Introduction
User Experience Task Force
During the 2014 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. The Task Force, 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 Task Force 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 and Partnerships Director, 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
2/24/14
Work Plan Outline
Item
#
1.0
Deliverable
Task
Website
Inventory
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 sites
Review inventory and make recommendation on consolidated – Identify specific
sites to be moved to/hosted on another site
Review inventory and recommend sites to be consolidated by sharing base data
from one site 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
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
Item Deliverable
#Item
Linking Financial
3.0
and Operational
Data
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.0
User Experience Task Force
User Experience
4.1
4.2
User Experience Task Force
Task
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 sites and initiatives
Page 2
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
4.3
4.4
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
Review other states’ transparency sites and initiatives
Recommend usability standards for consistency and intuitive navigation
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 needs 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 sites 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
Is defined as 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 site map to identify the various web pages accessible by the Web
portal.
State Operational and
Financial Data
Is 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.
User Experience Task Force
Page 3
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 1.0 Inventory of State Transparency Websites
Directive
The User Experience Task Force (UETF), at the September 27, 2013 meeting, defined 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.
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
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
UETF Website Inventory
Agency
Name
AUD
Auditor
General
DACS
Fresh From
Florida
Contracts
DFS
DMS
Public Website URL
Brief Description
http://www.myflorida.com/audgen/
Audit reports from FY 1995-1996 to present (searchable by the
year, entity audited, or type of audit)
http://app2.freshfromflorida.com/contract
s/.
Contract information from the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services
http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Transparenc
y/
Transparency website including State Budget tab, State Contracts
search, State Contract audits, Vendor payments, State spending,
Cash Balances, Financial reports, and Local gov't information.
http://www.floridahasarighttoknow.com/
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 site 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
EOG
Florida Fiscal
Portal
Legislature
Florida House
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/
PublicGuide/SalarySearchForm.aspx
Legislature
Florida House
House contracts
Legislature
Transparency
Florida
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/
PublicGuide/ContractsSearchForm.aspx
http://www.transparencyflorida.gov/
Legislature
Florida Senate
http://www.flsenate.gov/reference/publicr
ecords/salaries
Senate salaries
Legislature
Florida Senate
http://www.flsenate.gov/reference/publicr
ecords/contracts/
Senate contracts
http://floridafiscalportal.state.fl.us/
House salaries
Legislature
User Experience Task Force
http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/index.cfm
Meant to provide public access to Florida’s operating budget and
expenditure records
Revenue
Page 5
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
As part of the discussion, consideration was given to non state-managed sites that contain state operational and fiscal
information. The UETF recognized the role of the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee (JLAC). The JLAC is responsible to
recommend “a format for collecting and displaying information from state universities, public schools, community
colleges, local governmental units, and other governmental entities receiving state appropriations.” 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 state wide operational and fiscal information are:
No
1
Site and link
TransparencyFlorida.gov
2
FloridaFiscalPortal.state.fl.us
3
www.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. Retired payroll information over certain
amount.
Page 6
2/24/14
4
5
6
User Experience Task Force
http://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 site 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 sites, these sites should be
considered as the primary data source for the purposes of the task force design to consolidate information. This
recognizes the need for isolated or specific public reporting by governmental entities as defined in f.s.215.985. Websites
providing specific subsets of the data, not state wide, may be excluded from the consolidated design based on the
evaluation and recommendations of the task force. Consolidation and removal of duplication may be included in the
recommendations of the task force.
Consideration 3 – Linkage
In addition to state managed websites, there may be state operational and fiscal information available on existing non
state managed websites that may, at the discretion of the task force, be relevant to the mission of the task force.
Although these websites may not be subject to the consolidated design of the task force, 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
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Definitions of Column Headings
1) Publicly Accessible – Pursuant to s. 215.985(2)(d), websites within the scope of the Act are those internet sites
which are easily accessible to the public at no cost and that do not require the user to provide information.
2) State Planning Documentation – Planning information or documentation to include the agency budget requests,
agency long range program plans, capital improvement plans, and planning and budgeting instructions and
forms.
