GovCamps are self organised unconferences for people that work in and around government. They’re free; have no set, pre-defined agenda; focus on attendee participation; integrate with online stuff and are relentlessly positive, constructive and creative. GovCamps enable folk interested in developing innovation and technology in government to come together in an informal setting to share their ideas. And eat pizza.

There will be two different strands to this year’s event:

• Discussion sessions – the more traditional ‘unconference’ style sessions and presentations
• Hackday – hacking sessions for those who want less of the chat and more making stuff!

We’d love to repeat the success of last year, so sign up and I’ll see you there!

There’s no agenda as yet – in the tradition of GovCamps, we’ll be setting that on the day, but there will no doubt be a strong Web 2.0 and social media theme.

The Informatics Forum in Edinburgh will provide an inspiring space for discussion and engagement, the sharing of experiences and creation of new ideas.

You can find out more, and book your free place for the event, at http://scotgovcamp.eventbrite.com

Also read this preview of the event by Improvement Service reporter David Friel.

Thanks to Lesley Thomson, from the Scottish Government, for getting the ball rolling.

EDIT – the event now has an official site at http://scotgovcamp.wordpress.com

My talk started by introducing the idea of accessibility and how it applies to social media. I then spoke about CAPTCHA, and how this continues to be a significant barrier on many sites, preventing some users from even creating an account on certain sites.

I then went on to argue that if we are relying on social media sites to present content to our users, or to hold discussion and debates, then it’s our responsibility to make sure that the content is accessible. That’s where the following video kicks in (the text equivalent can be found below, after the video). Apologies for the background noise – Liz maintains that the saxophone was not added in later but was, rather, a bonus from the street of Edinburgh…

Transcript of video

If we’re putting our content on their sites, it’s our problem. I was thinking about this a couple of days ago and I wrote a brief blog post which I’d like to read from. Social media is a revolution and with all revolutions some people have been left behind. There are individuals who are at risk of exclusion – I’ve mentioned disabled individuals such as the blind and users of screen reader – but also the ‘digital divide’, where people aren’t connected to the internet and possibly even don’t want to be connected to the internet. We have to remember that these people aren’t going to be using these platforms.

It’s also an issue because it’s out of our control. We can make our own websites accessible but with other sites, for example if we wanted to create a Facebook account, we have to live with the consequences that those sites may not be as accessible as we’d want them to be.

Some of the other problems we need to be aware of. I’ve already mentioned CAPTCHA, impacting on the very first process of signing up to an account. There is also the fact that much of social media relies on dynamic web pages, rich internet applications – where pages update automatically as new content comes along. How do screen readers manage that? Do they know that the page has updated, and will they read out those updates? Evidence suggests that most new screen readers can handle some of these things but not everyone has the latest screen reading technology.

There’s also the issue of the volume of content; the pure number of videos there are out there on Youtube and so on, or the pure number of Tweets on Twitter. That makes it really hard to find content that you’re really interested in.

Probably the biggest overall accessibility concern of social media and our use of it is the fact that it is user-generated content. We don’t have any control over the content that other people are authoring to these sites. That’s the very nature of social media and, despite all of its benefits, that’s the big risk as well.

YouTube is an obvious example; anybody can put a video on YouTube but have they, for example, added captions so that deaf people can access the audio content, or audio description so that blind people know what’s going on on the screen? Probably not. We can do it – if we want to put a video onto YouTube we can make sure all of those processes are in place, but the average user may not want to or may not know how to.

So, if we’re directing people to this kind of content and saying ‘have your own discussions around that’ we need to be aware that some people may be left out of it.

So what can we do? The first thing is to put pressure on the likes of YouTube and Facebook, to tell them to make their services more accessible…

The video ends there, but I did go on to talk about the need to make sure that we are aware of any barriers that exist, making alternative arrangements where possible or directing people to more accessible versions (for example, Accessible Twitter and Easy YouTube).

