I’m really excited to be on the Taskforce. And you can read about what I do over at my work blog at the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney.

I’m simplifying things a bit for brevity here but one of the big issues around access to government data is that of cost.

Creating, collecting, and preserving data costs. Whilst your taxes are paying for this, many government agencies have also been asked, over the years, to generate revenue from selling data and/or access to it.

This revenue sometimes generates a profit, but other times it doesn’t even remotely get near covering the cost of selling it. The business units that sell this data rely upon clarity in terms of intellectual property in order to develop their business models and thus they’ve been encouraged to operate to protect their own interests and data (even when they might now run counter to those of the community).

Add to this the complexity of government IT systems and where there are legacy systems involved, getting the data out can incur substantial costs. At the very least there are time and resource costs. And because of prior policy decisions around outsourcing there are also now often third party fees payable to outsourced IT service providers.

So this is a tricky area to venture into and there need to be some clear ways of addressing questions around these matters.

With my team I’ve done a fair bit at the Museum around the Creative Commons licensing of all our text-based research content on our website as well as the release of a whole lot of historical images to Flickr with ‘no known Copyright restrictions’. Now we do run a business unit selling images, and we sell our text-based research through the exhibitions and publications we produce.

So how can we justify “giving it away”? Well, our mission is closely aligned with education and to better serve citizens, students and the community it makes sense to. Perhaps surprisingly, it also makes good business sense in the digital age.

One of my team at the Powerhouse, Paula Bray, recently published a paper looking at the cost implications of making these historical images available for free via Flickr. As it turns out, we are selling more now than ever before – even though ‘customers’ can get them from Flickr for free! (In fact our referrals from Flickr which result in sales are up too!)

Similarly the ABS is finding out that since they’ve made their data freely available the online usage of their data has shot up. This results in new business opportunities just as others evaporate.

The Inquiry Into Improving Access To Victorian Public Sector Information & Data covers these issues in some detail in Chapters 7 (Pricing) and 8 (Technical Infrastructure).

However all this extra usage also ends up generating additional costs. Think of all the extra enquiries, the extra requests that this extra usage and access generates. At the Powerhouse making our collection research more accessible, more usable, and  more ‘open’ we have seen the volume of public enquiries more than triple and we struggle with answering all the enquiries we now get from all over the world. For us, this is an exciting opportunity – but it is also a huge challenge.

So how are we, as a society, going to pay for all this data – not just the collection and storage, but access and increased usage?

For example over the last five years I have worked closely with a number of government projects designed to develop policy, technical and licensing solutions – such as the Government Information Licensing Project (GILF) (see its Stage 2 Report).  Our team has also worked closely with federal agencies such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics who are now providing free PSI under CC licences, AGIMO and the Cross Jurisdictional Chief Information Officers Committee (CJCIOC). 

I know that most governments in the country are now doing work in this area and many individuals and industries are also active.

Can people let us know what they are doing, proposing to do or want to do in this space?  Preferably for the record, make a comment on this blog but if you wish communicate with us is in some other way. 

(Note, this is intended to be a first cut at a project which the Taskforce may wish to do in a more systematic way, and as a result we’re likely to return to the subject more formally. But in the meantime, I thought this would be a useful preliminary exercise).

Universal design is the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.
– Ron Mace

One major issue to face the Government 2.0 taskforce will be how to meet the needs of people with disabilities.  In my role as Project Manager for Media Access Australia and as a person with a vision impairment, I’ve been fortunate to have both a profession and personal perspective on access issues so I thought I’d share my thoughts on the topic.

The challenge here will revolve around the use of universal design in the delivery of accessible government information via Web 2.0 technologies.  While the principle sounds good, two questions need to be asked:  what is universal design, and can it realistically be achieved?

One of the easiest mistakes to make is assuming that universal design means that everything has to be approached using a ‘one size fits all’ model.    This would be very difficult, not to mention impractical to actually do.  For example, if the government decides that Facebook is a good medium for communication, should the popular website launch a text-only interface to ensure complete access?  Would this meet universal design requirements?  How would current Facebook users feel about that?

An alternative is not to see universal design as an impossible dream, but to use the concept in practical ways that make mainstream products reach the largest possible audience.  The Center for Universal Design looked across a variety of disciplines, and focused on things like equitable use, flexibility in use, emphasis on simplicity and intuitiveness, the need for perceptible information and tolerance for error.  When we think about the Facebook example, can all these concepts apply without making a text-only site?  I’d argue yes.  Will this make Facebook accessible to every Australian with one or more disabilities? Probably not, but it will get close enough that specialist solutions would be required on such a small scale that it can be provided to the remainder of the population at minimal cost.

The third option is to put it all in the ‘too hard’ basket, which is what has previously happened in Australia.  Other Federal governments around the world like the United States of America have legislation, Section 508, that requires products produced or sold to the government meet accessibility criteria.   Our equivalent legislation, the Disability Discrimination Act, has no comparable requirement.

