Straw Poll was Re: [LINK] Straw Pole of Good Bad and ugly online government services

[Ivan Trundle]

On 19/01/2007, at 9:45 AM, Marghanita da Cruz wrote:

> Ivan Trundle wrote:
> <snip>
>> Still trying to visualise a straw pole... (How long is it? Can it  
>> be  used in place of tomato steaks?)
> <snip>
> OK, wrong word see
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_poll>

No serious dig intended - I just saw the humour in it, and was  
looking at my hail-damaged vegetable garden as I was typing...

> Some snippets from yesterday's
>  >> Seventh Canberra WSG meeting
> <http://mailman.anu.edu.au/pipermail/link/2007-January/071356.html>
>
> navy.gov.au redevelopment Talk:
> *sexy looking websites with people not boats is what the client is  
> looking for

Sounds like a classic example of the mandarins in charge not knowing  
*why* people visit websites.

Projecting an image of people ('Hello sailor!' was the immediate  
reaction in this office from my colleagues on this news) is all well  
and good, but doesn't differentiate the product, or the reasons for  
visitors wanting to go to the site.

It's as if website homepages (and to a lesser degree, the images in  
the rest of the site) are seen as book covers - all vying for  
attention in the bookstore. It's simply not the main reason for  
someone to visit a website. In print, pictures might be worth 1000  
words - but on the web, 100 digital words are worth as much.

> <snip>
> Hitwise Talk:
> *Australia has over 5000 government websites
> UK around 1500 and the US around 3000!

And after the UK's drive to reduce their sites to 500, it makes  
Australia look incredibly bloated in comparison. But I'd be more  
inclined to count the pages, and the hits, and possibly even seeing  
how much useful content there is first. Each country has different  
levels of accountability and transparency, so comparing one with the  
other must be treated with some skepticism.

iT