…and How They Are Assessed.

I was at the aforementioned event with the long title on Thursday 5th June in Birmingham. Well, technically I was the event chair so hopefully I contributed more than just being at the event, but that’s really up to other people to decide.

Basically, the event (put on by PSF) was an opportunity for local authority webbies to raise their issues with the Better Connected report directly to various bods from SOCITM.

The event had the following ‘bits’:

• Chair’s Intro
• The Problem with Better Connected
• PSWMG issues with Better Connected
• A Suppliers’ Perspective
• Why web should no longer be considered separately from ICT
• Real World Accessibility vs. WCAG
• General Discussions / how to take forward the PSWMG

So there was quite a lot there. Obviously I have some personal disagreements with Better Connected — I’ve posed the question on here before Is Accessibility Measurement Harmful?, but I have also acknowledged that there have been some small improvements, with my post Baby Steps with B.C..

So it perhaps wasn’t surprising that I had some personal issues with the Better Connected report, particularly around the area of accessibility which I have to say I don’t think the Better Connected team really got. I was also critical of the way they managed the accessibility story. Local Authority websites are the most accessible sector in the UK, and the UK has the most accessible websites in Europe. So how come the story got through to the media as Councils Fail Disabled Users?

However, I also did acknowledge some of the things Better Connected did do that I felt were useful to Local Authorities: for example a comparison of the usability of different third party solutions, including Northgate, Plantech and CAPS.

Most encouragingly, I did feel that SOCITM’s representatives were listening to what people (and not just me) had to say, and seemed willing to take a number of criticisms on the chin. Obviously they can’t necessarily take everything on board, but they seemed willing to engage in dialogue, and to consider what had been said.

In fact, SOCITM’s president, Richard Steel has blogged about this himself, and I find what he’s had to say to be very encouraging:

Dan Champion first presented an analysis of the report, highlighting “opportunities for improvement”. I felt the critique was thoughtful, and there was much that I found myself agreeing with….

…The discussion was good natured and whilst our views differed on some matters, Socitm will certainly consider all the views that were expressed.

…a warm welcome and enjoyable day, and I look forward to a continuing productive relationship.

Richard Steel

I don’t expect SOCITM to be able to (or even to want to) follow every recommendation and suggestion put to them for 2009’s Better Connected report. I do however expect that report to be a better Better Connected than the 2008 version. And I don’t just mean that I believe it should be: I feel confident that SOCITM will take action to improve the report.

And as I said to Richard Steel (and I think Martin Greenwood), I’d love to be having the same event this time next year, only with me praising how far Better Connected has come. WCAG 2.0 improved from something I was highly critical of, to something that I have ended up becoming something of an evangelist for. It would be fantastic if next year I could say the same for the Better Connected report.

It’s not necessarily an easy task for SOCITM, but from that meetings, I certainly got the impression they were willing to give it a bloody good go, and that’s a good start. Despite not working in the public sector any more, I’m still passionate about the quality of local authority websites.

If we (the PSWMG — why not pop along to the PSWMG site and consider signing up if you work in the public or voluntary sector?) or I can help SOCITM to produce a better Better Connected — and that in turn helps improve the quality of public sector web sites (and not just in relation to accessibility) then that’s a good thing and time well spent in my book.

Well: Richard, Martin: it’s over to you now. Good luck!