Outcomes - Revision history

Jjh: /* Nature of the Consultation */

2007-03-06T15:43:37Z

‎Nature of the Consultation

Jjh: /* Design of the Site */

2007-03-06T15:41:30Z

‎Design of the Site

Jjh: /* Design of the Site */

2007-03-06T15:40:46Z

‎Design of the Site

Jjh: /* Usability Tests */

2007-03-06T15:40:08Z

‎Usability Tests

Jjh at 15:39, 6 March 2007

2007-03-06T15:39:21Z

Jjh at 23:32, 5 March 2007

2007-03-05T23:32:59Z

Jjh: /* Final Comments */

2007-03-05T22:47:21Z

‎Final Comments

Jjh: /* Nature of the Consultation */

2007-03-05T22:31:29Z

‎Nature of the Consultation

Jjh: /* Conclusion */

2007-03-05T22:26:26Z

‎Conclusion

Jjh: /* Final Comments */

2007-03-05T22:24:53Z

‎Final Comments

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ===Nature of the Consultation===
-The nature of the consultation itself, based on a technical and complex issue, was never going to inspire universal interest or appeal. The language used in the [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/online-doc.php consultation document] did not lend itself to different levels of ability, given its legalistic nature. Writing for the web is different to writing long documents. Usability studies show people scan for key words, rather than reading from top to bottom. It may be necessary to use copywriters to rewrite documents for web sites, and even more so for discussion forums.
+The nature of the consultation itself, based on a technical and complex issue, was never going to inspire universal interest or appeal. The language used in the [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/online-doc.php consultation document] did not lend itself to different levels of ability, given its legalistic nature. In addition, writing for the web is different to writing long documents. Usability studies show people scan for key words, rather than reading from top to bottom. It may be necessary to use copywriters to rewrite documents for web sites, and even more so for discussion forums.
 ==Conclusion==

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ====Design of the Site====
 The usability test identified the main concerns.  These concerns were centred on the design of the site. They are listed as the following:
-# The instructions were not clear enough. People registered but then had difficulty locating the space to enter their comments.
+# ''The instructions were not clear enough''. People registered but then had difficulty locating the space to enter their comments.
-# The four options offered were seen as confusing to people.
+# ''The four options offered were seen as confusing to people''.
-# The language used was too technical and assumed prior technical knowledge.  Again, people felt this was off-putting.
+# ''The language used was too technical and assumed prior technical knowledge''.  Again, people felt this was off-putting.
-# The registration page asked too many questions.  People were not sure of the relevance of these questions in the context of the overall consultation. The content itself was seen as difficult, ‘dry’ and hard to understand.
+# ''The registration page asked too many questions''.  People were not sure of the relevance of these questions in the context of the overall consultation. The content itself was seen as difficult, ‘dry’ and hard to understand.
 Overall, the potential for e-consultation was recognised by people.  Improvement to the site would be to make it more concise and easier to use.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ====Design of the Site====
-The main concerns were centred on the design of the site. These concerns were:
+The usability test identified the main concerns.  These concerns were centred on the design of the site. They are listed as the following:
 # The instructions were not clear enough. People registered but then had difficulty locating the space to enter their comments.
 # The four options offered were seen as confusing to people.
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 Overall, the potential for e-consultation was recognised by people.  Improvement to the site would be to make it more concise and easier to use.
 ==Other issues==

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Usability==
 ====Usability Tests====
-Because of the low participation in the discussion forum, we ran some usability tests. Staff at [http://www.waterwaysireland.org Waterways Ireland] who had not been involved in the consultation, but who obviously had some interest and understanding of the subject (like the target participants), were asked to think aloud while carrying out tasks of:
+Because of the low participation in the discussion forum, the researchers ran some usability tests. Staff at [http://www.waterwaysireland.org Waterways Ireland] who had not been involved in the consultation, but who obviously had some interest and understanding of the subject (like the target participants), were asked to think aloud while carrying out tasks of:
 # Finding information on the site
 # Finding the discussion forum, and

←Older revision		Revision as of 15:39, 6 March 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	A review of the [http://www.waterwaysireland.org Waterways Ireland] project suggests several learning points worth considering before embarking upon an E-Consultation exercise. This section first reviews the key concerns, usability and others, before outlining learning outcomes.
		+
	==Usability==		==Usability==
	====Usability Tests====		====Usability Tests====

