I have an email account. Sometimes I even check it. In fact, recently it looks like a nice Nigerian banker wants me to help him swindle his country out of millions of dollars, so I may be getting rich soon.
Assuming that doesn't pan out, I figured I'd address some of the non hate mail e-mails at this time. Granted, most definitely falls into the category of hate mail. But there are a couple of things people wanted me to put out for discussion, so here they are.
The Business of Portals
Based on a thread in another blog, some doubts were raised as to whether or not the new "business portal" was worth the effort. Part of that revolves around just what the heck a "portal" is anyway. Part was why the creators didn't use actual businesses as their sample population, or whether any research was put into it at all. I agree that it doesn't seem aimed at business users, but is instead organized the way an insider to government would expect to find things. Is it better than what used to be there? Opinions vary. Before it was a list of links to other resources. Now it seems to be trying - and failing - to BE those other resources. On the plus side, it's good to have access to the live chat feature, even though it is a bit hard to see.
Thoughts? I've seen responses from folks with an agenda, which are still ok. Just be prepared to defend that agenda.
Public-Private Partnerships
From Northrop to Virginia.gov, the Commonwealth has been selling off stake in itself to the lowest bidder. Does this help the Commonwealth in the long run? Are the state's IT employees as incompetent as the SOTECH and the Governor believe? Do we really believe that a private business will give the state something for nothing? We've discussed in the past the high cost of the Virginia.gov portal, the shady BearingPoint arrangements, and who will really lose with Northrop rolling the dice. Will it only get worse, or is there at least a fiscal bright light on the horizon?
Web Standards or Big Brother
Many are complaining that the new Standard is "an unfunded mandate" just as it was promised it would not be. Some say it's unreasonable to apply a generic look to all the different sites in the Commonwealth. Others just respond that it's a battle over control and the Old Guard don't want someone else picking their clothes for them.
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Shadow,
I've questioned so many times on so many blogs and NEVER get a straight answer. I posted this on another blog and got the usual answer so I'll copy here again... One more try...
I had been directed to the following article: Mission Creep
---------------------------------
The original reasons for creating VITA were that they would be able to deliver better service, project control and cheaper contracts with vendors. They never did any of those things. Past agency surveys have shown that the agencies are clearly not convinced that VITA is providing better or cheaper services. Project management is a joke. They simply added layer after layer of paperwork with more to come after the NG move. Now that VITA has taken over, the agencies can no longer buy hardware and software from the vendors even though the normal advertised prices are cheaper than VITA’s negotiated amounts. It appears that a few of the favorite agencies (VDOT, DMV, VITA) saw some savings and "avoided costs" (whatever that really is) according to the presented spreadsheets but I question if the agencies aren't really paying more. From looking at the budgets it appears that almost every agency is requesting more funds than in previous years to pay their IT expenses.
I would agree that the NG deal is no longer about saving money but I question Mr. Huang's other claims that our technology situation is better with VITA or will be better with NG. I don't know about all the agencies but I know that 3 of the biggest agencies have been planning, practicing, and executing disaster plans for years. And I know from personal experience that the data that is stored off site can be easily retrieved in a couple hours. I also know from personal experience that we are already able to work from various locations whenever needed. Many agencies do this any time there is a snow closing, flood, holiday, anthrax scare, etc. I don’t know what to think about his statement on the reliability of cell phone and internet service. I don’t believe VITA or NG will be able to control those factors unless they take over Verizon and/or Comcast…
Will this deal actually create jobs in areas of Virginia that suffer lagging economies? That remains to be seen. Promises, promises, promises… We've heard that many of the current employees will be hired and we've also heard that NG is bringing in employees from other areas such as New Orleans. We will just have to wait to see how many state employees will be dismissed after the guaranteed 1 year. And if they do lay off these employees, is that better? (I’m not saying they should have to keep employees that are not up to snuff. They should have been terminated years ago.) Of course, it would be cheaper to hire less experienced, lower-paid labor but what does that do to the overall economy in Virginia and the technology profession as a whole?
I would like to see how much the state is really paying NG. For example, how much are they going to get from special funds like the tobacco fund, tax packages, reduced building permit fees, etc. These amounts may not be in the monthly check but they are all coming from the taxpayers.
It’s easy to be romanced by the enthusiasm displayed by Huang, Warner and “the boys” but where are the real details supporting their claims? How did they arrive at the notion that the state would have paid an additional $240 million (over the $2 billion?) to be able to continue?