As before, I’m keen to keep this discussion going so would invite any comments here. There’s also a discussion about social media accessibility over at Accessify Forum which I’d love people to contribute to.

My presentation at ScotWeb2 - photo courtesy of Jadu

This post explores some of the issues that I plan to discuss with attendees at tomorrow’s ScotWeb2 event in Edinburgh, regarding the current state of accessibility on Social Media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. I hope to have some interesting feedback to post here after tomorrow, so for now here’s an overview of the subject. I’ve also thrown in a few open questions to kick-start the discussion.

[Edit: see a summary of the event on the ScotWeb2 blog]

What do I mean by Social Media accessibility?

Social Media has enjoyed an explosion of popularity in the past few years, making it easy for individuals to quickly and easily publish their own content and share it with the world, without needing technical skills in web publishing.

As with all such revolutions, though, some people have been left behind. Individuals at most risk of exclusion are those who require websites to be fully accessible in order to access the content. There are many barriers which can impact on the accessibility of a webpage, affecting people with many differing conditions. A blind user, for example, will probably use screen reader software to have the content read out to them. The content needs to be fully available to the screen reader for this to work correctly.

There are three distinct issues to consider when talking about the accessibility of Social Media platforms:

• Can everyone publish their own content without barriers?
• Does the publishing platform support the creation of accessible content?
• Is that content then presented to the end-user in an accessible way?

Why is it an issue?

There are obvious moral arguments why such systems should be accessible, as well as some important legal imperatives too (e.g. the Disability Discrimination Act in the UK). Essentially, if these systems are inaccessible to certain users, then those users are missing out on the opportunities and benefits of using that platform. Is it our responsibility, as adopters of the service, or the service providers themselves?

Sites such as Facebook have revolutionised how we build and maintain our social networks, on and offline. Sites such as YouTube have given us access to a huge variety of new media content never previously available. And platforms such as blogs and forums have allowed us to communicate with others and have our opinions heard across the globe.

What are the problems?

CAPTCHA

A State of the eNation Report from January 2008, published by AbilityNet, claimed that Social networking sites were locking out disabled users. In particular, it identified CAPTCHA as a significant and insurmountable barrier for many users, preventing them from even registering for sites. Many sites have since acted to improve this situation (for example, Twitter recently replaced their inaccessible CAPTCHA with reCAPTCHA, a far more accessible product). Yahoo is a surprising example of a high-profile company still getting it wrong.

Dynamic pages and Rich Internet Applications

Many Social Media sites rely heavily on dynamic content and interfaces powered by the likes of AJAX. Some users may not notice when a page updates, changing or adding new content. In some cases, certain functions may be inaccessible because of the scripting techniques used. Even where the elements are adapted to be accessible to modern assistive technologies, it is important to remember that many users will have older versions which are not compatible.

Volume of content

Social Media is a fast moving and high-volume medium. Anyone who uses Twitter, and who has built up a reasonable number of people to follow, will know how quickly the Tweet streams change and how easy it is to miss potentially useful content.

There is also the wider issue of usability and the common requirement to wade through masses of content to find what you want.

User generated content

Perhaps the most serious challenge to Social Media accessibility comes as a consequence of its very nature – the fact that anyone can publish content. Quality control becomes near-impossible, and accessibility is often the first victim. Is there a way of mitigating against this? Is any degree of content moderation realistic?

YouTube is an obvious example. Although YouTube provides the ability to add captions to videos, for the benefit of deaf or hard-of-hearing users, this is an optional extra that few will use. Equally, blind users will have no access to the visual content of the videos without decent video description. Is it realistic to provide this additional content, or could it make the process too time-consuming and expensive? If the latter, should we be providing the content at all?

Even worse, as Nomensa’s article on Social Media and Accessibility points out, the YouTube interface itself is inaccessible:

The (YouTube) website lacks many common accessibility features. The player is not keyboard accessible, nor is it accessible to a screen reader user. Recently, YouTube have introduced the ability to upload captions for people with hearing difficulties, yet the player itself remains an obstacle for many other users. The same problems are apparent when YouTube content is embedded on alternative websites using the standard player.

