3. Information Behaviour

3.1 Some Likes

The participants liked government to provide information on the Internet that they could browse at their leisure. A number of them thought that government sites were a "good source of basic information" and that the government's presence on the Internet would continue to develop. That presence, they suspected, would centre on the increased availability of digital information. They also believed that government would become more responsive to the needs of the public as that presence matures.

Those interviewed liked government web sites to identify contact people so that they had the name of someone they could call. This made the call more personal and provided a level of accountability in that they could also contact that person again. The web site of the Department of Conservation received the most praise for its layout, ease of use, and the high quality of the support staff who answer questions by telephone. Participants also liked the web sites of the Ministry of Tourism, Inland Revenue Department (except for having to negotiate forms), and web sites of Ministers of the Crown. However, they suspected the web sites of Ministers filter information and only tell part the story, that part most favourable to the person.

The new immigrants were very selective in the web sites they visited and the information they use. They found the forms related to visas and passport application easy to download. They also like being able to reserve a library book online.

Those in the rural community, especially, appreciated that their use of the Internet and government sites could be in the evening. Given their work schedule, they might be unable to call departments or agencies during daytime hours when an office is open.

Some members of the Wellington business community appreciated the availability of the online public access catalogue (OPAC) of the National Library as well as the OPACs of other libraries. They liked those government web sites that had good search engines, were well laid out, and easy to use. As one stated, "I like the design of a web site that enables a person to find the same information from different routes." They also like access to legislation without having to pay for that access.

3.2 Some Dislikes

Participants in different focus groups disagreed about whether they liked or disliked a particular web site.They realised it was hard to compare sites, as their expectations differed, especially if they were work related or personal. Furthermore, they recognised that departments and agencies serve different audiences. The Ministry of Tourism, for example, wants to attract a broad international audience, and promote New Zealand. IRD, on the other hand, involves compliance with domestic tax laws.

Those interviewed realised that the functionality of web sites varied from department to department. Some sites require more search skills than others. Also, some sites are better developed than others—i.e. they have better architecture and are easy to use. A number of them wanted more standardisation across government web sites. One member of the Wellington business community stated, "Every government department is learning on the go. They use different language but often mean the same thing. There is much they could do to achieve standardisation of language." The others in the group agreed.

There was a feeling among many focus group participants that government web sites "packed a lot of information content of varying quality" and that this resulted in sites that "looked cosmetic and not real." Another criticism was that government sites tended to rely on jargon and not communicate with the public in plain language. The dislikes of the new immigrants relate to the language barrier. They did not want web sites to contain too much information for them to navigate or read and text that is long and does not use simple language. (At those web sites they used, they would prefer text where the content is bulleted.)

Māori participants felt strongly that the contents of web sites were not always well presented, or retrievable, especially for Māori as an audience. The "arrangement may put [Māori people] off ...." In addition, the information appeared to them outdated. When they go to the search option on a web site and insert the word 'Māori' the information retrieved might be five to seven years old. Thus, they assume the site has nothing more recent. Or, they find a document that covers Māori but the reference is only on one page—it merely states that Māori were consulted. Such experiences also impact on trust in government (see section 6 of the report).

Members of the Wellington business community reiterated that not all departments and agencies share the same mission or serve the same general audience. They cautioned against making sweeping generalisations. Still, they thought that web sites could be more user friendly and use plain language. They also thought that some sites were cumbersome to search. The example given was the Environmental Risk Management Authority, where it might "take eight to nine clicks of the mouse to find what you need; this is too many [clicks]." Another limitation is that web sites, such as that of the Department of Corrections, might take a defensive view ("be a spin machine") and try to "sell their view of the world. The result is that a web site might lose its credibility."

Most of the dissatisfaction centred on WINZ, especially for the perceived low quality of service provided to those visiting it in person. A number of people commented that dealing with the department might result in an unpleasant experience.*1 Making contact via the Internet, they hoped, might reduce that unpleasantness. Some participants indicated that WINZ robustly encouraged their use of its web site; they thought this was an effort to reduce the volume of people coming or calling in, or a reluctance to deal with them as an individual.

