Introduction
User Experience Task Force
During the 2013 Legislative session, the Florida Legislature enacted CS/HB 5401, which was approved by the Governor.
Chapter 2013-54, Laws of Florida. The law modifies and amends the Transparency Florida Act, Section 215.985, F.S. In
addition to making many changes and updates to existing transparency websites, Section 2 of CS/HB 5401 created a
User Experience Task Force (UETF). The UETF, consisting of four members, was charged with reviewing all relevant statemanaged websites, providing options for reducing the number of websites without losing detailed data, and providing
options for linking expenditure data with related invoices and contracts. The UETF is now submitting a recommended
website design that provides “an intuitive and cohesive user experience that allows the users to move easily between
various types of related data.”
Members of the User Experience Task Force
Appointed by Governor Rick Scott
Jason Allison, Information Technology Policy Coordinator, Executive Office of the Governor (Chair)
Appointed by Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater
Charles Ghini, Chief Information Officer, Department of Financial Services (Vice Chair)
Appointed by Senate President Don Gaetz
Barbara A. Petersen, President, First Amendment Foundation
Appointed by Speaker of the House Will Weatherford
Jordan Raynor, Co-founder, Citizinvestor
Deliverable 1: Work Plan
On September 30, 2013 a work plan was submitted to the Governor, Chief Financial Officer, President of the Senate, and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives. As shown in the outline beginning on page 2, the work plan included a
review of all relevant state-managed websites with options for reducing the number of websites without losing detailed
data, as well as options for linking expenditure data with related invoices and contracts.
Deliverable 2: Recommendation
By March 1, 2014, a completed recommendation must be submitted to the Governor, Chief Financial Officer, President
of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The recommended website design must provide an
intuitive and cohesive user experience that allows users to move easily between various types of related data. The
recommendation must also include a cost estimate for implementation of the design.
User Experience Task Force
Page 1
2/26/14
Work Plan Outline
Item
#
Deliverable
1.0
Website Inventory
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
2.0
Reducing Number
of Websites
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.0
Linking Financial
and Operational
Data
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.0
User Experience
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
User Experience Task Force
User Experience Task Force
Task
Creation of an inventory of all in-scope websites hosted by State of Florida
Governmental entities.
Survey state agencies and review current inventory of state transparency websites
Finalize draft inventory of state transparency websites
Distribute review of websites to members
Create inventory of website content, functionality, and attributes
Finalize inventory with description of content, functionality and attributes
Identification of redundant sites and subsequent recommendations for
consolidation as applicable.
Review inventory and make recommendation to identify duplication of functionality
on multiple websites
Review inventory and make recommendation on consolidated – Identify specific
websites to be moved to/hosted on another website
Review inventory and recommend websites to be consolidated by sharing base data
from one website to another
Review inventory and make recommendation of appropriate state agency manager
for each website and any other roles
Analysis and determination of value of centralized/distributed model
Finalize recommendations to reduce number of transparency websites
Recommendation of opportunities and determination of relevancy of providing links
to existing data found in other in-scope websites.
Review current state transparency websites providing expenditure data
Review current state transparency websites providing invoice data
Review current state transparency websites providing contract data
Recommend linkage requirements for financial data
Finalize recommendations to reduce number of transparency websites
Determination and subsequent recommendation of the most cohesive and intuitive
website presentation.
Review best practice and industry standards for web site presentation
Review other public sector transparency websites and initiatives
Review other states’ transparency websites and initiatives
Recommend usability standards for consistency and intuitive navigation
Page 2
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
4.5
4.6
5.0
Education and
Training
5.1
5.2
6.0
Operational
Model
6.1
6.2
7.0
Approach and
Report
7.1
Solicit public feedback on what the State can do to enhance the public’s experience
Finalize recommendations for the user experience
Analysis and recommendation of education and training methods and strategies
regarding use and navigation of new website.
Determine methods needed to instruct the public on how to use the Transparency
websites (videos, instructions, etc…)
Create glossary of terms
Analysis and recommendation of best approaches for development of ongoing
management, maintenance, and support of the website.
Determine appropriate managers for systems
Determine levels of support needed
Finalization and submission of report.
Create final design recommendation including results from tasks
Provide design recommendation to appropriate state websites managers for review
and impact analysis
Develop and define a cost estimating methodology
Provide impact analysis and cost estimate
Consolidate recommendations and cost information
Finalize and submit complete recommendation report
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
Definitions
Term
Definition
Web Portal
A web page at a website which brings information together from diverse sources
and displays the content in a uniform way. Web portals can include search
functionality to assist in locating the desired content across the diverse sources
and a sitemap to identify the various web pages accessible by the Web portal.
State Operational and
Financial Data
Data that is comprised of the state budget as defined in the annual General
Appropriations Act and expenditure information as managed in the state
accounting system.
User Experience Task Force
Page 3
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 1.0 Inventory of State Transparency Websites
Directive
At its first meeting on September 27, 2013, the User Experience Task Force (UETF) discussed the first milestone in the
Work Plan: to identify the websites that would be considered within the scope of the UETF.
Approach
Step 1 - In order to ensure all state-managed websites were considered, the UETF surveyed the state agencies. For the
purpose of the survey, a “website” was defined as a site on the Internet which is easily accessible to the public at no cost
and does not require the user to provide information. “State operational and fiscal information” was defined as data
that is comprised of the state budget as defined in the annual General Appropriations Act and expenditure information
as managed in the state accounting system. The state agencies were directed to identify the hyperlink to the website,
provide a brief description of the purpose of the website, and identify if the website provides public access to state
operational and fiscal information.
Using defined column headings, the survey resulted in the identification of 66 websites. (Appendix A)
Step 2 – The list of websites was divided into four groups and assigned to each of the four UETF members and
supporting staff. The websites were reviewed to determine if, based on the functionality, content, attributes and
audience, the website should be considered within the scope of the UETF. The individuals evaluating the websites were
provided considerations and definitions to gather information related to the content of the website and to ensure
consistency in the website evaluation process.