So what do you think?  Should the government find a one-size-fits-all solution to access?  Should the focus be on making government resources as accessible as possible using mainstream technologies, or is it all just too hard?   Add your thoughts.

About Dr Scott Hollier: Scott Hollier is the Project Manager, New Media for Media Access Australia (MAA), a not-for-profit, public benevolent institution.  Scott’s work focuses on making computers and Internet-related technologies accessible to people with disabilities,  Scott also represents MAA on the Advisory Committee of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the organisation primarily responsible for developing and promoting access standards to media through technology for people with disabilities.   Scott has completed a PhD titled ‘The Disability Divide: an examination into the needs of computing and Internet-related technologies on people who are blind or vision impaired’. Scott is legally blind and as such understands the importance of access at a personal level.

There is very strong interest in the work of the Taskforce and due only to resource limitations we are not at present accepting unsolicited blog posts. This is not intended to stifle the debate and we encourage participation through comments on the blog and through other tools that will come online as the work of the Taskforce proceeds.

We will be running regular open threads on which people can talk about whatever they wish providing it conforms with our moderation policies seems reasonably relevant to the work of the Taskforce.

If you wish to nominate someone whom you think can contribute as a guest blogger please e-mail us on blogpostproposals@gov2.net.au stating who you feel we should invite to post and why. Include their name and contact details, as well as the topic on which you think they can contribute, and links to existing on-line work or references to offline work. If we invite a guest post, we will nevertheless reserve the right to decide subsequently whether we wish to publish the post on this blog.

Posts should preferably be approximately 500-1000 words and written in blog style (conversational, provocative, engaging, preferably with links to other resources).  They should  focus on some microcosm of our agenda and how it relates to the issues of Government 2.0

The author of the guest post should follow the comments on their post and engage with readers by responding to comments.

As you would expect, posts will reflect the authors views and will not necessarily be those of the Taskforce.

Then there were your votes.  Nick Morton’s design was well represented in the voting, but Ben Crothers’ designs, considered as a whole were even more popular.  His four designs scored 30% of the vote, but of those four, the three in the family chosen (see illustrations above) scored nearly a quarter of the votes.  For reasons already explained, we didn’t intend to stick rigidly to the popular vote if it led us too far astray from our own sense of what was best, but we were pleased that our own collective judgement seemed to line up with the collective judgement of our audience.

Speaking personally I am very excited about the wining designs.  Given what it takes to come up with a logo, you wonder how we keep getting good ones.  I mean how many compelling new ways are there that combine some simple image like the shape of our continent using only a few dots, or simple shapes and colours?  But I think designs 10, 11 and 12 do it simply and compellingly.  I can’t be sure what the designer intended, but to me the logo captures the idea of the diversity of Web 2.0.  And it’s fresh.   I think it looks terrific.  We’ll be in touch with Ben Crothers with a view to using all the designs he’s provided and or variants of them.  And we’ll be acknowledging his work, as I’m doing here.

So thanks everyone for sending in your ideas and your handiwork, thanks and congratulations to Ben for what I think is a fabulous design and a great outcome.

Postscript: I’ve just rung Ben and given him the good news. He drew my attention to the supporting text he’d sent in with his entry which is as follows. “The idea behind the circles is again conversations and interactions popping up around the country, with the ‘water pools’ evoking ‘ripple effect’, harmonising with each other and rippling through each other.  The colour implies variety, optimism and vitality.”  That was certainly the message I took from it.

Ben Crothers’ designs are below the fold (and now above us on our banner!). His website is here.

Her premise is that the divisions that exist in society exist in on-line society. The truth of this has important implications for engagement online:

One thing to keep in mind about social media: the internet mirrors and magnifies pre-existing dynamics. And it makes many different realities much more visible than ever before.

The clearest divisions are between Myspace, Facebook and Twitter. In terms of age distribution, Ben Shepherd crunched Nielsen Netview numbers for Australia: 32% of Facebook users are 25-34; 43% of Myspace users are 12-24, 60% of Twitter users are over 35.

Each community has its own voice, its own language and its own ettiquette. For many, other online communities are foreign places. boyd argues that these differences reflect the differences that exist in sociey.

Social stratification is pervasive in American society (and around the globe). Social media does not magically eradicate inequality. Rather, it mirrors what is happening in everyday life and makes social divisions visible. What we see online is not the property of these specific sites, but the pattern of adoption and development that emerged as people embraced them. People brought their biases with them to these sites and they got baked in.

 While the race and class dynamics are different in Australia than they are in the USA, we can reasonably expect that the essential demographics that create divisions of age, gender, socio-economics, geographic location, education, ATSI (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) and CALD(culturally and linguistically diverse) background in our society also create divisions online.  

boyd also notes that people participate in social media with their existing off-line networks rather than engaging with new people. This creates another puzzle for governments wanting to engage with people online – how to engage using social media when the networks are essentially social. One exception to this pattern are people with a business, career or cause agenda. These people are active connection makers. For the most part I expect that people reading this blog fall into this category.

