboration and online community engagement activities, and PSI delivery projects The taskforce therefore recommends that: 9.1.1 agency compliance with the World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 260 as the minimum accessibility level for all online community engagement and online PSI provision is required. Data provided on the primary PSI site, data.gov.au, should be provided in full compliance with WCAG 9.1.2 where an agency is considering a Web 2.0 project where strict compliance with WCAG accessibility guidelines risks preventing a project from proceeding, AGIMO will provide guidance on options to facilitate maximum access for people with disabilities 9.1.3 where an agency elects to proceed with a project that is not fully compliant they must publish an online statement explaining site accessibility, together with an outline of where and why it does not meet a specific WCAG guideline, and what alternative options for accessible access were considered or are provided and plans for compliance within a reasonable timeframe 260 This recommendation avoids specifying which version of WCAG is being referred to as a means of ensuring the recommendation refers to the most current version of the guidelines mandated by the government. Engage: <strong>Getting</strong> on with Government 2.0 | report of the government 2.0 taskforce 67
Page 1 and 2:
government 2.0 taskforce Engage <st
Page 3 and 4:
The Hon. Lindsay Tanner, MP Ministe
Page 5 and 6:
What’s in a name   ‘Engage’
Page 7 and 8:
Table of contents What’s in a nam
Page 9 and 10:
6 Open government — policy enable
Page 11 and 12:
  Boxes Box 1: New APSC guideline
Page 13 and 14:
Executive summary Web 2.0 and its p
Page 15 and 16:
The National Library of Australia (
Page 17 and 18:
●● properly documented and ther
Page 19 and 20:
Report recommendations Central reco
Page 21 and 22:
Recommendation 6: Make public secto
Page 23 and 24:
7.2 The functions currently perform
Page 25 and 26:
11.2 To protect the commercial-in-c
Page 27 and 28:
1 What is Government 2.0 Being trul
Page 29 and 30:
1.3.1 What is Web 2.0 Until recentl
Page 31 and 32:
2 How does Australia compare intern
Page 33 and 34:
Within the context of Government 2.
Page 35 and 36:
The project will develop recommenda
Page 37 and 38:
Some states and local governments h
Page 39 and 40:
  electronic communications. It w
Page 41 and 42: More recent developments include:
Page 43 and 44: 3 The foundations of Government 2.0
Page 45 and 46: Box 2: Permissions, information inn
Page 47 and 48: Adam Smith and his intellectual des
Page 49 and 50: 1. A Government 2.0 lead agency sho
Page 51 and 52: 3.5.2 The lead agency as an exempla
Page 53 and 54: The use of the internet as a platfo
Page 55 and 56: My Museum was part of the stage two
Page 57 and 58: 4.4 Connecting people, problems and
Page 59 and 60: Human Rights consultation: 156 The
Page 61 and 62: of aptitude and contribution in the
Page 63 and 64: In this regard Andrea Di Maio’s w
Page 65 and 66: create new engagement/participation
Page 67 and 68: ●● collaborative filtering ●
Page 69 and 70: In June 2009, the site had 25,000 p
Page 71 and 72: than marginal cost of transfer in o
Page 73 and 74: Since 2007, the NLA has had histori
Page 75 and 76: Box 12: Reducing metadata paralysis
Page 77 and 78: A federal department was well dispo
Page 79 and 80: cost, that the center of innovation
Page 81 and 82: have passed. 227 At the same time,
Page 83 and 84: According to the Copyright Act 1968
Page 85 and 86: 6.7 Copyright policy should be amen
Page 87 and 88: will have to be found. Those in cha
Page 89 and 90: with the scheme’s requirements. T
Page 91: Recommendation 8: Information publi
Page 95 and 96: Following are some relevant extract
Page 97 and 98: 6.4 Information/records management
Page 99 and 100: Wider use of open and documented st
Page 101 and 102: As Open Forum noted in its submissi
Page 103 and 104: 7 Innovation and the taskforce expe
Page 105 and 106: Even in the short period of its exi
Page 107 and 108: The Economics and Research team fro
Page 109 and 110: 7.4 The taskforce and PSI 7.4.1 Mas
Page 111 and 112: The taskforce funded 17 projects an
Page 113 and 114: Appendices A Terms of reference  
Page 115 and 116: Terms of reference (see numbers abo
Page 117 and 118: appropriate to the Web 2.0 environm
Page 119 and 120: Project 15: ALRC family violence co
Page 121 and 122:   ●● ●● ●● ●● ●
Page 123 and 124: ●● ●● ●● ●● ●●
Page 125 and 126: Concern: Enforcement 338 Explanatio
Page 127 and 128: products and data, and the implemen
Page 129 and 130:   Freemium GovHack Hacking Hashta
Page 131 and 132:   Structured data Syndication Twe
Page 133 and 134: OSDM PSI PSM RDF SBS SEC TCC The Fe
show all

Getting on with Government 2.0 - Department of Finance and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?