3) Governor’s budget or planning recommendations – Information or documentation including the Governor’s
policy and budget recommendations, various supporting documents for revenue outlook, current year estimates
budget, agency LBR with Governor’s recommendations.
4) Legislative planning documents – Information or documentation including , legislative appropriation bills,
conference report, veto message and list of vetoed appropriations, schedule of trust fund revenues and
unreserved balances.
5) Statewide Budget Information- Appropriations including adjustments with information or documentation
including GAA with detail budget issues, operating budget, summarized agency and legislative position and rate
information, disbursement data for each appropriation with any adjustments including vetoes, supplemental
appropriations, and budget amendments, trust fund balance reports. FCO project data through life of project,
disbursements by governmental entity, and reversion history reports.
6) Agency Budget information – Approved operation budget information to include Information or documentation
of agency budget requests, agency position and rate information, disbursement data for each appropriation
with any adjustments including vetoes, supplemental appropriations, and budget amendments, and trust fund
balance reports.
7) Personnel information – Information or documentation on payroll and positions data for executive and judicial
branches. University payroll information. SBA payroll information. OPS payroll information. Retired payroll
information over certain amount.
8) Expenditure information- Information or documentation of state agency operating budget by appropriation
category, releases, disbursements, and undisbursed amounts.
9) Contract data – Information or documentation including state contracts and agreements for executive and
judicial branches.
User Experience Task Force
Page 8
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 2.0 – Reducing number of websites and Section 3.0 - Linking financial and
operational data
Directive
Next, the 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 task force.
Approach
Step 1 - In order to provide a recommendation for site consolidation the UETF had to first look at the information
available on each site to identify any potential duplication of information. A detailed inventory of the information
available is provided in Appendix B. From the detailed site inventory the UETF made a determination of primary and
secondary sites from which budget information can be found. The primary sites contain the bulk of basic budget
information. The secondary sites provide more specialized information such as contract and salary data. The list of
primary and secondary sites is provided in Exhibit A (page 12). Using the information provided in the detailed site
inventory the UETF then made a recommendation to consolidate the multiple sites into one portal that allows easier
access to all budget information. See Exhibit B (page 13).
Step 2 - In order to procure 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 in-scope website and invited them to present the
response at a meeting of the UETF. On December 6, 2013, the UETF heard these presentations and also reviewed the
responses from the SMEs who were not in attendance. All of the responses are included in Appendix C. The UETF
reviewed the inventory of 11 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. states 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 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 9
2/24/14
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 in 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. Finally, the Office of the Auditor General, a legislative office established in Ch. 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 the 11 websites identified by the task force as “in scope,” the need for a centralized portal is clear. Keeping
information accurate and in as much detail as possible is a concern when considering consolidating any websites. The
intended audience should also be considered. Two of them can be considered core websites, with somewhat
duplicative budget information presented for two different audiences. For example, the CFO’s website showcases
information from an “accountant” angle, while the Governor’s website presents in term of “budget”. For those
unfamiliar with the complex budget process in Florida, this distinction could become quite confusing. A way to use the
same information for both audiences is needed. The remaining nine are more specialized. The UETF considered
whether a federated or single source style is more beneficial, but questioned whether single source is an option, given
time and budget constraints.
Recommendation
Considering the division of management responsibilities described above, the varying information on each site, as well
as the different audiences intended, the UETF recommends that all websites be linked to a central portal where all
budget information can be accessed at once.
This would include the creation of one navigation portal with information leading to websites focusing on the 4
identified budget divisions: revenue estimate, budget, spend, and audit. The purpose of the portal is to provide a
User Experience Task Force
Page 10
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
jumping off point that guides and educates users to the information they seek. The page should point the users where
they need to go to find the data. The page should also educate the users about transparency using consistent
information such as a glossary of terms and disclaimers, and should provide contact information.
Since the UETF does not recommend consolidating any actual websites, the current state agency managers of each site
should remain the same.
