(November 14-15, 2000, Arlington, VA)

Overview by Dina Dorich, Director, Office of Public Affairs, President’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities (dorich-bernadine@pcepd.gov).

Move over, Techies! The Content Managers are taking command of your agency’s Website. Well, not completely.

While reinforcing the team concept in Website management, speakers at the recent "Website Content Management for Government" conference held in Arlington, VA, November 14 and 15, agreed that the technical aspects of a site require IT expertise, but management of site content requires a different set of skills and abilities. A Web team, which includes IT expertise along with communications/marketing expertise, appears to be the ideal configuration.

Just what is a "Web Content Manager"? It’s unlikely that such a title appears in OPM’s list of federal job openings – even though some federal agencies have individuals with this or a similar title in place. While their backgrounds vary (some have little or minimal technical expertise), these are the folks who know the agency’s programs, can communicate effectively with program managers, have the skills to persuade the nay-sayers that the Web will enhance their programs, know how to determine customer needs, pay attention to content feedback, have expertise as writers and editors, and know how to get the word out about the site to people who need to know about it.

Taking this concept to the team approach a step further, HUD has in place a Web Content Team, made up entirely of employees with non-technical backgrounds. All members of this team are management analysts, grade levels ranging from 13 to 15, who have a working relationship with senior management within their organization. The team reports to the Deputy Secretary, HUD’s Chief Operating Officer. Because of its organizational placement, the team has access to top management and is current and in sync with the Secretary’s direction. Because none of the team members have individual program responsibility, each can maintain programmatic neutrality, which is critical to maintaining the trust of various program areas. The Web Content Team has a strong partnership with IT, but the lines of responsibility are clear: Web Managers define management requirements, and IT provides the services.

Representatives from state governments, federal agencies and the private sector echoed the sentiments that technology should not drive the site. Policy should be a driving factor, and legal issues are becoming increasingly important as more and more information becomes available on the Web.

Another message heard loud and clear at this conference was that dynamic sites are in, and static sites are out! Site designs need to include data base systems that allow the public to pick and choose the information it wants.

Sites that provide interactivity and make access to government services relatively painless are on the rise. For examples of these kinds of sites, visit the U. S. Mint’s site (www.usmint.gov) and the USPS site (www.usps.com) in the federal arena, the Pennsylvania Portal site (www.state.pa.us/PAPower/) for a statewide application, and the City of Boston site (www.cityofboston.com) for a local view.

The sites noted above have all sought public input to develop content that the respective publics need, rather than simply putting out information the agency wants the public to know. Further, the most useful sites provide access to services that simplify processes. For example, citizens can pay certain taxes and parking tickets on the City of Boston site. The U.S. Postal Service offers stamps and other products, as well as a zip code look-up feature among its various services. The revenue from this site supports all the operations. And, the U. S. Mint has been attracting thousands of new coin collectors, and collectors of coin-related products, with its easy-to-order process.

To determine what people want and need requires on-going feedback from the public. Sites obtain feedback in various forms, ranging from focus groups to e-mail surveys. (Don’t forget that OMB clearance is needed for surveys if yours is a federal agency.) What is critical is that each site should have a mechanism for feedback online – a contact point at which the public can comment, complain, praise or recommend. It is not sufficient to provide a Webmaster contact that accepts technical concerns only. One or more contacts should be available for content input, as well as for questions and concerns. The best sites are those that provide interactivity and meet consumer’s needs. The worst are those that contain little more than news releases and tomes of laws and regulations.

The best sites also stay away from "Government Speak." Good writing and good graphics create an effective site. However, if you have to choose between good content and "snazzy graphics," err on the site of content. In addition to overwhelming the visitor, some graphics significantly increase loading time, thus losing customers, as well as hampering accessibility.

As all federal agencies are aware (or should be by now), Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 requires that all electronic and information technology purchased by the federal government be accessible to people with disabilities. After having reviewed some 100 comments on its draft standards, the U. S. Access Board, the federal agency responsible for writing the standards to implement 508, is expected to publish the final standards in the Federal Register any day now.

Meanwhile, the international World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has involved some 500 organizations in developing guidelines for voluntary accessibility efforts. These guidelines are available on its Website (www.w3.org/WAI/). W3C initiatives to this point have focused primarily on content accessibility. Other initiatives focus on guidelines for Web developers and graphic designers. It is important to create authoring tools to prompt the user to create accessibility. Guidelines are anticipated in this area, as well as guidelines for browsers and for management.

Wendy Chisholm, on staff with W3C, cautioned that too often accessibility is considered only for people with visual impairments. In addition to the fact that there are gradations of visual impairments, and different types of impairments, accessibility must also be considered for people with cognitive disabilities, functional limitations and others. While a text-only site (which the Consortium discourages) may be ideal for a person who uses a screen reader, an individual with a cognitive disability may gain understanding from the graphics associated with the information. The challenges to developers occur when the same site needs to be adaptable to different disabilities. Nevertheless, as Chisholm pointed out, if accessibility is considered early on in Web and graphics software development, there will be fewer problems in the future.

The W3C offers the following "Quick Tips to Make Accessible Web Sites":

Image maps. Use client-side MAP and text for hotspots.

Two additional points made at the conference are important to remember. First, when developing a Website, it is important to develop standards and guidelines for that site – and to make sure that all content authors have the standards and guidelines. Second, all sites should have a privacy policy (federal sites must) that clearly spells out how any information gathered on the site that identifies, or has the potential to identify, individuals is used.

In summary, the Web is an ever-changing cyber landscape. Technological innovations are frequently outdated almost as soon as we learn how to use them. But technological innovations can also make the Web accessible to everyone, including people with disabilities and people who speak different languages. While technology will continue to evolve, it is important that we not lose site of the Web’s chief value as a critical, perhaps the most critical, communication tool. Technology must be the engine for the site, but content should be the driver. The driver will need the most up-to-date roadmap to keep on track. That map should include the main roads (government information) as well as the side roads and new highways (the public’s expectations).