Article review of “Web 2.0 in Government“ by Francesca Barrientos and Elizabeth Foughty published on Interaction megazine (September + October 2009). I wrote this article during my Master Degree course on Human-Computer Interactions as part of a project assignment.

1. Andrea Tino, University of Catania
W eb 2.0 in Gov
Article Review - Human Computer Interaction (AY: 2009/2010)
Reviewing an article dealing with Well, jokes and funny predictions that a sufficient analysis on context was
Andrea Tino - Reviewing “Web 2.0 in Government“ article by Francesca Barrientos and Elizabeth Foughty on Interaction megazine (September + October 2009)
arguments people and programmers aside, the authors sure made very not properly performed).
are not confident about (Government), good remarks, don’t they always say: On the other hand, I completely agree
has been somehow a challange; not “Historia magistra vitae est“? It is with both authors when talking about
everyone knows what hindrances undoubted that all considerations the necessity to move Gov on Web
a developer has to face when about progress and technological 2.0, in order to provide better services
programming components or modules growth are correct, but reader is led and a better user integration with such
for a Government web application. So, to think that everythink works on distant entities like institutions are (2).
if on one hand it is possible to consider the principle stating that trends non
a knowledge factor, on the other compliance means extinction. This is A NEW USER CENTERED
both authors tried to climb over this not true. APPROACH
obstacle, giving a wide spectrum view Jumping now to present (a very big
of what Gov on web is, and providing Although all web sites today step from 1400), the situation is a
good data to developers and web implement social components and conservative “methodology” used by
masters about needs and requirements try to be Web 2.0 compliant to “stay institutions on the web for interacting
arising in government applications alive” (because an Internet user with people. This aspect was explained
development. expectes to find these services and if very well by Barrientos and Foughty
For these reasons, the main objective he doesn’t he’ll leave the application), with a good solution: migrating from
of this review is to evaluate whether or it doesn’t mean that Gov works this a Gov-centric model to a user-centric
not the article is able to communicate way. Government is a very particular approach where citizens are equal
(effectively) how far Government field, strongly connected to society contributors in gov web sites.
web solutions have evolved up until on a limited territory and exposing
now, whether reader understands many links to various services (made And while a good solution rises,
present problems and future trends for citizens). When an institution many problems appear on the
for this particular field of Software decides to move some services on horizon (Murphy’s law can’t never
Engineering. the Internet without complying be contradicted). The authors were
standards, the consequences of this clear in this point about the lack of
1450: STARTING FROM THE action don’t always lead to a failure; guidelines, howtos, best practises
OTTOMAN EMPIRE there are evidences of this everywhere: that globally generate some kind of
Saying that the authors didn’t write a lot of websites providing data and new world to explore. Of course, not
a very interesting introduction features basing on the “conservatory everyone is willing to leave the main
would probably be a lie; I found very approach“ described by Barrientos road for heading to an unknown
impressive the comparison made and Foughty still work. Why? Because path (note that “unknown” = “fear”),
between the Ottoman Empire and the government web sites expose and here’s where the article defines
present age focusing on one particular services, used by citizens, that no its first milestone: hesitancy by Gov
social aspect: progress. A 50 year one else could ever provide (even if is understandable, but progress is at
crisis (probably leading to the empire it sounds strange, the reality is that doors (do we want to end up like the
destruction) took place because of we are considering a monopoly); Ottoman Empire?).
non compliance with new “social so, in spite of the “conservatory
technologies”; transposing times, approach”, a Web 2.0 non compliant (1): For example, if the (2): Recently, seminars
concepts, roles and actors, it is possible government application will sure not US Department of Driver and events about
Services decided to publish citizens interactions with
to reach a conclusion: if government be rejected by users (1). That’s the a web form for updating government have shown
driving licences, even if that people perceive their
web applications (the Ottoman reason for what, even considering the the site weren’t web 2.0 public services as distant
Empire) do not migrate on Web 2.0 correctness of the Ottoman Empire/ compliant, users wouldn’t with very low trust levels.
care; they would probably To repair this situation,
(Gutemberg’s press), something bad present age comparison, I don’t agree prefer a better service but institutions are working
they would use it anyway for enstablishing a better
will happen in the next future (maybe the dangerous future consequences (instead of waiting in connection with final users
a 50 year institutional chaos?). predicted by the authors (meaning everlasting queues). (gov as a person).