In addition to state managed websites providing information on financial matters, budget and planning, and personnel
data, there may be state operational and fiscal information available on existing state and non state managed websites
that may, at the discretion of the task force, be relevant to the mission of the task force but does not necessarily fall
within the four major categories of responsibility (i.e. University-managed websites). The Task Force recommends
providing links to these websites on each relevant page.
User Experience Task Force
Page 11
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Exhibit A
Primary Budget Sites
•
•
www.myfloridacfo.com/transparency - Florida’s checkbook; includes contracts
www.transparencyflorida.gov – detailed budget/appropriation information
Secondary Budget Sites
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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 12
2/24/14
Exhibit B
User Experience Task Force
Florida’s Budget Cycle in the Sunshine
REVENUE
Estimating the
State’s Budget
Revenue estimates
presented at a
multitude of
Consensus
Estimating
Conferences
Link to EDR site
BUDGET
Developing the State’s Budget
1. State Agencies’ Budget
* Capital Improvement Plans
* Legislative Budget Requests
* Long Range Program Plans
2. Governor’s Recommended Budget
(currently only 09-10 and 10-11)
3. Appropriations Bills
4. Long Range Financial Outlook 3 Year Plan
5. Planning & Budgeting Instructions
6. The State of Florida’s Budget
7. Fiscal Analysis in Brief
8. Final Budget Reports
9. Schedule of Trust Fund Revenues &
Unreserved Fund Balances
Link to floridafiscalportal
User Experience Task Force
SPEND
AUDIT
Spending the State’s Budget
Auditing the State’s Budget
1. Operating Budget
PATH 1 – Budget Analyst Focus
(link to transparencyfl?)
PATH 2 – General Public Focus
(link to myfloridacfo.com/transparency?)
2. Budget Amendments
3. Reversions
4. Fund Balances
5. Supplementals
6. Back of Bill
7. Vetoes
Link to transparencyflorida
Link to transparencyflorida
8. Spending Reports/Graphs
9. Cash Balances/Graphs
Link to myfloridacfo.com/transparency
10. Personnel
Link to floridahasarighttoknow
Link to House
Link to Senate
11. Contracts
Link to myfloridacfo.com/transparency
Link to House
Link to Senate
Link to DACS
12. Vendor Payments
Link to myfloridacfo.com/transparency
Page 13
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 4.0 – User Experience
Directive
The next UETF Work Plan directive includes determination and subsequent recommendation of options to provide the
most cohesive and intuitive website presentation.
Approach
Step 1 - A review of the website development best practices * and industry standards for web site presentation was
conducted. This review resulted in the following recommendations that are important to note for the User Experience
Task Force:
•
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 site with mobile users in mind, and test your site on mobile browsers to ensure the public
can access your information on the go.
•
Usability and Design - Do regular user testing on your site with real customers, to ensure they can easily and
successfully complete their tasks. Design and develop your site 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 site.
•
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
•
Site Policies Page - Create a page entitled “Site Policies” that includes links to required information and
important policies.
* Web Technology Best Practices for Federal Agencies
User Experience Task Force
See Exhibit C – HowTo.Gov
Page 14
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Exhibit C
User Experience Task Force
Page 15
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Step 2 - The review of other public sector sites and other state’s transparency sites was conducted in the following
manner. The US PIRG report “Following the Money 2013” dated March 2013 is the fourth annual report that provides an
assessment of each state’s online spending transparency. The Sunshine Review report “2013 Transparency Report Card
– Bringing state and local government to light” examines 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 independent reports were
reviewed to identify a short list of public sector websites to be reviewed in detail. The 16 websites selected for in depth
review were:
Entity
Website
U.S.PIRG March 2013
report on access to
government spending data
Sunshine Review 2013
Transparency Report Card
Overall Grade
Texas
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.fcm
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
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 16
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
The selected sites were reviewed by three individuals with various professional backgrounds and technology experience
to obtain different perspectives. The sites were reviewed focusing on two major categories: Data contained on the site
and the functionality provided by the site. The information gathered is listed in Exhibit D (page 17).