Adding to the problem is that the networks are fundamentally corporate and competitive. Sharing friends and information across networks is not possible, and third parties crossovers are incomplete and often unsatisfactory. This separation reinforces the boundaries between communities and therefore the social divisions that led to the divided participation in the first place. Twitter is different to Myspace and different to Facebook and different to Bebo and Second Life and so on.

Online participation is, for many, unpredictable and inconsistent. People have different reasons for participating in networks and different levels of participation, and participate at different times. It should be no surprise that the level of engagement in online public life reflects how people engage in public life. It is important that government engagement considers this context.

But here’s the main issue with social divisions. We can accept when people choose to connect to people who are like them and not friend different others. But can we accept when institutions and services only support a portion of the network? When politicians only address half of their constituency? When educators and policy makers engage with people only through the tools of the privileged? When we start leveraging technology to meet specific goals, we may reinforce the divisions that we’re trying to address.

This is the critical challenge that faces government online engagement: Whether through social networking communities or through other Web 2 mechanisms we risk new inequalities, add to the division between those who can and want to participate online and those who don’t, and re-inforce, or worse legitimise, the online reflections of existing divisions, in our society.

This complexity in the context should not be seen as a dealbreaker. Understanding online dynamics is not so different to understanding the dynamics in society, but it is critical that we understand them. It could also be seen as an opportunity to create bridges across some of the boundaries.

Entries are displayed in chronological order of us receiving them.

Because virtually all the entries in the banner competition included logo type designs, we are intending to choose a single design – or possibly a family of related banner designs.  It is likely that we will choose the logo within the banner design we choose, but have also included one entry which is for a logo only which we will consider in our final judging.

We will be deciding on the winner at the Taskforce’s teleconference on Thursday of this week so we cannot promise to consider any votes cast after start of business on Thursday.

(continued – over the fold – the banners and voting).

[01] Jason Cartwright

[02] Travis Jackson

[03] Nick Morton

[04] Robin Henry

[05] Russell Harrower #i

[06] Russell Harrower #ii

[07] Russell Harrower #iii

[08] Joshua Gans

[09] Jason Weber

[10] Ben Crothers #i

[11] Ben Crothers #ii

[12] Ben Crothers #iii

[13] Ben Crothers #iv

[14] Todd Lopez #i

[15] Todd Lopez #ii

[16] Todd Lopez #iii

[17] Todd Lopez #iv

[18] Richard Ferrers #i

[19] Richard Ferrers #ii

[20] Lucas Woods

[21] Jesse Horner #i

[22] Jesse Horner #ii

[23] Hubert Chang

[24] Hubert Chang; logo

Vote Now! Voting has closed

There was some early discussion about the credibility of the task force itself and its lack of obvious ‘heavy’ web/tech representation.   Actually the group is pretty balanced and has a good mix of perspectives.  But I made the point at the Web 2.0 in Govt conference last week that people shouldn’t fuss too much about the TF and its membership, but rather see the announcement as a crack that ‘let’s the light in’ as Leonard Cohen might put it!  It’s an opportunity and we all need to play a role in making the most of it.

It’s reasonable to expect that TF will demonstrate the principles and culture of Web 2 in its own operations and keep the conversation as open and “outside in” as possible. 

We have to work out ways to engage these issues with key public sector leaders and policy makers.  The point about Government 2.0 is that it is fundamentally a discussion about government itself.  So we need to ‘mainstream’ its deliberations and conversations so it can’t be parked as a tech-driven side show.

 We will also have to think carefully about the best way to talk with the communities we want to engage, including the already active and highly connected and those who may not yet be counted amongst the technorati but who have forceful views and great insights to share.

I think the task force is a massive opportunity to connect three big conversations – one about the emergence of a new public sector (culture, institutions, processes etc), one about improving service delivery and another about lifting the quality, reach and impact of citizen/community engagement.  We should always try and keep the ‘frame’ of our deliberations as wide as possible to show how these three  conversations, transformed by the instincts, tools and culture of the new social media, merge into a larger story.

Maybe we can see the TF as a combination of ‘platform’ (ie a space in which we can draw a sustained and energetic discussion, including linking to spaces where that discussion is already happening), a show case (to illustrate what’s possible and how it adds value) and offering helpful advice (to give government some practical guidance about how to accelerate the adoption of Web 2.0 tools, capabilities and behaviours in the public sector…).   This last one especially…”don’t lecture us”, one public servant said the other day at the Web 2.0 conference…”give us advice and encouragement”. Good point…

Finally, it’s inevitable I guess that the conversations here on the blog and elsewhere will diverge in all sorts of directions.  But we have a chance gradually to ‘sort and sift’ the ideas into some larger themes.  A bit of structure won’t hurt!  That’s not about narrowing the discussion but simply the reality that we need to balance the open debate with the need to respond to the specific questions we’ve been asked to consider.