Back in June, I posted to this blog in response to a paper out of Princeton that proposed that content structure ought to be the number one priority for governments going online. The premise is that if content is structured well, then private sector players can re-purpose the content. The paper states that private parties will do a better job of organizing and distributing content than government. I feel that the paper undervalues the role played by government Web managers.
FCW has just posted a slightly updated version of my commentary.
There are some other interesting posts related to this topic including one from a terrific anonymous blogger at ".GovWatch."
FCW has just posted a slightly updated version of my commentary.
There are some other interesting posts related to this topic including one from a terrific anonymous blogger at ".GovWatch."
I think there may be different meanings of “structured” being used in the articles.
I am all about accessibility to users of assistive technology. That translates to machine readability which requires using HTML semantics in a purposeful way that conveys information.
On the other hand, I believe it to be counter-productive to heavily format and control the end-user experience in most cases. There is no reason copy cannot be visually attractive, and Goverment Web Managers do and should pay attention to this as much as anyone, but such formatting (structure?) should not be at the expense of the ability to repurpose the content.