---------------------------------
The response I got was (close to the usual):
Sec. Huang will be leaving Richmond in just a few days, and he'll be replaced by Aneesh Chopra. If what you say is true, then a number of the problems should come bubbling to the surface. A new Secretary of Technology is far more likely to confront them because he wasn't the one who created them. Conversely, if all goes smoothly, then I suspect that you may either (a) be missing the big picture, or (b) exaggerrating the significance of routine problems.
Let us wait and see what happens.
It's amazing to me that the people on these blogs would never stand for this if it had to do with transportation. When it comes to IT, it seems no one really cares. The agencies have no control and the public doesn't question it so it seems that the SoTech can do whatever he pleases without anyone questioning.
I think Huang and others have done such a bang-up job creating the illusion that state IT employees are just a bunch of overpaid idiots that those on the outside believe anything private industry can do has got to be better.
Sorry for all the deletes Shadow,
We lost power and my posts got all messed up.
Now... about the standards...
I totally 100% agree that all the sites definitely, without question, must become accessible BUT do they really all need to look the same? What was the reason for this?
I am one of the "old guard" and I seriously don't mind anyone picking the clothes. I don't control that anyway. I have to admit I wonder what the real reason is that VITA has put out the design standards. It has occurred to me that they may be having the agencies do the work of getting everything in one format so they can outsource this function as well.
I really hope this is not the case. It's no secret what's being paid to private companies to maintain the portal and there's no question it's more expensive. It also appears that these private companies may not be doing the best job since there are obviously some complaints on the portal usability.
I do have some complaints about the attitude of those pushing the standards. They lead the agency heads to believe that it's "just a little change", "no big deal". This is so not true! The agencies that have sites that are just links to here and there should be able to conform pretty easily but many of the sites are just not this simple. The strict standard is not usable for sites that are more "application".
Not only did the creaters of the standard not consult with private citizens or businesses, they also didn't consult with these agencies.
Some of these things I can talk intelligently about, some of them I can talk speculatively (read: not at all intelligently) about, and some I can’t talk about at all until I can afford a lawyer on staff. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide which situation applies.
Public-private partnerships are a mixed blessing. Sometimes they can provide resources and expertise not otherwise available to a state. Sometimes they’re just another way for a politician and his buddies to fleece the public. Unfortunately, when the negotiations for such partnerships are done in secret and on golf courses, it’s hard for the public to properly oversee which are which. And sometimes, with the change of administrations or private company structures, they can change mid-stream from one to the other.
Standards. In some circles I am well known for my preaching on the subject. I’ve been pushing accessibility and usability for eight years. The Commonwealth Web Standard began as one of my capstones (can you have more than one?), and eventually became something else, for good or for bad. Although I can’t say what the Big Cheeses may have envisioned when the process began, I know that I never heard whispers of the templates being used to outsource staff. In fact, I constantly pointed out that the need for expertise would not end just because a template was being used. Certain aspects would be less likely to get messed up due to a PR person’s needs or a designer’s inexperience, but it was by no means foolproof. We had tried to push a state-wide content management system that would handle much of the tedium of retrofitting sites, but the funds dried up, and so did the idea.
As to who was consulted, you’d probably be surprised. Quite a lot of research – both original and previously published – went into it. This includes everything from user studies to site assessments, both from the public and from agencies. Did we listen to everything everyone said? Yes. Did it all carry the same weight? No. Everyone has their opinions, and the job of the first committee – a varied group despite some grouching about it – was to find a common ground.
As to looking the same, well, they really won’t. Although many states are moving in that direction (see California). Frankly, the public would rather have all the sites look the same. They don’t care if they’re on the DMV site, the SOTECH site, or the Virginia.gov site. They just want to get their business done. And they don’t want to have to relearn navigation, search locations, or arcane departmental hierarchies every time they change sites. The public doesn’t care if your site is a small static site or a massive application-driven site. They just want their information and they don’t have time to dance.
And just what’s wrong with the Virginia.gov portal?
Like you said, everyone has their own opinion. Why does VITA feel the need to control the look and feel of every site in the Commonwealth? If there are sites that are unusable and users are complaining then fine, tell the agency they must redesign.
Some agencies spent a massive amount of time, money and effort to have extensive focus groups input their needs and desires while planning and developing their sites and the users are VERY happy with them. Now, we're supposed to tell our users that their year's worth of work to make the site perfect for them is trash?