This review resulted in 12 websites recommended to be within the scope of the UETF.
Step 3 – The original list of websites in Step 1 and the results of the review detailed in Step 2 were presented to the
UETF at the November 5, 2013 meeting. The UETF members discussed the review process, reviewed the list of
recommended websites, and finalized the list of 11 websites that would be considered as part of their evaluation and
design (see chart on the next page).
User Experience Task Force
Page 4
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
UETF Website Inventory
Agency
Name
Public Website URL
Brief Description
AUD
Auditor
General
http://www.myflorida.com/audgen/
Audit reports from FY 1995-1996 to present (searchable by the
year, entity audited, or type of audit)
DACS
Fresh From
Florida
Contracts
http://app2.freshfromflorida.com/contracts/.
Contract information from the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services
DFS
Transparency
Florida
http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Transparency/
Transparency website including State Budget tab, State
Contracts search, State Contract audits, Vendor payments,
State spending, Cash Balances, Financial reports, and Local
government information.
Transparency website that includes access to employee
position and salary information for entities within the state
personnel system, the University system, and the State Board
of Administration. This website also presents pension
information for retirees with greater than 100K in annual
benefits - names of retirees not included.
Agency LBRs, capital improvement plans, and long range
performance plans; Governor's Budget Recommendations;
Legislative Appropriation bills; Conference reports on the
budget; Governor's Veto messages; Schedule of Trust Fund
Revenues and unreserved balances (by agency, by trust fund);
Final Budget Report by Fiscal year showing actual authorized
positions and actual expenditures; Long-range Financial
Outlook; Fiscal Analysis in brief; Planning and budgeting
instructions and forms; Water Management District Tentative
Budgets
House salaries
DMS
Florida Has A
Right To Know
EOG
Florida Fiscal
Portal
Legislature
Florida House
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Pu
blicGuide/SalarySearchForm.aspx
Legislature
Florida House
House contracts
Legislature
Transparency
Florida
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Pu
blicGuide/ContractsSearchForm.aspx
http://www.transparencyflorida.gov/
Legislature
Florida Senate
http://www.flsenate.gov/reference/publicrec
ords/salaries
Senate salaries
Legislature
Florida Senate
http://www.flsenate.gov/reference/publicrec
ords/contracts/
Senate contracts
Legislature
Economic &
Demographic
Research
http://www.floridahasarighttoknow.com/
http://floridafiscalportal.state.fl.us/
http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/index.cfm
User Experience Task Force
Meant to provide public access to Florida’s operating budget
and expenditure records
Revenue
Page 5
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
As part of the discussion, consideration was given to non-state-managed websites that contain state operational and
fiscal information. The UETF acknowledged the role of the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee (JLAC). The JLAC is
responsible for recommending “a format for collecting and displaying information from state universities, public schools,
community colleges, local governmental units, and other governmental entities receiving state appropriations.”
Therefore, the role of the UETF does not extend or overlap with the role of the JLAC as it pertains to the Transparency
Florida Act.
Website Evaluation Process
Consideration 1 – Existing State-managed Websites
The existing state-managed websites providing statewide operational and fiscal information are:
No.
1
URL
TransparencyFlorida.gov
2
FloridaFiscalPortal.state.fl.us
3
FloridaHasARightToKnow.com
User Experience Task Force
General Content
Contains operating budget by fiscal year (for judicial, executive and
legislative branch agencies), which includes appropriations by fund type
(not detail as in the GAA) at the “appropriation category” level and
subsequent interim category adjustments, summarized position and
rate information, detail of disbursements for each category,
appropriations adjustments including vetoes, Back of the Bill
appropriations, and budget amendments. Includes Invested cash trust
fund balance reports. FCO project data through life of project.
Reversion history reports. Does not include non-operating
appropriations.
Links provided to state audit data and reports, program descriptions,
and reports on public school districts.
Agency Legislative Budget Requests, Agency Amended Legislative
Budget Requests, agency Long Range Program Plans, Capital
Improvement plans, Fiscal Analysis in Brief, Governor’s budget
recommendations, legislative appropriation bills including conference
report, veto message and list of vetoed appropriations, a schedule of
trust fund revenues and unreserved balances through FY 2012-13
(through current year estimated expenditures).
Long Range Financial Outlooks adopted by the LBC.
Planning and budgeting instructions.
Payroll and positions data for executive and judicial branches. University
payroll information. SBA payroll information. OPS payroll information.
Page 6
2/26/14
4
5
6
User Experience Task Force
Retired payroll information over certain amount.
www.myfloridacfo.com/Transparency/ State agency operating budget for 16 super summary statewide level
appropriation categories. Each category is linked to Department Level
totals by super category. Includes associated releases, disbursements,
and undisbursed amounts at the same summary level as budget
categories. State contracts and agreements for executive and judicial
branches. State contract audits, vendors’ payments, statewide
aggregate expenditures by appropriation categories, state cash
balances, state comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFR), Treasury
annual reports, Risk Management annual reports, local government
information on revenue and expenditures. CFO website updated nightly.
Does not include non-operating appropriations.
www.oppaga.state.fl.us
Summary of state government agencies and programs purpose, funding,
current issues and other sources of program information and
assessments.
letsgettowork.state.fl.us
Governor’s policy and budget recommendations, various supporting
documents for revenue outlook, current year estimates budget, agency
LBR with Governor’s recommendations, Proposed GAA bills, and
adjusted budget for current year.
Consideration 2 – Duplication of information and Data
To the extent there is duplication of data or a subset of the data provided on the above websites, these websites should
be considered as the primary data source for the purposes of the UETF design to consolidate information. This
recognizes the need for isolated or specific public reporting by governmental entities as defined in Section 215.985, F.S.
Websites providing specific subsets of the data, not statewide, may be excluded from the consolidated design based on
the evaluation and recommendations of the UETF. Consolidation and removal of duplication may be included in the
recommendations of the UETF.