In one swift backwards step, the greatest social interaction of all time, becomes an obstacle. Perhaps even an impossibility.

Nomensa

Conclusions, and what can we do about it?

Perhaps the most important step is to put pressure on the providers of these services, to make sure that they are offering accessible platforms. How can we do that? And how effective will it be?

Until the platforms are accessible, we need to be aware of the barriers and act accordingly, offering alternatives to ensure that we’re including everyone. We could also direct our users to the accessible versions of key platforms (Accessible Twitter, Easy YouTube etc) until the original sites improve.

The inaccessibility of some of these sites should not prevent us from using them – rather we should just be sure of approaching them knowing the risks. Indeed, there are other risks of exclusion beyond accessibility – cultural, social and economic factors may all affect whether a person engages with these services, so we can never assume that these platforms provide a complete solution. Are there ways of bridging this digital divide?

Further reading

• OFCOM report on Social Networking attitudes, behaviour and use (PDF)
• Social Networking accessibility paper by Henny Swan (PDF)
• Blind Access Journal reports that Twitter Quietly Fixes Broken Audio CAPTCHA
• Are Social Networking Sites Accessible to People with Vision Loss? The American Foundation for the Blind
• Deafblind Web Users Engage With Social Media

Microsoft Offices, Edinburgh

At 5pm last Friday, dozens of like-minded web enthusiasts gathered at the Microsoft offices at Waverley Gate, Edinburgh, for a Scottish Public Sector Barcamp meetup. On the agenda was everything from Web 2.0 and social media to the credit crunch and website rationalisation, and we only had two hours to put the world to rights.

The four sessions took place two at a time, which meant I was only able to take part in two. The ones I missed were about freeing our data (shame to miss that one, and I had some interesting conversations afterwards on that very subject) as well as WordPress (again, shame to miss as it’s a definite area of interest).

However, the discussions I did attend provided plenty of food for thought:

Social Networking

In a discussion led by Pete Martin of The Gate Worldwide, we explored issues around the changing landscape of media consumption, the various business models that are emerging, and what this all means for the public sector.

Points to consider:

• use of the web is far from ubiquitous – Pete tells us that only 60% of households in Scotland have broadband, and that only 11% of the population are based in an office. For most of us in the room, we’re used to having access to the web pretty much all day. For the vast majority, this simply isn’t the case (although Paul from Falkirk rightly observed that the emergence of mobile browsing goes some way to blur the boundaries). Nevertheless, there is an inherent risk of social exclusion.
• This is compounded by the fact that many business models are shifting towards a two-class system of access, where you can get the basic stuff for free but have to pay for the good stuff. There are already many examples of this.
• And what about cost benefit? I spoke with Pete after the discussion about this, and he pointed out that the cost benefits can be huge in certain cases, with massive profits to be made. But in terms of social media, where we invite our citizens to interact with us, the cost savings in using these channels of communication can be quickly eaten up by the resources needed to train people to use them correctly.

Also, Pete observed that ‘engaging with the disgruntled’ can be costly and often, ultimately, pointless. The truly malcontented will never be satisfied, and will gladly suck up all of your available resources.

Nevertheless, providing a platform is often important in its own right. A good example is the Guardian’s Comment Is Free website, where users can directly engage in conversation around articles and editorials. It was suggested that the users got the most value out of such an exercise, and we assume that the writer of the article does not usually bother to read the hundreds of comments generated. Therefore, is the ability to engage in conversation more important than the outcomes of those conversations? (Edit: see Peter Ashe’s post about the event for an interesting analogy of hosting a party – frustrating for the host, who can barely hold a decent conversation with anyone, but hopefully great for your guests)

Finally, there was a brief discussion around the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to any involvement in social media. It’s not just a ‘techie’ project, but nor is it a purely comms one. Getting the right people on board is essential if any voyage into Web 2.0 waters is to be successful.