1

2. STARTED ON 20/12/2009 FINISHED ON 29/12/2009
(3): Memorylessness or bus were described by this
experiencelessness is probability distribution Parent Model Step (n)
the singularity owned by and the average waiting Parent Model Step (n+1)
the exponential random time is ten minutes, if I
variable. When an event is asked someone: “When
described by this kind of will the bus arrive?“ the
probability distribution, poor one would answer
what happened in the past me: “Ten minutes!“ even if No issues
Policy issues
doesn’t affect the future. he had already waited for
For instance, if waiting the eight minutes. check
So, the point is always progress. Now Compliance
Issues found
and on, the article describes the factors Not possible
for which it is important for Gov to Policies evaluation
migrate on Web 2.0 locating a large Non compliance
part of these reasons in one single No
aspect: inevitability. Here’s, to me, the Policies modification?
Andrea Tino - Reviewing “Web 2.0 in Government“ article by Francesca Barrientos and Elizabeth Foughty on Interaction megazine (September + October 2009)
great blank left by both authors. Legal
Possible
 Pict-01: The Yes analysis
diagram represents
Despite the article provides good an expanded Policies modification
questions about the reliability of users version of the
gov development
published content, the usefulness of process shown in the
article. Here we can
Web 2.0 tools, the safety of the new see the indipendence Approval
transparency level and the collisions by any design for policy changes
model.
between Gov policies and Web 2.0
approaches, there is no mention
about one giant problem that all gov world of Web 2.0. There is not much to this is not true. Agile methodologies
web sites encounter when trying to say here but agreeing with everything are modern development guidelines
migrate: the impossibility to follow said by the authors, especially when recently turned into a development
other Govs’ example and experiences. talking about real migration cases process, they can be applied to
I don’t know why the authors spent like the US Government’s Intelligence many fields: from web development
not a single word about this argument Community. The only one thing I’d to web services orchestration and
(and it is not true that it can be like talking about is the social factor implementation; but building a Web
considered a self-evident truth by that renders Web 2.0 migration a 2.0 compliant application doesn’t really
people and developers), but sure it’s required step for Gov. As expressed by mean using agile technics.
the main hindrance for design and Barrientos and Foughty, the present In order to develop a good gov web
development teams. In fact, like an generation, especially young people application it is possible to use every
unilateral exponential random variable and students, are accustomed to design process available today: the
(3), a gov web application cannot be use social tools and user-centric Prototypal process, the Spiral scheme,
redesigned or reengineered using applications; gov web sites should the Component development, the RAD
the same paths followed by other act the same way in order to maintain process, the Incremental model, the XP
gov applications; the reason is simple credibility (a very important aspect for programming and so on; they all are
and I’ve already introduced it before: institutions). valid choices.
a strict coupling exists between a
gov application and the society, the GOV WEB 2.0 DESIGN What’s really different from a normal
territory and the laws connected to it; PROCESS web application (when developing
following the example of another gov Talking about Web 2.0 design a gov web site) is that the chosen
application would be impossible given processes and providing a scheme, development/design model needs
the great difference between cultures, sure is a good way to give a wide- to be modified by adding a static
laws and societies (even in those range view about the problems that element to it, this module is always the
cases where some similarities can be occour when engineering a gov same and it is model-independent. It
considered, for example between two web application complying present means that every web development
European countries). Why is this a great standards. But my opinion is that team is free to choose the most
problem? Because it means that every the authors left few space for this suitable design process, only one
inastitution has to choose its own argument, a very important one thing is required: adding a little but
path with no guideline at all, it’s like in this article (especially when a significant part to the diagram. This
travelling alone in the desert without a developer reads it). What really misses little module is provided by the article
map or a guide. is a general design scheme, while an and consists in a three part micro-
agile-prototypal design/development diagram representing three different
WEB 2.0 BENEFITS process is provided. This is a problem phases: the policy compliance check,
There is, in the article, a three half because reader is lead to associate gov the policy evaluation/modification
column paragraph dedicated to Web 2.0 applications development (if possible) and the policy changes
opportunities and imperatives in the to the agile development paradigm; approval; in the end these three steps
2

3. STARTED ON 20/12/2009 FINISHED ON 29/12/2009
(4): Social Media and (5): Matrix of Web
The .GOV domain name is a Sponsored Top Level Doman (sLTD) in the Domain Name System (DNS) of the the Federal Government: 2.0 Technology and
Perceived and Real Barriers Government (pdf at www.