Step 3 – The detail results of the review are contained in a separate spreadsheet supporting this report (Appendix E).
Step 4 – The Usability standards to provide consistent and intuitive navigation should include:
 Responsive Design - 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 any new website is launched, user testing should be conducted with a sample of
citizens that represent 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 thought-out 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.
Step 5 – In order to obtain input from the public, the UETF provided the option for public comment. 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. After approximately 6 weeks, there public
comments were received. See Exhibit E (Page 19).
User Experience Task Force
Page 17
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Exhibit D
UETF Section 4.0
User Experience
Evaluation of
Transparency
Review of public
sector transparency
sites and initiatives
External review
#
Information available on the site
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 site
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 18
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Exhibit E
User Experience Task Force
Page 19
2/24/14
Analysis
User Experience Task Force
In analyzing the 16 websites, there were several differences in the evaluations of the same site by different reviewers.
This should be expected as the user experience is unique to each person and is subjective. Given this consideration, the
review of best practices and industry standards, below are the recommendation obtained from the data.
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 site 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 site
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 site.
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, site ownership, 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 20
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 5.0 – Education and training
Directive
The next directive in the 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 needs to instruct the public
on how to use the Transparency websites (videos, instructions, etc…) and created a glossary of terms to be included in
the recommendation for the transparency website.
Approach
Step 1 – Due to the complexity of the Florida budget process the UETF looked at various training opportunities to guide
the public to the information being sought.
Step 2 – In order to provide the UETF with the most information available for the transparency website, staff compiled a
comprehensive listing of all terms from glossaries in all in-scope websites. Only two transparency-specific glossaries
exist within the eleven in-scope websites. 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 any terms not applicable to
the recommended transparency website. Staff discussed functionality that they determined useful for the new
transparency website glossary.
Recommendation
The UETF recommends a three-pronged approach to training:
•
•
•
Brief descriptions of the types of information available on each page;
PowerPoint presentation on the overall budget process in Florida; and
Video on the budget process in Florida
Information Descriptions – Each available link to information should provide a brief description of what the information
in the link is all about. For example, the link to “Long Range Program Plans” would also provide a description of what
Long Range Program Plans are. This type of information gives the user the ability to better understand the information
captured within each link.
PowerPoint presentation - Using a PowerPoint presentation (Appendix F) to describe the budget process in a clear and
easy to understand manner will teach the user about the budget process in Florida and will give them a better
understanding of where information is located on the site.
Video – Providing a video link to a presentation on the budget process in Florida will help those who learn more visually
and will offer an alternative to the PowerPoint presentation. The link can currently be found at
http://thefloridachannel.org/video/13014-pre-session-media-workshop/.
User Experience Task Force
Page 21
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
The UETF also recommends use of a consolidated glossary of terms (Appendix G) containing explanations consistent
with plain language principles. The UETF also recommends increasing the functionality of this glossary by making it
searchable. The glossary search “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. 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 22
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 6.0 – Operational Model
Directive
In the 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
website. The UETF considered appropriate managers for systems and established levels of support needed for ongoing
maintenance and support of the transparency website.
Approach
Step 1 – In order to determine the appropriate manager for the transparency system the UETF considered the feasibility
of current vs. new websites, management expertise, site appropriateness, as well as budget and time constraints.
Step 2 – In order to determine the levels of support needed, the User Experience Task Force researched and discussed
structural needs for governmental websites. The Task Force 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 www.floridasunshine.gov as the portal for the transparency site. System Design and
Development within the Executive Office of the Governor is the current site manager for that website. The UETF also
recommends all current site managers for the subsidiary sites 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).
Recommendation (6.2)
The UETF recommends support of the Transparency website (Landing Page) on a few levels. A diagram of these levels of
support is included on page 24.
User Experience Task Force
Page 23
2/24/14
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 Landing Page 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 24
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Level two – The Transparency Steering Committee, which should meet at regular intervals as appropriate and biannually
at a minimum, should provide oversight and approval of changes to Landing Page content or presentation; should
recommend controls and set/manage presentation standards and develop distributed helpdesk requirements.