Online videos

The next discussion was around online video, led by Christian Storstein from the Scottish Government. This was of particular interest as I’m currently looking at how my organisation could use this medium to present information online.

Youtube was, unsurprisingly, the main focus, and Christian presented a comprehensive list of reasons why it was the best option for him. These included:

• The excellent community built up around Youtube
• The Related Videos function, which can drive more traffic your way
• The ability to add Closed Captioning and automatically translate them to a variety of languages
• A good analytics package, including the ability to identify your videos’ hotspots (allowing you to see which parts of your video people are interested in, and at which point they might be losing interest)
• The ability to add collaborative functions, including peer annotation
• A great API which allows easy integration into your own site

I’ve had my concerns about using Youtube, and I put these to Christian in the pub afterwards:

Firstly, monetisation – Youtube is owned by Google, and it’s unlikely that they’re fully satisfied by the site’s revenue streams. In theory, Youtube could start inserting adverts into the videos whenever it wants, with a potentially serious impact on the videos hosted there. Christian optimistically dismisses this, though. He points out that we, the user, make Youtube what it is. We provide the videos, and we have the power to withdraw them if we’re not happy. A good point, but I wonder if it is enough to convince senior management?

My other concern was around the ability to comment on videos. We’ve seen disasters in the past with organisations putting videos online and getting a torrent of abuse in the Comments section. You can of course turn Commenting off, as Christian points out, but I wonder if doing so might send out the wrong messages about openness and our desire to listen to our citizens. Such one-way conversations seem to fly in the face of Web 2.0, although the risks of allowing unmoderated comments probably make such an approach unavoidable.

Other issues discussed in the session included mention of sites such as VodPod and Vimeo, as well as the practicalities of making a decent video on a tiny budget. There are some pretty good guidelines out there, it was suggested, and with a low to mid-range digital video recorder you should get decent results.

Chris Holme of the Scottish Government reminded us that there is already plenty of great video out there, and that organisations have been doing this for decades. As such, the medium is not new, and the business cases are long-established. Finally, third parties such as news agencies are desperate for video content, and will actively seek out your content without the need for too much promotion. This makes it potentially a very effective and cost-efficient medium.

Some people I met

• Great to see Alex Stobart (@alexstobart) again – hope we can work together on some things.
• Nice to chat to Baxter Tocher (@btocher) – and thanks for the dabr tip!
• Interesting chat with Tony Purcell of W00tonomy – I definitely share your vision for improving our web content!
• Useful chat with Pete Martin (@smuji) and thanks for sharing your notes with me!
• The post-event pub discussions went late into the evening with Alex and Christian, Duncan Stephen (@doctorvee), Chris Holme, Katie Cooke, Ross Lyon (@ly0nsd3n) and others.
• Sorry if I’ve missed anyone out – hope to see you all next time! (next ScotWeb2 event is on June 19th)

Related links

• The official Barcamp Wiki for the event – with list of attendees
  
• Scotweb2 blog – including a summary of the event
  
• Some photos of the event on Flickr, courtesy of Calgacus Wasabi

All in all, the day was very uplifting and provided some real food for thought. It succeeded wonderfully in bringing together a small but committed number of Web 2.0 enthusiasts, mostly from the public sector but including a few from the commercial world. Although this meant that much of the discussions were in some way ‘preaching to the converted’, there was still plenty of new ideas to hear about and various calls to action.

Simon Dickson‘s talk exemplified this well. His passion and enthusiasm for WordPress came over in barrel loads, and certainly gave people something to think about when comparing the minimal costs of implementing the open-source blogging CMS compared with some multi-million projects he has seen in central government. It was also a more general rallying call for us to abandon concepts of quality being defined by cost, given that most of the traditional barriers to accessing these technologies are now being increasingly broken down.

James Munro, from Patient Opinion, also delivered an interesting presentation on the relationship between his independent service and the NHS, with plenty of engaging discussion about public perception, trust and the machinations of organisational change through feedback.