.GOV
Internet, representing all legitimate United States government institutions and sponsored by the General
Services Administration (GSA: the company in charge of defyning the .gov compliance rules: www.dotgov. and Potential Solutions, pdf usa.gov). Examples of
available at www.usa.gov. Agencies Using Online
gov). To register a gov domain, an authorization must be submitted to the GSA (federal agencies need a
Content and Technology to
cabinet-level Chief Information Officier to send authorizations), after receiving it, the internal commission at Achieve Mission and Goals
GSA checks all requirements, if no non-compliance factors are detected, the GSA grants a gov URL address (pdf at www.usa.gov).
to the requestor registering the new DNS.
distinguish a normal application from names and web links are shown) that tedious and extremely time-spending
a gov application (this procedure is have already reached a very good procedure?
almost the same, independently by the efficiency level implementing social The authors tried to provide a
development process). channels, social forums, online content solution availing themselves of the
publishing technologies, content help provided by Rob Padilla (NASA
GOV & LEGAL ISSUES sharing features, online environments Ames Research Center legal counsel).
Andrea Tino - Reviewing “Web 2.0 in Government“ article by Francesca Barrientos and Elizabeth Foughty on Interaction megazine (September + October 2009)
Let us begin now a surface analysis for remote offices and much more. The result is very good: the article
about the problems occourring when From this point of view, the article, describes what problems occour
development teams encounter, in the in the first part, makes readers when users post content on a normal
design process, the block I described understand that Web 2.0 is still a dark community web site like Facebook
before; in fact, it’s there that major and unknown entity to Government. and when content is posted on
difficulties arise. Keeping on reading, it is possible to gov web sites, the responsability of
Time-spending legal analysis aside, the find a brief description of some useful information and data is different and
work of an entire development team is efforts made up until now by public wrong information may cause serious
slowed down due to this little module companies and institutions, but the and dangerous consequences. In
that appears when we handle a gov problem is always the same: it seems particular I whole agree with Padilla
application. So if a non-compliance is that we are still going through an when he says that defining a specific
encountered because of a legal issue, embryonic stage when talking about goal allows the entire design and
the team must stop its work and wait Social Web, while things are different development process to be easier
for the legal commission to verify the and we have achieved very good and faster, although an explaination
possibility to change policies, and (in balance points. of why this happens is not given.
case of negative response) eventually However the reason is simple: with
regress to the previous step changing SECURITY ISSUES  .GOV specific goals in mind, it is possible to
that feature (and this takes a lot of time MEANS LEGITIMATE INFO foresee what legal issues would ever be
other than being a very troublesome When moving to the security issues touched, so the design team and the
task). Although these aspects were the intention of both authors is legal commission are able to proceed
described very well by the authors clear: underlining the risks caused by separately and in parallel, shortening
with good examples and real cases, I sensitive data leakage, highlighting times and wasting less resources.
expected the article to take in exam the consequent need for limiting
some solutions adopted by institutions information disclosure and facilitating In the end, when talking about
for solving these problems, instead of the comprehension of the main benefits of working through issues,
listing a series of difficulties which are problems causing the slowing down Barrientos and Foughty discuss about
an end unto themselves. of development processes. This topic the possibility to create precedents
is very important and, to me, it was and usable experiences for future
Is it because there are still no described very well; it is imortant to endeavors; I believe that this is not
solutions? No, that’s the point. US understand why a gov web application always true: in the limits I described
Government has released on 23rd cannot allow any wrong information before (when writing about the
December 2008 a document (4) with to be published (because of the .gov impossibility for institutions to use
several guidelines for institutions, in domain) or sensitive data to get others’ example for designing gov Web
order to facilitate Web 2.0 migration; lost or leaked (because of the high 2.0 compliant applications), there are
the strange thing is that, although importance level of the information). many conditions to meet in order to
this document is referenced by the let this situation happen (for example,
article, there is no mention about MANAGING POLICIES different applications operating in
its content (those parts regarding Although it seems we have made the same field may share their design
potential solutions for several common great steps, we are still in the same experiences).