Consideration 3 – Linkage
In addition to state-managed websites, there may be state operational and fiscal information available on existing nonstate-managed websites that may, at the discretion of the UETF, be relevant to the mission of the UETF. Although these
websites may not be included in the consolidated design recommended by the UETF, the design may consider providing
links to the websites. For example, this consideration may apply to university-managed websites.
User Experience Task Force
Page 7
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 2.0/3.0 – Reducing number of websites and linking financial and operational data
Directive
The User Experience Task Force (UETF) Work Plan includes the directive to provide a recommendation of opportunities
to reduce the number of websites found to be in-scope and to provide a recommendation of opportunities and
determination of relevancy of providing links to existing data found in other in-scope websites in order to accomplish
the objectives of the UETF.
Approach
Step 1 - In order to provide a recommendation for website consolidation, the UETF evaluated the information available
on each website to identify any potential duplication of information. A detailed inventory of the information available is
provided in Appendix B. The UETF determined primary and secondary websites from which budget information can be
found based upon the detailed website inventory. Primary websites contain the bulk of basic budget information;
secondary websites provide more specialized information such as contract and salary data. The list of primary and
secondary websites is provided in Exhibit A (page 11). Using the information provided in the detailed website inventory
the UETF then made a recommendation to link primary and secondary websites into a single portal allowing easier
access to budget information (the structure of this is located in the sitemap in Appendix H).
Step 2 - In order to obtain the most information available for the in-scope websites, the UETF sent a list of questions to
the subject matter expert (SME) and technical manager for each website and invited them to present their responses.
On December 6, 2013, the UETF heard presentations and reviewed the responses from the SMEs not in attendance. All
of the responses are included in Appendix C. The UETF reviewed the inventory of all in-scope websites for duplication of
expenditure, invoice and contract data. They also evaluated the usability of each website by evaluating the websites
against the criteria listed on the spreadsheet Appendix D.
Step 3 - The UETF reviewed the State Constitution and Florida Statutes for designated responsibilities. The following is a
synopsis of this review:
1. Both Article IV, Section 4, of the State Constitution, and Chapter 17, F.S., state that the chief financial officer shall
serve as the chief fiscal officer of the state, and shall settle and approve accounts against the state, and shall keep all
state funds and securities. In addition, Section 216.0111, F.S. states that the Department of Financial Services is the
repository of all state agency contract information.
Therefore, all expenditure data as managed in the state accounting system and all contract data can be summarized as
“financial matters” are managed by the the Chief Financial Officer and the Department of Financial Services.
User Experience Task Force
Page 8
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
2. Article III, Section 17 of the State Constitution places the development of the annual budget within the responsibility
of the Legislature. Chapter 216, F.S., outlines the planning and budgeting responsibilities, and again places the
responsibility with the Legislature, and to some extent, the Executive Office of the Governor (EOG).
Therefore, state “budget and planning” information is managed by the Legislative Appropriations System/Planning and
Budgeting Subsystem (LAS/PBS), a system that includes members of both the EOG and the Legislature.
3. Chapter 110, F.S., states that authority to establish rules over Public Officers, Employees, and Records is the
responsibility of the Department of Management Services. These records include salary information for individual state
employees.
Therefore, “personnel data” is managed by the Department of Management Services, under the direction of the EOG.
4. The Office of the Auditor General, a legislative office established in Chapter 11, F.S., has the authority and
responsibility to audit any agency’s fiscal and operational information. The audit findings are posted on the Auditor
General’s office website. These findings contain information related to State of Florida fiscal and operational data, but
not the data itself.
Therefore, “Auditor General Data” is managed by the Auditor General’s Office.
Analysis
In analyzing all websites identified as “in scope,” the need for a centralized portal is clear. Providing accurate,
consistent, and detailed information is a concern when considering consolidating websites. The intended audience
must also be considered. The two primary websites present duplicative budget information intended for two different
audiences. For example, the CFO’s website showcases information from an accounting perspective, while the
Governor’s website presents information from a budgetary perspective. For those unfamiliar with the complex budget
process in Florida, this distinction is confusing. The UETF acknowledges the value of both perspectives. The remaining
nine secondary websites contain specific information not generally found on other websites. The UETF evaluated the
benefits of a federated vs. centralized website, and questioned the viability of a centralized website given time and
budget constraints.
Recommendation
Considering the division of management responsibilities of in-scope websites, the variety of information available on
each, and the different audiences, the UETF recommends that all websites be linked to a single portal where all
budgetary information can be easily accessed.
This includes the creation of a navigation portal with information leading to websites focusing on the four identified
budget divisions: revenue, budget, spend, and audit. The purpose of the portal is to guide and educate users to the
User Experience Task Force
Page 9
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
information they seek. The page must point the users where they need to go to find the data. The page must also
educate users about transparency utilizing consistent information such as a glossary of terms, appropriate disclaimers,
and contact information.
The UETF does not recommend centralization of the in-scope websites. Therefore, the current state agency managers of
each website should remain the same.
In addition, state operational and fiscal information may be available on existing state- and non-state-managed websites
that may be relevant to the public but does not fall within the four major categories of responsibility (i.e. universitymanaged websites). The UETF recommends providing links to these websites on each relevant page.
User Experience Task Force
Page 10
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Exhibit A
Primary Budget Websites
•
•
www.myfloridacfo.com/transparency - Florida’s checkbook; includes contracts
www.transparencyflorida.gov – detailed budget/appropriation information
Secondary Budget Websites
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
www.myflorida.com/audgen - Auditor General reports
http://app2.freshfromflorida.com/contracts/ - DACS contracts
http://www.floridahasarighttoknow.com/ - State personnel data (excludes H/S)
http://floridafiscalportal.state.fl.us/ - budget building documents and static reports
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/PublicGuide/SalarySearchForm.aspx - House salary
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/PublicGuide/ContractsSearchForm.aspx - House contracts
http://www.flsenate.gov/reference/publicrecords/salaries - Senate salary
http://www.flsenate.gov/reference/publicrecords/contracts/ - Senate contracts
http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/index.cfm - Economic & Demographic Research
User Experience Task Force
Page 11
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 4.0 – User Experience
Directive
The User Experience Task Force (UETF) Work Plan includes determination and recommendation of options to provide
the most cohesive and intuitive website presentation.