Derek Hemphill presented BT Tradespace, which most of the audience confessed to never having heard of. I’ve now set up my free account so will report back about that soon.

Stephen Dale also gave a brief introduction to the Communities of Practice platform for local gov and public sector professionals to develop and share knowledge. Non public sector members are welcome to join in where appropriate, although overt selling is not tolerated. I myself am a member of three forums and am so far enjoying the experience.

As I say, I’ll be writing more about specifics once I’ve had a change to collect my thoughts and notes. Thanks again to Alex Stobart for organising what turned out to be a positive and exciting day of discussion.

To prepare for this I thought I’d have a quick recap of what Web 2.0 means to me.

Wikipedia describes Web 2.0 thus:

Web 2.0 is a term describing changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and web design that aims to enhance creativity, secure information sharing, collaboration and functionality of the web.

What qualifies as Web 2.0 can sometimes be in debate, and Tim Berners-Lee himself has questioned the value of the term, but for me the above keywords ‘sharing, collaboration and functionality‘ strike at the heart of the matter. We’re talking about a concept in which previously passive users become contributors, where content can be pulled apart and seamlessly put back together again, and where new ideas and innovations can more easily be built upon existing platforms.

So what does this mean for the local gov web developer? The public sector is traditionally very slow at responding to trends and change, so many of us are currently in a situation where we’re locked out of the playground whilst the rest of the world has fun playing this new game. Why? Because of risk.

The perils of public opinion

The risks to which I’m referring are fairly obvious. Post a Youtube video and you may get negative comments; set up a MySpace profile and you don’t know who you’ll be making friends with; start a blog and people might find out you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about (*cough*). In essence, Web 2.0 is about giving power to the people – the Information Superhighway is no longer a one-way street (actually, it hasn’t been a one-way street for a long time, it’s just that continuing developments are making it easier, quicker and cheaper than ever to get involved).

Is this something that local government has the confidence to open itself up to? More often than not, regrettably, no. Once something is out there, there’s no bringing it back in. The lack of control is something that I’ve found to be a major sticking point. But the obvious rebuttal to this is that conversations are going on out there, whether we’re involved or not. Surely it’s far better to be playing the game badly than not playing at all?

Getting it wrong

Well, not always. There have been some good examples of why dipping your toes in the Web 2.0 waters can often lead to losing a pinkie. And although the biggest mistake would be to ignore Web 2.0 completely, there’s plenty of reasons to pause for thought. Bad examples we’ve seen recently include Youtube videos withdrawn because of inappropriate messages (someone forgot to dis-allow commenting) and social networking accounts shut down through lack of interest (very embarrassing to learn you have no friends).

So how can we avoid the pitfalls? Stephen Dale, in his excellent article on Utilising Web 2.0 in local government, gives the following tips:

Simple guidelines for Web 2.0 deployment

• Don’t think about Web 2.0 or e-government as being just about technology. It is about saving time and making life easier and more efficient for citizens.
• Make sure you are resourced to cope. No point setting up a blog that encourages comments if you can’t respond to each comment.
• Carefully plan your strategy if using blogs. If it’s a council blog, make sure it’s part of a wider communications strategy and not the domain of one or two keen individuals.
• Consider the reputational risks of publishing un-moderated citizen comments in online forums or blogs. Don’t assume comments represent universal opinion.
• Identify the audience you are trying to reach and use the appropriate channel. Not everyone has an account on Facebook, Myspace or Bebo, and not everyone has broadband. Know who you are excluding and plan for this.
• Ensure there is a staff policy for using social media sites during working hours.
• Most Web 2.0 solutions are relatively cheap to deploy. If you are planning to spend more than £100k on an enterprise solution you’re doing something wrong – or you have particularly complex requirements.

From Stephen Dale’s Utilising Web 2.0 in local government

I’ll post more thoughts after Friday’s conference, but one thing is certain – it’s going to be a long and winding road.