problems in the field of social media). point of two paragraphs before:
But there’s more: on usa.gov there are stopped in that part of the design
many documents (5) available about diagram representing the policies
“.gov means
Web 2.0, thanks to them it is possible validation (illustrated by the picture something... it means
to realize that the present global
situation is not so bad: there are a
Pict-01). Well this is sure a measure the information on
about how crucial this stage is. So the
lot of institutions (in the documents, problem lays here: how to fasten this the site is legitimate”
3

4. STARTED ON 20/12/2009 FINISHED ON 29/12/2009
(6): DASHlink web site is: (7): The term Web 2.0 was “.The Web we know, which loads into a browser window is essentially
dashlink.arc.nasa.gov coined by Darcy DiNucci
in her article: “Fragmented static screenfulls, is only an embyo of the Web to come... The Web will
Future“. be understood not as screenfulls of text and graphics but as a transport
mechanism, the ehter through which interactivity happens... It will appear
on your computer screen, on your TV set, your car dashboard, your cell
phone... maybe on your microwave oven.” (7)
NO GUIDELINES AND DO NOT In particular, there are some important ready to use, although it is not possible
WAIT FOR THEM: A NEGATIVE topics discussed by Barrientos and to talk about guidelines, we can always
SITUATION? Foughty: the domain choice and the look at the approaches taken into
Before jumping to DASHlink, there is posting policy. consideration.
one argument I’d like to talk about: it is Like the authors wrote: it is a matter
Both authors explain that placing of defining goals and achiving them
an assertion by Rob Padilla about the
Andrea Tino - Reviewing “Web 2.0 in Government“ article by Francesca Barrientos and Elizabeth Foughty on Interaction megazine (September + October 2009)
the site in the .gov domain exposed by building a framework of Web 2.0
uselessness of waiting for guidelines
the intire project to high failure compliant services; I can’t do anything
from higher institutions about web
levels; althought no details were but agreeing with that: the experience
gov applications design process. I
specified (maybe implied, but this is a provided by Rob Padilla was a very
agree with this approach because, in a
mistake on my opinion), the primary good case study able to show real
sofisticated system where institutions
cause is represented by legal issues problems and needs (giving also
have to maintain a solid hierarchy, Web
compliance, in particular I’m referring solutions and potential approaches for
2.0 directives are slow to be spread.
to the posting policy. The article similiar difficulties).
There is another aspect to describe: the
provides an important description
lack of guidelines or howtos to look at
about what problems occour when In conclusion, referring to the main
(like the authors said), makes it useless
the development team interacts with objective of this review (described in
to refer to upper levels in order to get
the legal commission (in that crucial the first lines), I am allowed to state
directions; as I pointed out before:
design phase represented by the little that Barrientos and Foughty were able
every public company has to draw its
module described before); in this case to make readers understand what
personal path.
(a real case study) it is remarkable the restraints Web 2.0 migration in gov
This doesn’t deny what written in the solution adopted in order to avoid the applications.
legal issues paragraph: although Gov is legal issues non-compliances: creating
a dichotomy among users defining two Presently, the developers community
moving slowly to Web 2.0, this doesn’t
different groups. The goal achieved has to deal always more and more with
represent a bad result if we consider
is the possibility to consider a group Government web sites; if we are able
the hostile land where institutions are
of people non strictly connected with to explain well the most important
moving onto. Even if surprising and
NASA; by doing so it is possible to give aspects of design for this kind of
not evident, the global situation is
the responability of posted content applications, we’ll sure improve the
positive and this is the message that
validation to a class of known and quality of many products and facilitate
should be conveyed.
reliable users (this is Social Web). the passage to Web 2.0.
EXAMINING REAL CASES:
It is also important to remark that
DASHLINK every single suggestion provided by
The article reserves a six column space
Rob Padilla was applied in DASHlink
Andrea Tino
for examining a real case represented
design stages. This is a proof about the dorian@marcido.com
by a gov website whose design
reliability of all information and data andry.tino@gmail.com
was performed by the authors too:
provided by the article. Furthermore,
DASHlink (6).
we can also notice another important
thing: although no guidelines are
I have to say, unfortunately, that almost
available for designing gov Web 2.0
two and half columns (more than
compliant applications, we have
30% of the reserved space) are spent
some sort of unorderd set of design
for a very verbose description of the
principles (very generic directives, it’s
website’s details, while there are some
always better than nothing).
design aspects that could be trated
(design process is described well, but
it was possible, on my opinion, to
CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL
provide more details). Notwithstanding CONSIDERATIONS
the verbosity, DASHlink is sure a very Well, here we are in the end. It is not
good example to verify the complexity simple to summarize such an all-
of design and development processes ambracing article in few words. One
in Government applications. thing is sure: there is a lot of material
4