Approach
Step 1 - The UETF conducted a review of the website development best practices * and industry standards for website
presentation. This review resulted in the following recommendations:
•
Analytics - Collect metrics on: customer focus and experience; quality and compliance; and recognition, in
accordance with privacy and other policies. Make changes to your website based on data, not opinion or
"executive whimsy".
•
Mobile - Design your website with mobile users in mind, and test your website on mobile browsers to ensure
the public can access your information on the go.
•
Usability and Design - Do regular user testing on your website with real customers, to ensure they can easily and
successfully complete their tasks. Design and develop your website for a broad range of visitors and browsers,
including mobile devices and those with lower-end hardware and software capabilities. Implement a coherent
information architecture (IA) and navigation scheme (including common labels), and use it consistently
throughout your website.
•
Managing Content - Regularly review your content (at least annually, and more often for popular content), and
update or archive as appropriate. Ensure content is written for the web, using words familiar to the intended
audience, so people can easily find what they need (usually via search), and understand what they need to do.
•
Social Media - Include links to official social media channels
•
Website Policies Page - Create a page entitled “Website Policies” that includes links to required information and
important policies.
* Web Technology Best Practices for Federal Agencies
User Experience Task Force
See Exhibit B – HowTo.Gov
Page 12
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Exhibit B
User Experience Task Force
Page 13
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Step 2 – In reviewing other public sector websites and other state’s transparency websites, the UETF consulted the U.S.
Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) report “Following the Money 2013.” This is the organization’s fourth annual
report which provides an assessment of each state’s online spending transparency. The UETF also consulted the
Sunshine Review report “2013 Transparency Report Card – Bringing state and local government to light,” examining the
websites of each state government, the five largest counties and cities in each state, and the ten largest school districts
in each state. These two reports were reviewed to identify a short list of public sector websites to review in detail. The
selected websites were:
Entity
Website
U.S.PIRG March 2013
report on access to
government spending data
Sunshine Review 2013
Transparency Report Card
Overall Grade
Texas
http://www.texastransparency.org
A
B+
Illinois
http://accountability.illinois.gov/
A-
B+
Oregon
http://www.oregon.gov/transparency/
B+
B
Utah
http://utah.gov/transparency/index.html
B+
B
Louisiana
C
C+
New York
http://wwwprd.doa.louisiana.gov/latrac/p
ortal.cfm
http://www.openbooknewyork.com
C
B
Colorado
http://tops.state.co.us
D+
B
N. Carolina
http://www.ncopenbook.gov/
D
B
N. Dakota
http://data.share.nd.gov/pr
F
C
Wisconsin
http://sunshine.wi.gov
F
B
Michigan
https://www.michigan.gov/openmichigan
A-
C+
Pennsylvania
http://www.pennwatch.pa.gov
B
B+
Massachusetts
www.mass.gov/transparency
A-
B
New York City
https://data.cityofnewyork.us
n/a
B
UK
Government
Virginia
Schools
https://www.gov.uk
n/a
n/a
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/statistics_rep
orts/school_report_card/index.shtml
n/a
B+
User Experience Task Force
Page 14
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
The selected websites were reviewed by three individuals with various professional backgrounds and technology
experience to obtain different perspectives. The websites were reviewed focusing on two major categories: Data
contained on the website and the functionality provided by the website. The information gathered is listed in Exhibit C
(page 17).
Step 3 – The detail results of the review are contained in a separate spreadsheet supporting this report (Appendix E).
Step 4 – Usability standards allowing for consistent and intuitive navigation include:
 Responsive Design – Responsive Design is a Web design approach aimed at crafting websites to provide an
optimal viewing experience—easy reading and navigation with a minimum of resizing, panning, and scrolling—
across a wide range of devices (from mobile phones to desktop computer monitors). Designing websites
“responsively” is the best way to ensure that the data we present will look as good as possible in whatever
browser our citizens choose.
 Conduct User Testing - Before a new website is launched, user testing should be conducted with a sample of
citizens that represents the larger population who will be accessing this data.
 Install Analytics - We can make all of the assumptions we want about how citizens will engage with the data we
present, but ultimately, the data will give us the most honest and thorough picture of how citizens are actually
accessing these materials. Free products like Google Analytics should be installed on all websites and reviews of
pre-determined metrics should be conducted regularly.
 Browser Compatibility - Websites should be compatible with the following browsers: Google Chrome versions
24-current, Internet Explorer versions 8-current, Firefox versions 21-current and Safari versions 5.1-current.
 Consistent Navigation - Top navigation throughout the website where this data will be presented should remain
consistent as citizens navigate from page to page.
 Professional Copywriting - Well considered copy will go a long way in ensuring that citizens understand the
information we are presenting. Copywriting plays a critical role in the presentation of any website and should be
done by the best writers we can find.
 Content Management - All copy should be regularly reviewed, updated, and archived as appropriate.
 Feedback Forms - Wherever this data is presented, citizens should have the option to fill out a form to provide
feedback on their experience using the website.
User Experience Task Force
Page 15
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Step 5 – In order to obtain public input, the UETF provided the option for public comment. See Exhibit D (Page 18). In
November, an email account was activated and the opportunity to comment was communicated to the public and
through other open government organizations such as the First Amendment Foundation. No public comments were
received.