It actually started with the Governor's Strategic Plan. The SOTECH took the reigns, along with the VITA transition team and VIPNet. Then when VITA was an actual entity, it took over the Lion's Share of responsibility. As the trends in government were pushing in that direction at the time, so did the Governor (for the reasons I mentioned).
Some agencies did spend a lot of time and money on their designs. Many did an excellent job. Some spent it very badly (one agency spent a million dollars to redesign their site, only to make it completely unusable to blind users. Their previous expensive version was unusable to anyone with an older browser). The level of expertise was often lacking, or misunderstood. Frankly, if the research and expertise had been there, then the retrofitting wouldn't be that big a deal in most cases. Design it right the first time, and it's much easier to retrofit. For example, take focus groups and throw them out the window. Focus groups are for choosing the best color for detergent. User studies - which are a different animal entirely - are the way to go. But they can be done improperly, or the results can be misunderstood.
It's not always as easy as throwing money at the problem. But I digress. The point I was trying to make is, improving information architecture, using a common layout, and improving accessibility don't have to mean retooling everything. Sometimes you just have to see the forest behind the trees.
For example, take focus groups and throw them out the window. Focus groups are for choosing the best color for detergent.
That's the sort of statement that just irks me the most. Yes, of course, just forget about the actual users of the individual applications and let's design everything so it pleases a group of people who have declared themselves "experts" on Internet design.
Grrrrrrr!
Nope; you're reading into my statement what you expect to hear, not what I'm saying.
You're just using the wrong tools. Focus groups don't contribute anything towards usability. User studies do. Your response anon 12:37 is the same thing I say to people who think focus groups provide any "focus." Yes, of course, just forget about the actual users of the individual applications and let's design everything so it pleases a group of people who have declared themselves "experts" on Internet design. i.e., what you do in a focus group.
It's starting to look like what really bugs you the most is that you weren't part of the group that made the standards. As part of both groups, I know that if anyone could back up their beliefs with solid research, it made it's way into the document.
Opinions vary, but the research will hold out.
Ok, we've got one person saying VITA didn't consult anyone regarding the new Standard, and we've got one person saying that they did. Anyone else have some clarifying points?
You can call it whatever you want. When a group of humans that are the actual users of a particular application come together to decide what the application will do and how it can be designed to be most usable for that group is the focus group that I refer to. If the users don't like it or can't use it then it's worthless. I'm certainly not saying that everything the user asks for can be done. There are other considerations such as security, performance, etc. but whenever possible, the users should be accommodated.
And no, what really bugs me is NOT that I was not part of The Group. I'm definitely not that power-hungry. What really bugs me is people making broad decisions that affect agencies in a big way without considering the affect those decisions will have on the agencies and their individual audiences. And then to require the agencies to comply within a strict timespan without funds or resources just adds icing to the cake. Instead of moving along with promised upgrades to further enhance the applications, the agencies must now take a year or more to rework their sites, re-write their documentation and re-train their users.
And the drivel about "if the site was designed properly in the first place this would be no big deal" is ridiculous. What some may consider the "right way" today will undoubtedly be the "wrong way" whenever the next "expert" comes along.
It's a moot argument at this point. The powers that be have made the decision and now the agencies and users will have to deal with it.
As a side note, it's interesting that certain people take so much credit for this design. It looks almost word for word like the design Kentucky has used since 2002.
It will be interesting to see if CGI-AMS adheres to these standards as they create all the new applications... No JavaScript, no embedded applets, etc.
Shadow,
I'm not saying VITA didn't consult anyone. I don't know that. I just know a few important ones they didn't consult.
I would love to see any documentation of the previously mentioned "user studies to site assessments, both from the public and from agencies".
What you call something is kinda important. It’s the only way people can know what each one means when they talk about something. Sort of like a Standard.
“And no, what really bugs me is NOT that I was not part of The Group. I'm definitely not that power-hungry. What really bugs me is people making broad decisions that affect agencies in a big way without considering the affect those decisions will have on the agencies and their individual audiences. “
I think we’ve established, though, that you don’t know if such consideration was made, just that you don’t agree with those considerations.
“And then to require the agencies to comply within a strict timespan without funds or resources just adds icing to the cake. Instead of moving along with promised upgrades to further enhance the applications, the agencies must now take a year or more to rework their sites, re-write their documentation and re-train their users.”
The lack of resources is definitely a problem, and not the way I would have done it.
And, although I know this will also probably irk you, the better the usability the less re-training is needed.
“And the drivel about "if the site was designed properly in the first place this would be no big deal" is ridiculous. What some may consider the "right way" today will undoubtedly be the "wrong way" whenever the next "expert" comes along.”