A number of participants complained about online forms and the fact that they frequently could not be completed and submitted electronically. Most were unaware of the difficulties in creating a reliable authentication system for handling electronic submissions, although the Wellington business people dismissed this issue as a legitimate reason for delaying the introduction of more online forms and service transactions using forms. The disabilities group noted online forms could be difficult for people with poor sight to read. There was a consensus of opinion among those interviewed who had impairments that government was not trying to make it easier for them to navigate or complete online forms.

Those with disabilities also noted that some of the tables on the web site of Statistics New Zealand could be hard to download. On the other hand, the web site of the Office for Disability Issues "is very plain," which "is good for disabled access." However, even that site can be difficult to navigate: "it is hard to pick out contacts and move around [the site] easily."

People with disabilities prefer to use standard sites that have been designed with disabled-enabled access in mind. Some complained about sites that were "too bland" and alternative sites for disabled users that are very plain. "Those with disabilities want to 'go in the front door' with everyone else. Why should we have to go through the back door?" They favour universal access—just as wheelchair users should be able to make use of the same entry to a building, disabled web users want to use the same web page (with alternative text for graphics, and complying with World Wide Web C*onsortium (W3C) disability access guidelines) not a separate plain site. "'Accessible' does not have to mean 'boring'. For disabled users, accessing information on web sites still needs to be a pleasurable and useful experience."

3.2.1 Final Observations

First, people want the content of the site to be well organised, permitting them to find relevant information with a degree of ease. Second, the web site might have an icon or some instruction in a corner of the page, but that information may not show up on a smaller screen at home. They feel "stupid" when they call an agency and are told that the information was on the screen, but they couldn't see it. They want web sites designed with their home computer in mind. Third, members of the public interviewed want web pages to provide a date for the last time the information content was updated. The older the date, the more likely they assume the content is outdated. No date makes them feel very insecure about the information. Fourth, they believe that any set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) should be based on the most often asked questions and problems the public experiences in searching a particular web site. Fifth, they dislike having to print a long document when they only need one page. They would like to be able to print more selectively. And, finally, they dislike trying to contact a web site at busy times of the day and being unable to get through (much as they resented not being able to get through on the phone).

3.3 Information-Gathering Behaviour

• Google (http://www.google.com), which was the search engine they use most often;
• Guessing the URL (uniform resource locator) of a department or inserting its name between www. .govt.nz;
• Checking a site they had previously used; or
• Asking a friend or colleague for assistance.

Second, some students believed that government web sites are usually harder to navigate than non-government sites. As a consequence, they might pose their question over the telephone. The problem, they felt, with the phone is that they may have to go through a long menu of choices before selecting the right one, and then they would be placed on hold; there was a strong dislike for being placed on hold, for any length of time. [A number of participants in other focus groups made the same point.] One student said, "I will look for 5 minutes ... and [if unsuccessful, I would] e-mail ... [the department]." The department, however, might be "quite slow" in responding. Some students agreed, but one disliked e-mail contact with government departments because "you don't know when it's going to come back; A lot of those [sites] say contact us by e-mail so it goes by the web data e-mail address on your computer. So if you are at an Internet café or a public computer they can't e-mail you back with the information anyway."

Third, a complication is that the information content on web sites might be broad and detailed, but might not address specific questions. A number of those participating in the study stated that their particular query or problem did not fit the information outlines on web sites, such as in FAQs. As one person noted, government on the Internet provides information but "my questions are very specific." He continued, "I do not find answers to them on the sites. I get my answers from calling people. I have contacts [by phone and e-mail] and through them I can build a relationship."

