User experience of government documents: A framework for informing design decisions

Abstract People still use documents in many everyday government processes. From tax payments to passport requests, citizens have to interact with low-interactivity information artifacts such as reports, maps and datasets, among many others. Despite efforts to improve information delivery in the public sector, effective information usage remains a critical topic of action and research. The user experience of government documents has rarely been assessed, despite them being regularly published and frequently used. Considering this, the two following research questions arise: 1) How can government documents be classified (or grouped) in terms of user experience? 2) How can the user experience of government documents be monitored over time in order to inform design decisions? Working with a public agency in Chile, we develop and test a classification and monitoring framework based on two online surveys (N = 338 and N = 298). We then propose a framework for understanding user experience of government documents in these three dimensions: interaction goal, volume of information and ease of understanding. Using a graphical representation to classify user experience provides greater visibility of the current status of information produced by a public organization. Furthermore, by monitoring the user experience of a government document at different times, organizations can understand the effect of their design decisions and improve their service quality by implementing user-centered processes.

[1]  Norman E. Youngblood,et al.  E-government in Alabama: An analysis of county voting and election website content, usability, accessibility, and mobile readiness , 2016, Gov. Inf. Q..

[2]  P. Macnaghten,et al.  Focus groups as anticipatory methodology : A contribution from science and technology studies towards socially resilient governance , 2017 .

[3]  Catalina Maria Georgescu,et al.  Monitoring Media Scrutiny of EU Official Information and Documentation. A Content Analysis of the European Online News Coverage (January-May 2017) , 2017, e-Democracy.

[4]  Jennifer Stromer-Galley,et al.  Interactivity-as-Product and Interactivity-as-Process , 2004, Inf. Soc..

[5]  Eleni Fotopoulou,et al.  Challenges and opportunities in renovating public sector information by enabling linked data and analytics , 2016, Information Systems Frontiers.

[6]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  Design principles for improving the process of publishing open data , 2014 .

[7]  Genie N. L. Stowers,et al.  Understanding the content and features of open data portals in American cities , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[8]  David Bell,et al.  Co-design for Government Service Stakeholders , 2017, HICSS.

[9]  Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi,et al.  An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA) , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[10]  Rajesh Sharma,et al.  Investigating the role of intermediaries in adoption of public access outlets for delivery of e-Government services in developing countries: An empirical study , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[11]  Natalie Helbig,et al.  Evaluating the Quality and Usability of Open Data for Public Health Research: A Systematic Review of Data Offerings on 3 Open Data Platforms , 2017, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[12]  Gino Verleye,et al.  User-centered E-Government in practice: A comprehensive model for measuring user satisfaction , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[13]  Fang Wang,et al.  From potential users to actual users: Use of e-government service by Chinese migrant farmer workers , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[14]  Luís Soares Barbosa,et al.  Administrative Burden Reduction Over Time: Literature Review, Trends and Gap Analysis , 2017, ICEGOV.

[15]  Kwang-Suk Lee,et al.  The Korean government's electronic record management reform: The promise and perils of digital democratization , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[16]  Jan van Dijk,et al.  Towards a model of source and channel choices in business-to-government service interactions: A structural equation modeling approach , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[17]  Marcelo Garrido Palma,et al.  Usability measure of chilean public online services: an e-government case study , 2014 .

[18]  Georgios Lappas,et al.  An evaluation scheme for local e-government and local e-democracy: the case of Greek municipalities , 2017 .

[19]  Hua Yi,et al.  Effective instruction needed to improve students' use of government documents , 2002 .

[20]  Hernán Astudillo,et al.  E-Government procurement observatory, maturity model and early measurements , 2012, Gov. Inf. Q..

[21]  Tingyi S. Lin,et al.  CATEGORIZING DOCUMENT TYPES FOR ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF DOCUMENT DESIGN , 2018 .

[22]  Wolfgang G. Stock,et al.  eGovernment in cities of the knowledge society. An empirical investigation of Smart Cities' governmental websites , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[23]  Chris North,et al.  Snap-together visualization: can users construct and operate coordinated visualizations? , 2000, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[24]  Jie Lu,et al.  Government-to-Business Personalized e-Services Using Semantic-Enhanced Recommender System , 2011, EGOVIS.

[25]  Proscovia Svärd,et al.  Public Information Directive (PSI) implementation in two Swedish municipalities , 2018 .

[26]  Jennie M. Burroughs,et al.  What users want: Assessing government information preferences to drive information services , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[27]  Jean Vanderdonckt,et al.  STRATUS: a questionnaire for strategic usability assessment , 2016, SAC.