User Experience Task Force
Page 16
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Exhibit C
UETF Section 4.0
User Experience
Evaluation of
Transparency
Review of public
sector transparency
websites and
initiatives
External review
#
Information available on the website
State Agencies
Cities
Counties
U.S.PIRG
Sunshine
March 2013 Review 2013
report on Transparency
access to Report Card
Budget Budget
government Overall
Budget Financial Financial
Spending
Funding
Data
Grade
Entity Website spending
and Report Report
data
Data Center
data
Finance Check Check
Register Register
User Experience Task Force
Functionality Supported by the website
School
Special
Courts Universities
Districts
Districts
Budget Budget Budget
Financial Financial Financial
Report Report Report
Check Check Check
Register Register Register
Is Data Sortable?
Budget
Tracking
Data
Social
Single
One-click
Financial
feature
By
By
Export/
Media Website or User
research
Report
Other
with e-mail
Comments
Agency Category
Download?
Sharing? multiple Friendly? answers?
Check
alerts?
(Y/N)
(Y/N) websites?
(Y/N)
Register
(Y/N)
Page 17
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Exhibit D
User Experience Task Force
Page 18
2/26/14
Analysis
User Experience Task Force
The user experience is subjective and unique to each person. This was readily apparent in the review conducted by User
Experience Task Force (UETF) members and staff (Appendix E) as differences existed in evaluations of the same website.
The recommendation based on this analysis and review of best practices and industry standards are as follows.
Recommendations and Lessons Learned
1. Audience – The purpose of the design is to provide state operational and financial information for a specific
audience – the public. This consideration requires the design to be focused, clear, concise and based on plain
language principles.
2. Navigation – There are several considerations in this area:
a. Depth – The user should not have to drill down into the website more than 6 clicks from the main page
on any topic.
b. Web Portal Boundary – The user should be notified if the selected link will transfer them to another
website and be provided the option to return to the portal.
c. Grouping – Identify like information and group it accordingly in one area.
d. Consistency – All of the headings, lists, graphics and other design considerations such as color schemes,
fonts and spacing should be consistent throughout the portal. There should be a consistent and uniform
layout from page to page related to the function and location on the page.
e. Breadcrumbs – Should be provided throughout the navigation of the portal.
f. Content map – The organization of the website should be provided.
3. Data
a. All data should be provided on the website in a uniform format.
b. All data should be provided in a download standard format such as csv.
c. All data should be provided in a browser readable format such as pdf.
d. All data should be searchable on the website.
e. All data should be displayed in graphic format relative to a topic.
4. Key Features - The following features should be provided as appropriate:
a. HELP – HELP options should be available and easily identified as appropriate.
b. Contact information, website management, and last update date should be provided as appropriate.
c. The opportunity to provide feedback.
d. Social media resources.
e. Subscription-based alerts.
5. Technical considerations
a. Websites should be compatible with major browsers and the list of supported browsers should be
published and readily accessible.
User Experience Task Force
Page 19
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 5.0 – Education and training
Directive
The User Experience Task Force (UETF) Work Plan included analysis and recommendation of education and training
methods and strategies regarding use and navigation of the new website. The UETF determined methods needed to
instruct the public on how to use the transparency websites (videos, instructions, etc…) and created a glossary of terms
included in the recommendation for the transparency website.
Approach
Step 1 – The complexity of the Florida budget process required the UETF to consider various education and training
options to assist the user in navigating the website and understanding associated information.
Step 2 – Staff compiled a comprehensive listing of all terms from glossaries in all in-scope websites. Within the eleven
in-scope websites, only two transparency-specific glossaries exist. These are listed in Appendix A (MyFloridaCFO.com
Glossary of Terms) and Appendix B (TransparencyFL.gov Glossary of Terms). Staff reviewed the glossary and deleted
terms not applicable to the recommended transparency website.
Recommendation
The UETF recommends a three-pronged approach to training:
•
•
•
Brief descriptions of the types of information available on each page, including website instructions;
PowerPoint presentation on the overall budget process in Florida; and
Video on the budget process in Florida.
Information Descriptions – Each link to information should provide a brief description of its content. For example, the
link to “Long Range Program Plans” would also provide a description of Long Range Program Plans. This information
gives the user a better understanding of the information captured within each link.
PowerPoint presentation - A PowerPoint presentation (Appendix F) describing the budget process in a clear and easily
understood manner gives the user a better understanding of Florida’s budget process and where information is located
on the website.
Video – A video link to a presentation on Florida’s budget process will assist those who learn more visually, offering an
alternative to the PowerPoint presentation. The link can currently be found
at http://thefloridachannel.org/video/13014-pre-session-media-workshop/.
The UETF recommends use of a consolidated glossary of terms (Appendix G) consistent with plain language principles.
The UETF also recommends increasing the functionality of the glossary by making it searchable. The glossary search
User Experience Task Force
Page 20
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
“page” should include a text box to enter the search term, but if no value is entered, the entire list should result. Also,
this page should include alphabetical refinement of glossary terms. For example, if a user clicks on “A,” all glossary terms
beginning with the letter A should result. Therefore, the user is not required to know or input the exact spelling of the
search term. A visual representation of this is provided below:
Glossary
Click on a letter to narrow your glossary to terms beginning with that letter, or search for your term using the box below.
If you want the full glossary of terms, leave the box blank and press “Search” below the box.
A B C DE F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Search
Additionally, the use of acronyms should be avoided or explained dynamically within the website and the glossary. This
could be accomplished by hovering over the acronym to receive the definition/explanation, or linking the acronym to its
counterpart in the glossary.
User Experience Task Force
Page 21
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 6.0 – Operational Model
Directive
In the User Experience Task Force (UETF) Work Plan directive relating to the new website’s operational model, the task
included analysis and recommendation of best approaches for development of ongoing management, maintenance, and
support of the transparency website. The UETF considered appropriate managers for systems and established levels of
support needed for ongoing maintenance and support of the website.
Approach
Step 1 – In order to determine the appropriate manager for the transparency website, the UETF considered the
feasibility of current vs. new websites, management expertise, website appropriateness, as well as budget and time
constraints.