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Usability==
 ====Usability Tests====
-Because of the low participation in the discussion forum, we ran some usability tests. Staff at Waterways Ireland who had not been involved in the consultation, but who obviously had some interest and understanding of the subject (like the target participants), were asked to think aloud while carrying out tasks of:
+Because of the low participation in the discussion forum, we ran some usability tests. Staff at [http://www.waterwaysireland.org Waterways Ireland] who had not been involved in the consultation, but who obviously had some interest and understanding of the subject (like the target participants), were asked to think aloud while carrying out tasks of:
-# finding information on the site
+# Finding information on the site
-# finding the discussion forum, and
+# Finding the discussion forum, and
-# posting a message to the discussion forum.
+# Posting a message to the discussion forum.
 ====Design of the Site====
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 # The registration page asked too many questions.  People were not sure of the relevance of these questions in the context of the overall consultation. The content itself was seen as difficult, ‘dry’ and hard to understand.
-Overall, the potential for e-consultation was recognised by people.  Improvement would be to make the site more concise and easier to use.
+Overall, the potential for e-consultation was recognised by people.  Improvement to the site would be to make it more concise and easier to use.
 ==Other issues==
 ===Resource Scarcity===
-The issue of resources—particularly in relation to publicising consultations—became a major issue with the lack of success of this trial. While Waterways Ireland were keen to utilise e-technology in what was a rather complex consultation, it soon became clear that much more publicity would have been necessary in order to increase the number of respondents.
+The issue of resources — particularly in relation to publicising consultations — became a major issue with the lack of success of this trial. While [http://www.waterwaysireland.org Waterways Ireland] were keen to utilise e-technology in what was a rather complex consultation, it soon became clear that much more publicity would have been necessary in order to increase the number of respondents.
 ===No Review of Advertisements===
-Approximately 150 members were e-mailed about the e-consultation. Adverts were placed in one evening newspaper—the Telegraph, and two local papers. These advertisements were run for one day. The information was also circulated to umbrella organisations such as NICVA. There were no follow up e-mails or phone calls.
+Approximately 150 members were e-mailed about the e-consultation. Adverts were placed in one evening newspaper — the [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ Belfast Telegraph], and two local papers. These advertisements were run for one day. The information was also circulated to umbrella organisations such as [http://www.nicva.org/ NICVA]. There were no follow up e-mails or phone calls.
 ===Resource Allocation===
-In a subsequent interview, a representative from Waterways Ireland acknowledged that resource
+In a subsequent interview, a representative from [http://www.waterwaysireland.org Waterways Ireland] acknowledged that resource allocation was a problem in relation to the consultation. Because the e-consultation on equality impact was seen very much as a ‘trial run’ for the more substantial consultation on ‘by-laws’, fewer resources were allocated. The researchers outlined the amount of resources, particularly in relation to human resources, that would be necessary to deploy. This included using ‘waves’ of publicity through various media over a period of weeks, with follow-up phoning and mailing.  [http://www.waterwaysireland.org Waterways Ireland] simply did not have these resources available for the e-consultation.
 ===Nature of the Consultation===
-The nature of the consultation itself, based on a technical and complex issue, was
+The nature of the consultation itself, based on a technical and complex issue, was never going to inspire universal interest or appeal. The language used in the [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/online-doc.php consultation document] did not lend itself to different levels of ability, given its legalistic nature. Writing for the web is different to writing long documents. Usability studies show people scan for key words, rather than reading from top to bottom. It may be necessary to use copywriters to rewrite documents for web sites, and even more so for discussion forums.
 ==Conclusion==
@@ Line 44: / Line 33: @@
 In conclusion, the low uptake in this e-consultation resulted from loss of potential participants
 at 4 stages:
-# ''Lack of Publicity:'' Few people knew about the consultation or the e-consultation site due to a lack of publicity.
+# ''Lack of Publicity:'' Few people knew about the consultation or the [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/consultation.php e-consultation site] due to a lack of publicity.
-# ''Langauge:'' Those who found their way to the site were put off by the language used. This is a common problem with consultation documents, but it is exacerbated by the way people read web sites.
+# ''Langauge:'' Those who found their way to the [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/consultation.php site] were put off by the language used. This is a common problem with consultation documents, but it is exacerbated by the way people read web sites.
 # ''Browsing issues:'' Those who managed to read some of the document then had difficulties finding the discussion forum and registering for it.
-# ''Nature of Questions asked:'' Those who registered for the discussion forum were then presented with the same dry questions asked in the consultation document. They were too bland to stimulate argument. Discussion forums, like focus groups, need questions to prompt a response, perhaps even projective ones. It also helps if the forums are seeded with comments from a few people who have promised to take part and get things going. People are scared of being the first person to say something.
+# ''Nature of Questions asked:'' Those who registered for the [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/forum/index.php discussion forum] were then presented with the same dry questions asked in the [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/online-doc.php consultation document]. They were too bland to stimulate argument. Discussion forums, like focus groups, need questions to prompt a response, perhaps even projective ones. It also helps if the forums are seeded with comments from a few people who have promised to take part and get things going. People are scared of being the first person to say something.
 ===Final Comments===

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 It was perfectly rational to run the e-consultation along traditional lines. This suited the nature of the [[Context|Section 75]] equality consultation, and the experience of the consultation organisers. We concurred with this design. What we found out from this trial was that:
 # ''Consider the transition from paper to an online format carefully:'' Putting traditional processes on-line, without modification, does not work.
-# ''Online media is just another form of communication:'' Because something is on-line doesn't mean people will come. It is not a better mousetrap. You still need publicity.
+# ''Online media is just another form of communication:'' Because something is on-line does not mean people will come. It is not a better mousetrap. You still need publicity.