5. Barriers to Use

5.1 Barriers (Questionnaires)

The study produced a list of barriers related to both general and government Internet use. The barriers identified on the questionnaires tended to match those mentioned during the focus group interviews (see the next section). Respondents in both instances distinguished between general Internet use and use of government web sites. Regarding general Internet use, several participants mentioned that they encountered too many 'pop ups' and online advertising. Such distractions, they felt, were a nuisance. Other problems were that links on a site may not work and that it takes too long to download information. The time-consuming nature of downloading also pertains to the use of government web sites as well as the fact that the public may not find the information it wants.

Interviewees also regarded computer use as time-consuming, especially when they are at home. They specifically mentioned the amount of time it takes to turn on the machine, to get it functional,search web sites, and communicate by e-mail. One survey respondent considered the Internet as "a time waster." Many commented on the speed of the modem they used at home, which can be very slow. A further barrier noted in questionnaire responses is a dislike of reading extensive information and files on computer monitors.

5.2 General barriers (Focus Groups)

The initial two focus groups, which examined the issues of security and trust, produced a list of barriers applicable to the Internet in general. The subsequent focus group interviews reinforced that list:

• Horror stories in the press about identity theft and other problems related to general use of the Internet. However, the typical attitude was that anyone using computers must be aware of and deal with these issues.
• Information on web sites is often poorly presented. It might take too long to find what they seek, assuming they were using the correct web site.
• Price/cost. If someone does not have a computer at home, he or she would have to pay for access (e.g. at a public library or Internet café). A number of focus group participants were concerned about the "high" cost of high-speed Internet access. They were also concerned that they were being limited to the use of these selected channels.
• Use of the web can be a time waster. A person could easily spend too much time trying to find something on the Internet. This barrier fits within some of the other barriers, especially when there is a high level of comfort with how they currently search and find information, usually by telephone.

5.3 Barriers to government on the Internet

In contrast to the previous section, this one focuses on barriers that respondents specifically associated with the use of government on the Internet. An issue that both the questionnaires and focus groups disclosed is that the public is uncertain about what comprises e-government (section 4.2).

The focus group interviews related to security and trust also generated a list of barriers associated with the use of government web sites. Other focus group participants added to the list. Thus, the resulting barriers included:

• Comfort with existing methods of information gathering.Even if their methods are haphazard, they are comfortable with what they are doing. In other words, what worked for them in the past will guide future search behaviour. Except for members of the Wellington business community, the participants tended to be unfamiliar with the government portal and are comfortable with their use of the phone book and the phone.
• Cost. Internet use, including in libraries, costs money. Cost issues also extend to the purchase of computer hardware and software, as well as one's time.
• Currency of content. The participants seek current, up-to-date information and, when they use government web sites, they want those sites to provide the date of last revision of content—that date should be no longer than the past week. For them, currency is a key trust issue. They noted instances where the date on a web site was not current.
• A faster means of access. If someone has a computer at home or work but does not have it turned on all day, it takes too much time to turn it on just to access a government (or non-government) web site. It is much faster to make a phone call. If a phone number and contact person were unknown, the person needing the information might use the web to locate such information. Most likely, he or she would then make a phone call. The first choice would be to check the phone book but if that consultation failed, the web became an alternative source for providing similar information.

• Government web sites are "text heavy." A common perception is that it is very time-consuming to navigate an overwhelming amount of information on a web site to find what they are seeking.
• Information overload. As one participant explained, "People are over informed now. So much information is coming in, and the computer only adds to information availability."
• Lack of computer skills. Some were still learning to use computers and suspected that their skills would improve over time. Others had limited search skills. It cannot be determined that if they do indeed improve their search skills, they will automatically use, or increase their use of, government web sites.
• Limited broadband impacts use. This is definitely true for numerous rural residents and for groups such as Pacific peoples.
• Perception that government web sites provide information—nothing more. A number of participants were unaware that government web sites provide services and might have a role in promoting democratic processes. (The most likely service used by participants other than those from the Wellington business community was to book a reservation at a campground.)

• No perceived need and lack of prior experience. Many participants had approached government online but those who had not felt they were unlikely to do, especially if they lacked a perceived need, had not used government on the Internet before, and could find the needed information in other ways. Those who had not used government on the Internet could not think of an instance in which they might do so.
• Preference for oral communication. This barrier intersects with the next one. The participants liked person-to-person contact; they considered Internet use as impersonal, and preferred to know the person with whom they were dealing.
• Presentation of web site content. Not all of the material may fit on the screen—the person needs to scroll vertically or horizontally (this may present a problem for people with older computers). Furthermore, a screen might contain too much information. Poor presentation interferes with information access.
• Presentation of the web site itself. Lack of easy navigation, and differentiation of headings using colour and various fonts was criticised. People easily got lost on web sites, and felt they compared poorly in design and architecture with commercial sites. Furthermore, as was noted, web sites may not comply with disability guidelines and standards. There is a need for alternative text to be used with graphics.
• Reliance on the phone. Except for the Wellington business community, those interviewed rely on this method for the following reasons:

• Fast and timely (saves time). However, it can be frustrating to encounter a menu choice (e.g. press 1 for __, 2 for __, etc.), then be placed in a long queue to get the desired information or to speak to a person, and sometimes have to go through it all again.
• More personal ("easier to talk with someone; ...the phone is instant gratification"). "If you get the name of the person and call again, a trust relationship might emerge." E-mail, on the other hand, is more impersonal and others might read your message—not a secure communication. With e-mail, you can save and track messages. If there is no response, you can follow up. However, the process of getting an answer becomes longer and "you might forget the question you [originally] asked" (back to fast and timely). Furthermore, e-mail may require a number of exchanges to get the desired information.
• Able to judge the person at other end (e.g. does that person take you seriously?) and clarify unclear answers. If the public servant to whom you speak makes a mistake, it is taken as an honest mistake—no intention of deliberately providing misleading information.
• Extremely comfortable (and satisfied) with phone use. Receipt of the right information via phone is a trust issue. This is especially true if the information sought relates to you or your family.
• Come from a generation that communicates by phone. As one person noted, "I am a telephone person."

• Web sites might not use plain language. Many respondents considered that government web sites contain a lot of jargon and do not communicate directly to them. They thought that government web sites frequently used confusing language.

A number of the above-mentioned barriers overlap or intersect; they are not all discrete or independent or each other.

5.3.1 Disability issues

Those with disabilities suggested additional barriers, in particular:

• Inadequate compliance with the disability guidelines, especially the use of alternative text. A site might contain a lot of graphics, which would be difficult for sight-impaired people to navigate. Graphics and use of colour contrast on the site might also present problems for people who are colour-blind; careful attention to colour contrasts and shading is necessary.
• There might be too many colours around words. People may not be able to see all of the colours on a page. It may be hard for them to discriminate among colours. (This is a separate issue from colour blindness.)
• Some web sites seemed to focus on appearance and not functionality—need to focus on communication.
• There might be insufficient explanation on the site (in simple language) about how to navigate it and find the information sought.
• Information organisation. It may be difficult to follow all of the information presented on a web page and to sort out the relevant from the not so relevant (that part that meets their information need).
• Creation of a mirror site. The temptation might be to establish a mirror site for people with disabilities to use. Some of those interviewed rejected such a consideration.

• Clear directions to show how to navigate the site;
• Use of plain language (avoid jargon and long words);
• Information presented in a straight-forward manner;
• Avoid the placement of colour on colour;
• Focus on information provision (provide shortcuts);
• Avoid the use of a small font size; and
• Do not mix font sizes, do not use italics, and do not use small print with text underlined.

5.3.2 Taxonomy of barriers

Based on the oral and written comments on the participants, we developed a taxonomy of barriers. The taxonomy represented the four main categories noted in the Introduction and a fifth issue related to information architecture. That taxonomy included the following barriers:

1. Physical

Limited domestic access—competition for computer, phone line, computer not always on, low bandwidth, etc.

Limited access in rural communities—low bandwidth, interference, etc.

Public kiosks not always suitable for task of contacting government

Charges at public libraries

Cost of computer and software

Telecommunications costs

2. Skill-based

Unable to determine which department needed

Lack of knowledge of how government functions

Lack of search skills

Lack of navigation skills

Not familiar with jargon of government agencies

Unfamiliar with portal

3. Attitudinal

Preference for oral contact

Preference for personal contact

Reluctance to spend time/waste time

No perceived need for contact

Comfort with existing methods of contact, especially phone

Concerns over security of information exchange

Concerns over confidentiality of personal information

Concerns over confidentiality of e-mail address

4. Content-based

Concerns over currency of content

Lack of links between government agencies to assist users to find information from an alternative department or agency

Not all information needed found

Information generalised, not personal to user

Sites have poor online assistance

5. Information architecture

Poor navigation aids

Text on sites dense and hard to read

Language used difficult to follow

Problems with site design (e.g. use of colour and labels)

Overall arrangement of site dependent on agency perspective, not user-focused

Problems with font size and type

The participants in the various focus groups believe that government could greatly improve its web sites. The one web site that they tended to praise was that of the Department of Conservation, because it is well laid out and easy to navigate. Some recommendations of the participants for web site improvements include segmenting the information presented by different audiences (e.g. the general public, but perhaps further refining that category). Online forms should be easy to download and complete. People want to be able to submit them electronically. A related problem is that people may not be used to the online completion of forms and find it irritating that they might have missed a box and cannot proceed without completing it, or that they cannot go back and correct something without losing all their earlier effort. The print may be so small that missing an item is easy to do.

It is important for government to remember, as one of the Pacific peoples pointed out, "Government [web sites] should ... [adopt] the perspective of what people want and not the perspective of government wanting to just get information out." As well, the above-mentioned suggestions of the disability group should also guide web site design and presentation.

[ Previous | Next ]