Step 2 – In order to determine the levels of support needed, the UETF researched and discussed structural needs for the
in-scope websites. The UETF then relied on its knowledge of government processes to determine what kind of
governance would be necessary to keep the transparency website current and valid.
Recommendation (6.1)
The UETF recommends utilizing www.floridasunshine.gov for the transparency portal. The Office of Systems Design and
Development within the Executive Office of the Governor is the manager for that website. The UETF also recommends
current website managers for primary and secondary websites remain the same (i.e. the Chief Financial Officer will
continue to maintain www.myfloridacfo.com/transparency, the Department of Agriculture will continue to maintain
www.app2.freshfromflorida.com/contracts, etc).
Recommendation (6.2)
The UETF recommends support of the transparency website on a few levels. A diagram of these levels of support is
included on page 24.
User Experience Task Force
Page 22
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Authority over website
(Executive Office of the Governor or
other agency)
Transparency Steering Committee
Includes Subject Matter Experts for all websites linked to
Landing page. Also includes a representative of the target
audience (the public).
Requires the ability to meet and act as needed.
- Provides oversight and approval of changes to content or
presentation
- Establishes controls and sets/manages presentation
standards (rulemaking?)
- Develops distributed Helpdesk requirements
Needs:
Administrative Support (Communications, Legal, Admin Asst.
for public notices)
Revenue
EDR Website
Needs:
Webmaster/Website
implementation;
Content Management;
Infrastructure;
Help Desk
Provides authority to endorse recommendation of and
ability to enforce standards created by Transparency
Steering Committee; provides administrative support
to Steering Committee and hosting services for
landing page.
Landing Page
Needs:
Webmaster/Website implementation
Content Management
Infrastructure/Infrastructure Support
Help Desk – 800# in and outside of Florida
Budget
Florida Fiscal Portal
Needs:
Webmaster/Website
implementation;
Content Management;
Infrastructure;
Help Desk
Spend
TransparencyFL.gov
CFO Transparency
FloridaHasARightToKnow
Senate Salaries
House Salaries
DACS Contracts
Senate Contracts
House Contracts
Needs:
Webmaster/Website
implementation;
Content Management;
Infrastructure;
Help Desk
Audit
Auditor General
Needs:
Webmaster/Website
implementation;
Content Management;
Infrastructure;
Help Desk
Level one - As shown in the diagram, one authority should preside over the hosting of the website. This authority should
provide overall structural needs for the transparency portal and should provide administrative support for the
Transparency Steering committee. Areas of support for structural needs include website implementation (Webmaster),
content management, infrastructure and infrastructure support, and helpdesk services. Areas of support for the
Transparency Steering Committee include communications support, legal, and administrative staff for meeting
preparation, public notices, etc.
User Experience Task Force
Page 23
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Level two – The Transparency Steering Committee should meet at regular intervals as appropriate and biannually at a
minimum. The Committee should: provide oversight and approval of changes to transparency portal content or
presentation; recommend controls and set/manage presentation standards; and develop distributed helpdesk
requirements.
Level three – Each website containing transparency information that is linked to the transparency portal will require its
own support provided at the agency level. Areas of support include website implementation (Webmaster), content
management, infrastructure and infrastructure support, and helpdesk services.
Given these levels of support, the recommended website will succeed and remain relevant and effective.
User Experience Task Force
Page 24
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 7.0 – Final Design Recommendation with Cost Estimate
Directive
The final step in the User Experience Task Force (UETF) Work Plan includes: creating a final design recommendation;
providing that recommendation to appropriate website managers for review and impact analysis; defining and
developing a cost estimating methodology; and providing a cost estimate for implementation of the recommended
design.
Approach
The UETF recommends creation of a single transparency portal which links to the websites with in-scope information.
UETF staff created a mock-up of a landing page (Appendix H) including all features and requirements outlined in prior
sections of this report. The UETF developed a list of high-level design requirements for the landing page, intended to
group the number of duplicative websites, link expenditure data with invoices and contracts, and provide an intuitive
and cohesive user experience.
Cost Methodology
Approach 1
Managers of state-managed websites identified as in scope were provided the recommended design and asked
to provide a cost estimate to accomplish the desired improvements. Specifically, the managers of the in-scope
websites were contacted (Appendix I) and requested to consider the UETF design recommendations, provide
comments or/and assumptions, and provide estimates to accomplish the recommended design. A summary of
the estimates provided will be used to calculate the potential costs.
Approach 2
The 2013 U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) “Following the Money 2013” report published in March
2013 gathered costs from several states on the costs to start up and maintain a transparency website (see
Appendix J). An average of the information provided in that report, applicable to the State of Florida, will also be
used to calculate the potential costs.
User Experience Task Force
Page 25
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Impact Analysis
In analyzing the impact information from the in-scope website managers, the UETF identified the following
considerations:
 The UETF design identified high level requirements and expectations. Detailed requirements should be further
developed based on the recommendation provided by the UETF to quantify the effort, costs, implementation
schedule, and the detailed design.
 Some agencies were unable to provide a cost estimate due to the limited time frame and specificity of the
requirements.
 One agency did not provide costing information, citing a statutory exemption.
 Costs presumed modifications to existing websites and did not include the development of new or duplicative
websites.
 The recommendation presumes a collaborative governance structure to ensure the ongoing management of the
websites.
Cost Estimate
As described in the cost methodology above, two approaches were developed in an effort to quantify the investment
necessary to accomplish the recommendation. This resulted in the estimated start-up costs, below, to develop and
deliver the recommended design.
Cost Range
Approach 1 - Estimate start-up costs provided by in-scope website managers
$185,845 - $250,145
Approach 2 – Average start-up costs included in PIRG report
$217,317
Neither cost estimate reflects ongoing, unknown costs relative to the potential expansion of the websites.
User Experience Task Force
Page 26
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Detail of Cost Approach 1 - Summary of the costs provided by in scope website managers.