[28]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Determining the informational, navigational, and transactional intent of Web queries , 2008, Inf. Process. Manag..

[29]  Luis Fernando Ramos Simón,et al.  The path to information in the public domain: Official publications in Spain , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[30]  Kumanan Wilson,et al.  Development and release of a national immunization app for Canada (ImmunizeCA). , 2015, Vaccine.

[31]  Diane M. Strong,et al.  Beyond Accuracy: What Data Quality Means to Data Consumers , 1996, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[32]  Maryam Ghasemaghaei,et al.  Online information quality and consumer satisfaction: The moderating roles of contextual factors - A meta-analysis , 2015, Inf. Manag..

[33]  Nicolae-George Dragulanescu,et al.  Website Quality Evaluations: Criteria and Tools , 2002 .

[34]  Manolis Gergatsoulis,et al.  Modelling the Public Sector Information through CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model , 2010, OTM Workshops.

[35]  Ted Priebe,et al.  The U.S. Government Printing Office's initiatives for the Federal Depository Library Program to set the stage for the 21st century , 2008, Gov. Inf. Q..

[36]  David Sless Designing Documents for People to Use , 2018 .

[37]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[38]  Priscilla M. Regan,et al.  The Evolution of Web Governance in the Federal Government , 2006, Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res..

[39]  Manas Ranjan Patra,et al.  Analysis of Android Cell Phone Web-Browsers to Facilitate Accessible m-Governance , 2017, ICEGOV.

[40]  Miguel Nussbaum,et al.  Online survey: A national study with school principals , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[41]  Ylva Sommerland,et al.  Assessment of Metadata Quality of the Swedish National Bibliography through Mapping User Awareness , 2018 .

[42]  Mairéad de Róiste Bringing in the users: The role for usability evaluation in eGovernment , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[43]  P. Leonardi,et al.  The Management of Visibilities in the Digital Age: Introduction , 2016 .

[44]  Tomasz Janowski,et al.  Electronic Governance for Sustainable Development - Conceptual framework and state of research , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[45]  Maureen Henninger Australian public sector information: a case study into information practices , 2016 .

[46]  Manuel Pérez Cota,et al.  Potential dimensions for a local e-Government services quality model , 2016, Telematics Informatics.

[47]  Luis Terán,et al.  Analyzing and Integrating Dynamic Profiles on Voting Advice Applications , 2017, ICEGOV.

[48]  Maureen Henninger,et al.  Government information: Literacies, behaviours and practices , 2017, Gov. Inf. Q..

[49]  Karin Garrety,et al.  National electronic health record systems as 'wicked projects': The Australian experience , 2016, Inf. Polity.

[50]  Jorma Jormakka,et al.  Usability Monitoring – Extending Quality of Service Monitoring for Decision Making , 2010 .

[51]  Vishanth Weerakkody,et al.  The University of Bradford Institutional Repository , 2022 .

[52]  John A. Shuler,et al.  Reconciling government documents and e-government: Government information in policy, librarianship, and education , 2009, Gov. Inf. Q..

[53]  Li Zhao,et al.  Information quality and community municipal portal use , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[54]  Eric W. Welch,et al.  Factors affecting openness of local government websites: Examining the differences across planning, finance and police departments , 2014, Gov. Inf. Q..

[55]  Kristin R. Eschenfelder,et al.  Selection practices for Web-based government publications in state depository library programs: Comparing active and passive approaches , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[56]  Edward A. Fox,et al.  Media use during conflicts: Information seeking and political efficacy during the 2012 Mexican elections , 2016, Government Information Quarterly.

[57]  Carlos Fabián Pressacco,et al.  Democracia, participación y espacio local en Chile , 2015 .

[58]  Marijn Janssen,et al.  Towards decision support for disclosing data: Closed or open data? , 2015, Inf. Polity.

[59]  Jungwoo Lee,et al.  10 year retrospect on stage models of e-Government: A qualitative meta-synthesis , 2010, Gov. Inf. Q..

[60]  Haroula N. Delopoulos A usability evaluation of e-government services: the case of e-deliberation service of Greece , 2015 .

[61]  Stuti Saxena Open Government Data (OGD) in Iran, Lebanon and Jordan: a comparative approach , 2017 .

[62]  Frank P. Lambert,et al.  Seeking electronic information from government resources: A comparative analysis of two communities' web searching of municipal government websites , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[63]  Arindam Mukherjee,et al.  Qualitative approach to determine user experience of e-government services , 2017, Comput. Hum. Behav..