Those with disabilities have specific strategies for gathering the information they want (based on past experience). It seems that they are often part of a close-knit community or interpersonal network, one that shares information. Being less mobile, they have a high need for information, and regard the Internet as a key resource. Still, unless they have a speech impairment, they tend to prefer oral communication and personal contact. Furthermore,sometimes they might order a printed, published document by phone—the print copy is often easier for someone with poor eyesight to read. The decision about whether to seek a printed or online copy might depend on the urgency and type of need, the size, format, etc. of the document; and how hard it is to find online.

Māori participants found it difficult to locate web addresses and they preferred to make contact with government agencies through 0800 numbers or to ask a friend or relative for help. However, like participants in all focus groups, they disliked calling a government department or agency and being placed on hold or encountering an extensive menu of options on the phone system. In either case, they might hang up. One explained that when IRD put him through "a lot of rigmarole, I hung up and called my tax accountant." A participant in another focus group explained that, for people in rural settings, it could be expensive to be placed on hold for a long period of time. The issue is not just one of money but time—time away from completing other tasks.

The Pacific peoples might be looking for information or contacts; contacts are important as they like to interact one-to-one, and they believe that government is more likely to listen if there is human interaction. The Internet is a channel for gathering information but not the best one for receiving answers. Government on the Internet uses "formal English" and the jargon of government; these limit its broad appeal. In their community, some people serve as gatekeepers and pass along information that the community needs. Others in the community might "ring us and we pass along the information to them." If those interviewed search for information on a topic new to them, they might call an agency and ask where to search on that agency's web site, or they might "muddle through," using Ask Jeeves® (http://www.ask.com), "a search engine" (e.g. Google), or guess the name of an agency to insert in www.___.govt.nz. The last option for one of them who was familiar with the government portal would be to check it.

Because language is a definite barrier for new immigrants, information gathering has three facets: (1) finding information, (2) understanding it, and (3) checking on its accuracy or how it applies to them. First, to find general information, they may rely on an English language search engine or use one in the language with which they are most comfortable. (For example, Empas (http://www.empas.com) provides information in Korean.) For New Zealand government information, they would often ask a family member for assistance. If that search proved unsuccessful, they would most likely go to Yahoo!, or on occasion Google. A couple of them indicated they might even insert whatever term they are looking for into www.___.govt.nz or consult the blue pages of the phone book to ascertain a departmental or agency web address. A number of them find the telephone threatening. The person on the other end might not understand their accent and have to repeat the information conveyed, but they still might not understand what they are told. It is easier for them to view written information so they can carefully formulate their question and be sure they understand what they read and hear. Second, to understand information content, they would print the material and check a dictionary for words they did not understand. Third, if the information found was not specific enough or they wondered if it covered their circumstance, they would visit in person, or perhaps call the department or agency.

Figure 3 summarises how people find a government web site, what they use, and the relationship between web site and phone use. A large number of those interviewed do not consider themselves to be skilled searchers. This lack of skill, they felt, might explain why their searches may fail or be inefficient.

Figure 3. Typical Use Patterns

3.3.1 Exception to the general pattern

The Wellington business people do not follow the same pattern as the other people interviewed. They rely more extensively on e-mail and the web. When they conduct a general search, requiring information from a department not previously known to them, they rely on Google or try to guess the name of the department or agency concerned. If they have a complex question for which they need an answer, they turn to the telephone. They might also rely on the phone to develop and maintain relationships; As one explained, "every once in a while, I'll call a contact just to keep the relationship going." E-mail has become part of the way members of the Wellington business community do business; they often send their invoices by e-mail and receive contracts by that medium. E-mail has other advantages. First, people may not be in their office and "you can leave a detailed message. If you called, someone might only record that you called. No message is left." Second, e-mail saves time in addressing, stamping, and mailing a letter.