List of in scope websites included in estimate.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
http://www.flasentate.gov/reference/publicrecords/contracts
http://www.flasenate.gov/reference/publicrecords/salaries
http://www.myfloridacfo.com/transparency
http://www.myflorida.com/audgen
http://www.transparencyflorida.gov
http://edr.state.fl.us
http://www.floridahasarighttoknow.com
http://floridafiscalportal.state.fl.us
http://www.myhouse.gov/sections/publicGuide/contractssearchform.aspx
and http://www.myhouse.gov/sections/publicGuide/salariessearchform.aspx
10. http://app2.freshfromflorida.com/contracts
No.
Requirement
Category
High Level Requirement
1
Navigation
The user should not have to drill down more
than 6 clicks from the main page on any topic.
No cost
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. no cost
4. no cost
5. TBD
6. no cost
7. no cost
8. no cost
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
2
Navigation
The user should be notified if the selected link
will transfer them to another website and be
provided the option to return/remain within the
website.
$13,804$15,204
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. $624
4. $800-$1,200
5. $2,000-$3,000
6. $380
7. included below - Note 4
8. no cost
9. $10,000
10. not provided – see note 7
3
Navigation
Identify similar or like information and group
that information in one area within the website.
No cost
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. no cost
4. no cost
5. no cost
6. no cost
7. no cost
User Experience Task Force
Estimated
Total Cost
Range
Estimated Cost by
Website
Page 27
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
8. no cost
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
4
Navigation
All headings, lists, graphics, and other design
considerations such as color schemes, fonts and
spacing should be consistent throughout the
website.
$23,001$40,001
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. $10,001
4. $13,000-$30,000
5.no cost
6. no cost
7. included below - see note 4
8. no cost
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
5
Navigation
There should be a consistent and predictable
layout from page to page as related to the
function and location on the page.
$26,742$43,742
1. no cost
2. no cost
3.$13,742
4.$13,000-$30,000
5. no cost
6. no cost
7. included below - see note 4
8. no cost
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
6
Navigation
Breadcrumbs should be provided throughout the $14,427navigation of the website.
$27,427
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. $6,667
4. $13.000-$20,000
5. no cost
6. $760
7.included below - see note 4
8. no cost
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
7
Navigation
The organization (content map) should be
provided.
$7,871
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. $1,611
4. no cost
5. $500
6. $760
7. included below - see note 4
8. no cost - see note 6
9. $5,000
10. not provided – see note 7
8
Data
All data currently provided on the website
should be provided in a uniform format.
$9,162
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. $9,162
4. no cost
5. no cost
6. no cost
7. no cost
8. no cost
User Experience Task Force
Page 28
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
9
Data
All data currently provided should be provided in $17,542
a download standard format such as CSV.
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. $13,742
4. no cost
5. no cost
6. $3,800
7. no cost
8. no cost
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
10
Data
All data currently provided should be provided in $17,592
a browser readable format such as PDF.
1. $25
2. $25
3. $13,742
4. no cost
5. no cost
6. $3,800
7. no cost
8. no cost
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
11
Data
All data currently provided should be searchable
on the website.
$1,300$2,000
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. TBD – see note 5
4. $1,300-$2,000
5. no cost – see note 2
6. no cost
7. TBD - see note 5
8. included below - see note 6
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
12
Data
All data currently provided should be displayed
in a graphic format relative to the topic.
$13,334
1. no cost
2. no cost
3.$13,334
4. no cost
5. no cost - note 3
6. no cost
7. included below - see note 4
8. not applicable
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
13
Features
HELP should be provided on the main page.
$7,060$7,760
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. little to no cost
4. $1,300-$2,000
5. no cost
6. $760
7. included below - see note 4
8. no cost - see note 6
9. $5,000
User Experience Task Force
Page 29
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
10. not provided – see note 7
14
Features
Contact information, website ownership, and
last update date should be provided as
appropriate.
$6,350$7,050
1. $25
2. $25
3. little to no cost
4. $1,300-$2,000
5. no cost
6. no cost
7. included below - .see note 4
8. no cost – see note 6
9. $5,000
10. not provided – see note 7
15
Features
An option for FEEDBACK should be provided on
all pages.
$1,680$2,380
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. little to no cost
4. $1,300-$2,000
5. no cost
6. $380
7. included below - see note 4
8. no cost – see note 6
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
16
Features
Social media resources currently available should $8,000be accessible.
$20,000
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. little to no cost
4. TBD – not estimated
5. not applicable
6. no cost
7. $8,000-$20,000 - see note 4
8. not applicable
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
17
Features
Websites should consider subscription based
alerts.
1. $6,400
2. $6,400
3. TBD – see note 5
4. $1,300-$2,000
5. not applicable
6. no cost
7. TBD - see note 5
8. TBD – see note 5
9. TBD – see note 5
10. not provided – see note 7
18
Technical
Website should be compatible with major web
$3,880browsers and the list of support browsers should $4,280
be published and readily accessible.
User Experience Task Force
$14,100$14,800
1. $65
2. $65
3. $1050
4. $800-$1,200
5. no cost
6. $1,900
7. no cost
8. no cost – see note 6
9. no cost
10. not provided – see note 7
Page 30
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Note 1 – Cannot be estimated at this time.
Note 2 – Four search options are provided. No additional search options were estimated.
Note 3 – Reports are currently provided and provided in graphical format. Additional report estimated at $400-$1,200 per report. No additional
reports were identified at this time.
Note 4 – Agency (Department of Management Services) identifies limitations due to current technical platform and recommends technical
environment migration with total cost indicated in item 16. Total cost estimate for website re-design to address recommendations – total range
$8,000-$20,000.
Note 5 – Additional research and detail requirements needed to develop a cost estimate.
Note 6 – The identified high level requirements will be addressed as part of the website enhancements required per HB5401 and will be complete
April 30, 2014. As these enhancements are in progress, funded in current year, and expected to be complete shortly after the completion of the
UETF final report, the costs were not included in this report.
