Posts
This is a great set of eGovernment links at Del.icio.us.
eGovernment resources
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
eGovernment links | Tweet |
Monday, June 09, 2008
Anatomy of LinkedIn | Tweet |
Here's a very interesting presentation from Linkedin's Principal Software Engineer, Nick Dellamaggiore, exploring the 'guts' of one of my favourite networking sites.
It provides some insight into what is required to deliver an effective social media site.
Note that it is technically orientated, so can be hard to follow without the context of the speaker.
LinkedIn - A Professional Network built with Java Technologies and Agile Practices
Sunday, June 08, 2008
12th Webby awards announced - beauty remains in the mind of the beholder | Tweet |
The Webby Awards are beginning to resemble the Oscars in their level of hype.
However as the most prestigious global award for digital media I can excuse them the need to make their mark alongside the older media awards.
The Government winner this year was the Peace Corps for their teen site.
It's an attractive marketing site, with a consistently strong theme and subtle interactivity.
The People's Voice Winner in the category was the Transport for London site.
While not as pretty, this is significantly more functional as a 'working' site designed to deliver services day in, day out.
The two sites are excellent examples of the pressures in the online world - stunning visual design (form) or clear consistent functionality.
Humans as a species react strongly to design - take our ongoing love affair with fashion or architecture for example.
This isn't limited to the physical world - beauty is in the eye and mind of the beholder. Our thoughts and, particularly, our feelings, colour how we respond to any digital product.
Of course design must also be useable - but isn't that one of the qualities of good design?
Government has some legislative considerations to ensure websites are usable and accessible, which often appear to bias us us towards focusing on function at the expense of form.
However as online communications we must keep in mind that form, the visual and interactive design, is equally important in winning the hearts, minds and ongoing use of citizens.
We have photogenic politicians, can we please have more attractive government websites?
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Innovative Intranets | Tweet |
Here are some great ideas from Step Two Designs in a presentation resulting from their Innovative Intranets Awards this year.
It includes a voiceover from James Robertson
What do innovative intranets look like?
Usability Rules - OK? | Tweet |
My Agency has just finished a nine-month long independent expert usability review of all of our online properties - website, intranet and secure online transaction service.
Needless to say most of the results matched what we already knew
Naturally there were some surprises - but if the people who manage the properties are already 70-80% right, why is it so important to call in the consultants?
The cynical response, and one I've floated out there from time to time, is that organisations don't trust the experience and expertise of their staff.
This is similar to the principle where for some products you sell more if you raise the price - as people believe if the price is higher so must be the quality.
Staff are a sunk cost, so there's no apparent further investment to justify the quality of an outcome.
This works well for consultants, who can build their credibility and reputation by simply charging more - though they do have to deliver in the end.
However I've never really liked it as a reason - both because I'd like to think that employers recognise the skills of their employees (or wouldn't have hired them), and because it only addresses the issue of trust, not the issue of whether the work needs to be done.
After years of thinking on this topic, involving many research projects and other consultant-led activities, I've come to the conclusion that the real reason for bringing in the external experts is simply that 'we don't know what we don't know'.
It's great to sit back in an organisation and say that a piece of research taught us nothing that we didn't already know - but is that really the case.
Even if you are 80% correct on what your customers wanted (after the fact), the other 20% may be the most vital piece of the puzzle. As we become close to our work and acculturalised to the organisation it becomes impossible to take off those rose-coloured glasses and see our online properties (or other products and services) in the same way as our customers.
Of course I have had other reasons for using independent experts over the years - to train staff, to substitute money for time we didn't have, and to ensure that politically and legally we had something signed to point at "but the consultant said that..."
But my main reason in almost every case has been that most powerful reason of all - I don't know what I don't know, and I'm unable to take off my glasses to find out.
Needless to say most of the results matched what we already knew
- our website needs more of a customer-focus and is due for a facelift,
- our intranet needs reorganisation to match how our staff need to access information and tools, and
- our customers cannot tell the difference between our website and our secure transaction service - nor should they need to.
Naturally there were some surprises - but if the people who manage the properties are already 70-80% right, why is it so important to call in the consultants?
The cynical response, and one I've floated out there from time to time, is that organisations don't trust the experience and expertise of their staff.
This is similar to the principle where for some products you sell more if you raise the price - as people believe if the price is higher so must be the quality.
Staff are a sunk cost, so there's no apparent further investment to justify the quality of an outcome.
This works well for consultants, who can build their credibility and reputation by simply charging more - though they do have to deliver in the end.
However I've never really liked it as a reason - both because I'd like to think that employers recognise the skills of their employees (or wouldn't have hired them), and because it only addresses the issue of trust, not the issue of whether the work needs to be done.
After years of thinking on this topic, involving many research projects and other consultant-led activities, I've come to the conclusion that the real reason for bringing in the external experts is simply that 'we don't know what we don't know'.
It's great to sit back in an organisation and say that a piece of research taught us nothing that we didn't already know - but is that really the case.
Even if you are 80% correct on what your customers wanted (after the fact), the other 20% may be the most vital piece of the puzzle. As we become close to our work and acculturalised to the organisation it becomes impossible to take off those rose-coloured glasses and see our online properties (or other products and services) in the same way as our customers.
Of course I have had other reasons for using independent experts over the years - to train staff, to substitute money for time we didn't have, and to ensure that politically and legally we had something signed to point at "but the consultant said that..."
But my main reason in almost every case has been that most powerful reason of all - I don't know what I don't know, and I'm unable to take off my glasses to find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