3.4 Use of the Portal

Only 12 people (18.5 percent) had used the portal, although most of these did not find it very helpful. As one explained, “I found it quite slow [e.g. using the alphabetical list of departments and agencies to identify the correct web address] and aesthetically old—it looks very traditional—very English.” For another, knowledge about it has not altered his information gathering. He still relies on guessing a URL or asking someone where to search; he is “very people focused. As a last resort,” he might try the portal. And three others indicated that they might use it to locate URLs, ones that are not easy to guess from the name of the department. As an example, one person mentioned the URL for the Ministry of Education (www.minedu.govt.nz). As three others noted, “the portal lists departments and agencies without providing information about their mission, role, or jurisdiction—if you place the cursor over the name of the government body such information does not pop up.” Only two people (out of all participants) have used the search option on the portal.

Four individuals had stumbled across the portal; as each explained, by mistake, “I forgot to enter the name of the department and just put in ‘www.govt.nz’.” Yet, their experience with the portal did not result in it being a natural place for them to begin or even use in their search for government information. Awareness of it did not alter their present method of gathering information. For instance, one person who had used the web portal found it too complicated for someone with her disabilities to navigate. As she explained, “people with mental health issues find a lot of information hard to digest.”

In addition to the previously mentioned 12 people, eight other people expressed some familiarity with the portal, and a few others had a faint recollection of hearing about it, but they still asked, "What is a portal?" One person, a farmer, had read about its launch, and she noted that she finds reference to it at other web sites. Those sites might say, "If you want further information, go to www.govt.nz." Even so, she does not use the portal. Another person had used the portal without knowing what it was. It is interesting to note that one student who said, "Estonia has one central site which leads to other government sites. From it, government web sites branch out." Neither he nor the others in his focus group realised that New Zealand had something similar.

When the investigators explained the purpose of the portal, a typical remark was either, "Why doesn't the government rename it?" (They regarded the word portal as bureaucratic jargon), or "Why doesn't the government broadcast information about the portal?"—i.e. call their attention to it. Yet, few of them jotted down the web address or seemed to want to include it in future searches.

Another point merits mention. Given the reliance of those interviewed on Google, a number of those interviewed asked, “Why doesn’t government link into Google, with Google providing the general search capability?” Members of the Wellington business community supported this view; they marvelled at the quality of the Google search engine and dismissed the usefulness of the search engines on most government web sites.

All of the Wellington business people had used the portal, but none of them did so frequently. They might use it to locate a web address so they can identify a contact person, but, because they prefer to rely on particular pages in a web site, they find the portal to be too general. Instead of having government continue to invest in a general portal, some suggested the creation (or support) of specialty portals, such as one for science that marries government and non-government or quasi-government sites. “I often do not want to stop to think if this body is government or non-government,” one person explained.

It would seem that someone would need to be familiar with government, its structure and how it functions, to use the portal effectively on a repeated basis. An important question arising from these comments is, "Would they go (or return) to the portal in the future if the department or agency they needed to contact was unknown?" The answer is likely to be "no" or very infrequently. The government portal obviously has not created a lasting or sustaining impression. The strongest negative opinion on the portal came from a Wellington businessman who had used it often. He compared the portal to fax, a technology he felt was more of the past than the present or future. He wanted government departments and agencies to join Google and "take advantage of a really good search engine."

*1 [For example, one student stated, "Now that I've got my allowance really I've got no need to go back to WINZ, so I can't see myself doing it for the rest of the year." Other students mentioned problems with WINZ such as the forms hard to complete online, especially "if you had specific questions." Others mentioned that the Internet was not "helpful" if they had a specific question about their situation (this view was not confined to the WINZ site). "I think that they want to cover their bases and be as broad as possible and get you to call up to make it a bit more personalised." "I think it can be a bit of a fob off [I think it can be a way to depersonalise information and make it easy to process people or forms]—well go to the web site—especially for things like WINZ you go into the office—you're standing there wanting to ask a question and they go—go use the phone or go home and get on the web site and find out you're standing in the office and they tell you to go and look it up." They do not like to go to a department and be told to go to the web!]