Note 7 – Agency (Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) did not provide cost information, citing exemption in s.215.985(14)(i),F.S.
User Experience Task Force
Page 31
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Detail of Cost Approach 2
Costs were based on the 2013 U.S. PIRG “Following the Money 2013” report. PIRG solicited cost information from
several states to start up and maintain a transparency website. Websites developed and maintained at a level of
functionality similar in scope to the UETF recommended design were included in the cost estimate. The UETF focused
on websites that scored high in the US PIRG report. Websites that did not provide cost information were excluded due
to lack of data. Websites that did not score above a “B” on the US PIRG report were excluded from the cost estimate.
INCLUDED
State
Arizona
Illinois
Iowa
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Michigan
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
PIRG score
B
AB
AAAB+
AB
A
B+
BB-
AVERAGE Start-up
Start-Up Costs
$72,000, plus existing staff time
Approximately $100,000
Less than $75,000
$150,000
$540,000
Existing budget
$30,000-$60,000
$8,000, plus existing staff time
Approximately $300,000
$310,000
$192,800, plus existing staff time ($100,000)
$500,000 from existing budget
$300,000
$2,607,800 / 12 =$217,317
Annual Operating Costs
Approximately $83,000
Approximately $10,000
$6,000
$10,000-$15,000
$431,000
Existing budget
Approximately $10,000
Approximately $3,600
Primarily existing staff time
Existing budget
$63,400, plus existing staff time ($133,400)
$400,000 from existing budget
Existing budget
EXCLUDED
State
Arkansas
Colorado
Kansas
Louisiana
Nevada
Missouri
PIRG score
CD+
CC
D+
C
User Experience Task Force
Start-Up Costs
$558,000
$200,000 from existing budget plus existing staff time
$150,000 from existing budget
$325,000
$78,000
$293,140 from existing budget
Annual Operating Costs
$175,000
$169,400 from existing budget
Existing budget
“Minimal”
$30,000
Less than $5,000
Page 32
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Final Recommendation
The UETF recommends that all websites be linked to a central transparency portal where all budgetary information can
be easily accessed. The UETF recommends creation of this single portal with information leading to websites focusing
on the four identified budget divisions: revenue, budget, spend, and audit. The purpose of the transparency portal is to
guide and educate users to the information they seek. The page must point the users where they need to go to find the
data. The page must also educate users about transparency utilizing consistent information such as a glossary of terms,
appropriate disclaimers, and contact information.
In addition, state operational and fiscal information may be available on existing state- and non-state-managed websites
that may be relevant to the public but does not fall within the four major categories of responsibility (i.e. universitymanaged websites). The UETF recommends providing links to these websites on each relevant page.
Design
In the process of implementing this portal or “landing page,” the UETF recommends that the design be focused, clear,
concise and based on plain language principles as the audience is the public user. This design principle should also apply
to all pages linked to the portal. Navigation principles such as depth, boundary notification, grouping, consistency,
breadcrumbs, and the use of a content map should be considered for all linked websites. All data should be uniform,
searchable, displayed in graphic format relative to the topic, and provided in both .pdf and a download standard format
(.csv). Key features such as help options, contact information including website management and last update date, the
opportunity to provide feedback, social media resources and subscription-based alerts should be provided on all
websites linked to the portal. All linked websites should be compatible with major browsers and the list of supported
browsers should be published and readily accessible to users.
Education and Training
The UETF recommends a three-pronged approach to training:
•
•
•
Brief descriptions of the types of information available on each page, including website instructions;
PowerPoint presentation on the overall budget process in Florida; and
Video on the budget process in Florida.
The UETF recommends use of a consolidated glossary of terms consistent with plain language principles. The UETF also
recommends increasing the functionality of this glossary by making it searchable.
Additionally, the use of acronyms should be avoided or explained dynamically within the website and the glossary. This
could be accomplished by hovering over the acronym to receive the definition/explanation, or linking the acronym to its
counterpart in the glossary.
User Experience Task Force
Page 33
2/26/14
User Experience Task Force
Operational Model
The UETF recommends www.floridasunshine.gov as the portal for the transparency website. System Design and
Development within the Executive Office of the Governor is the current website manager for that website. The UETF
also recommends all current website managers for the subsidiary websites remain the same (i.e. the CFO’s office will
continue to maintain www.myfloridacfo.com/transparency; the Department of Agriculture will continue to maintain
www.app2.freshfromflorida.com/contracts, etc).
The UETF recommends support of the Portal on three levels. Level one will provide authority to endorse
recommendation of and ability to enforce standards created by the Transparency Steering Committee; provides
administrative support to Steering Committee and hosting services for the portal. Level two, the Transparency Steering
Committee, provides oversight and approval of changes to content or presentation, establishes controls and
sets/manages presentation standards, and develops distributed Helpdesk requirements. Level three should be provided
at the agency level for each website containing transparency information that is linked to the portal.
Cost
Both cost methodologies resulted in estimated costs under $300,000 for both initial startup and participating websites’
compliance with recommended requirements. However, due to the limited time frame and limited resources given to
the UETF in order to produce this recommendation, the UETF-recommended requirements are very high-level. Detailed
requirements should be further developed to quantify the effort, costs, implementation schedule, and the detailed
design.
Other Considerations
In this recommendation, the UETF has proposed both website design and relationships that can be accomplished within
the current government structure of the State of Florida. Given cost considerations, resource constraints, and the
current structure of the State’s transparency data, the UETF recommendation reflects the most practicable option at this
time.
The ultimate goal of a central transparency website, a data warehouse where users have the ability to access any data in
real time, is broader than the recommendation of this Task Force. In order to meet the ultimate transparency goal, and
in turn to give the user the most intuitive and cohesive experience, the UETF recommends a long-term phased approach
to implementation, with this recommendation as the first phase. Future phases should be considered and
recommended by the Transparency Steering Committee.
User Experience Task Force
Page 34
2/26/14