Again, rely on the research and the data, and you don’t have to worry about the experts you disdain guiding you the wrong way.
“As a side note, it's interesting that certain people take so much credit for this design. It looks almost word for word like the design Kentucky has used since 2002.”
You are 100% correct. Virginia led the way, though. Kentucky requested the Standard that was currently available (another NIC state), and wasted no time in applying it.
“It will be interesting to see if CGI-AMS adheres to these standards as they create all the new applications... No JavaScript, no embedded applets, etc.”
If they don’t, it would be my opinion that no one else should have to.
And as to documentation, I wasn’t allowed to take that sort of thing with me when I left, so I have no idea if it’s still around.
Any chance of listing the important ones NOT consulted?
I'm curious about the "looking the same part." I've seen several sites that seem to be attempting to use the template, and they don't really look the same to me. Am I missing something?
I am too after looking at the new sites for Governor Kaine and his secretaries. They certainly don't look like the portal or the WATG template we were given to use. I was checking that out today myself...
I'm sort of at a loss on which templates we're supposed to be using now. It wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit to go with the look of the Kaine site. It just looks more professional to me than the current portal. Just my personal preference though.
Although, if you break the three sites down to their components and ignore the images and colors, they're pretty similar. Header, left navigation, header links, etc. Kaine's doesn't use all of the real estate, but I can't remember if that was part of the template or not. Thoughts?
I agree, the basic components are there. I'm not really sure how strictly the agencies have to stick to the WATG templates. I do remember someone asking at the meeting about changing things around and the response was that the agencies could change anything in the "content" area and put their own logo but the rest was required.
VITA released its service newsletter, where they push Virginia.gov as the resource for designing Standard-compliant sites. The newsletter blurb e-mail was a bit misleading ("How can best practices in Web design improve user experience on your Web site, and how can you identify a helpful resource?") when all it did was identify Virginia.gov. No idea what the cost was, but as someone mentioned, a small static site is a far cry from a huge dynamic one.
Some basic prices given here.
The accessibility and usability assessment uses the following fee scale:
Small sites: $1,000 for a report plus $100/hour for repairs if requested.
Medium sites: $5,000 for a report plus $100/hour for repairs if requested.
Large sites: $10,000 for a report plus $100/hour for repairs if requested.
So, based on some site estimations (part-timer for 1 year), getting a large site into compliance could cost in the area of $154,000, just in fees to Virginia.gov. Wow. Good thing it's an unfunded mandate...
I'm confused... is Virginia.gov part of VITA or is it private company? this page it says it's part of VITA.
Here are some more prices... For the low, low price of $12,000 - $80,000 per year, per site, you can have your site entered into a Content Management System. Is this the one mentioned in earlier Kahuna post that they were "trying to push"? They create the templates in 1-4 weeks, you still maintain your own site...
Never mind, I found my answer. VITA manages the portal...
virginia.gov is managed through a public/private partnership between the Commonwealth and Virginia Interactive, Inc., a subsidiary of the e-government company NIC.
So, my next question is...
How much is VITA paying NIC for the portal?
Who develops the Governor's site and his secretaries' sites? Is it VITA employees or NIC?
Anon 9:07, regarding the CMS, it's the same basic product that was going to be used for the entire state. A single fee would have been charged, and anyone could then use it. This was before the General Assembly cut VITA's proposed $14 million budget.
Regarding the Governor's site, as far as I know VITA maintains it (unless the new Administration doesn't like that idea).
For an answer to how much NIC makes to maintain the portal, see my earlier tirade.
anon 3:10,
A single fee to NIC?
Thanks Shadow,
I thought I remembered that ballpark but I couldn't find it.
Why doesn't VITA maintain the portal? Surely they could do it for less than $4 million/year! Obviously, the developers there are completely able to maintain accessible and attractive sites from the looks of the Governor's sites. What's up with paying NIC so much???
Oops, I forgot to ask anon,
Would the CMS be able to work for agencies like tax, doa, dhrm, treasury, etc. who have application sites?
The underlying data would be stored on/maintained by NIC, VITA, or the agencies?
I can see where something like that would be beneficial to agencies that have basically "article" sites but I don't understand how these bigger sites could use it...
My understanding is that yes, it could work with dynamic sites. Storage of data, at this point, would depend on the arrangement made with VITA.
i'm sure there are other content management systems out there that are just as good that can assist. are any agencies looking into that sort of thing?
Post a Comment