Level three – Each website containing transparency information that is linked to the Landing Page 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.
With these levels of support, the recommended website will be able to succeed and remain relevant and effective.
User Experience Task Force
Page 25
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Section 7.0 – Final Design Recommendation with Cost Estimate
Directive
The final step in the UETF Work Plan includes the directives to create the final design recommendation including results
from work plan tasks, to provide that recommendation to appropriate website managers for review and impact analysis,
to define and develop a cost estimating methodology, and to provide the cost estimate.
Approach
The outcome of the previous tasks recommendations have resulted in the recommendation of a single “landing page”
which links to the websites with in-scope information. UETF staff created a mock-up of this landing page (Appendix H)
using the features and requirements outlined in the previous recommendation. The UETF also developed a list of highlevel design requirements for this landing page, intended to group the number of duplicative websites, link the
expenditure data with invoices and contracts, and provide an intuitive and cohesive user experience.
Cost Methodology
Approach 1
Managers of state-managed websites n 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 11
websites were contacted (Appendix I) and requested to consider the UETF design recommendations, provide
comments or/and assumptions, and provide a cost range to accomplish the recommended design. A summary
of the costs provided will be used to calculate the potential costs.
Approach 2
The 2013 U.S. 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 26
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Impact Analysis
In analyzing the impact information from the website managers, the UETF identified the following considerations:
 The UETF design identified high level requirements and expectations. Detail requirements should be further
developed based on the vision provided by the UETF to further 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 sites and did not include the development of new or duplicative sites.
 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 costing approaches were developed in an effort to quantify the
investment necessary to accomplish the recommendation. This resulted in the estimates below to develop and deliver
the UETF recommended design.
Cost Range
Approach 1 - Cost Estimate provided by In Scope Website Managers
- $185,845 - $250,145
Approach 2 - Cost Estimate – Start- up costs average
-
$217,317
Both cost estimates reflect a start-up cost and do not reflect ongoing, unknown costs relative to the potential
expansion of the websites.
User Experience Task Force
Page 27
2/24/14
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.
www.flasentate.gov/reference/publicrecords/contracts
www.flasenate.gov/reference/publicrecords/salaries
www.myfloridacfo.com/transparency
www.myflorida.com/audgen
www.transparencyflorida.gov
http://edr.state.fl.us
www.floridahasarighttoknow.com
http://floridafiscalportal.state.fl.us
www.myhouse.gov/sections/publicGuide/contractssearchform.aspx and
www.myhouse.gov/sections/publicGuide/salariessearchform.aspx
10. http://app2.freshfromflorida.com/contracts
High Level Requirement
Requirement
Category
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 site and be
provided the option to return/remain within the
site.
$13,804$15,204
1. no cost
2. no cost
3. $624
4.$800-$1200
5.$2,000-$3,000
6.$380
7. included below - Note 4
8. no cost
9.$10000
10. not provided – see note 7
3
Navigation
Identify similar or like information and group
that information in one area within the site.
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
No.
Page 28
2/24/14
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
site.
$23,001$40,001
1. no cost
2. no cost
3.$10001
4.$13000-$30000
5.no cost
6. no cost
7. included below - see note 4
8. no cost
9. no cost
11. 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 site.
$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 29
2/24/14
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. $25.00
2. $25.00
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 site.
$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 30
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
10. not provided – see note 7
14
Features
Contact information, site ownership, and last
update date should be provided as appropriate.
$6,350$7,050
1. $25.00
2. $25.00
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
Sites 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. $65.00
2. $65.00
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 31
2/24/14
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-$1200 per report. No additional
reports were identified at this time.
Note 4 – Agency (DMS) 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 $8000-$20000.
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 (DACS) did not provide cost information, citing F.S.215.985 (14)(i) exemption.
User Experience Task Force
Page 32
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Detail of Cost Approach 2
Costs were based on the 2013 U.S. PIRG “Following the Money 2013” report published in March 2013. The report
solicited cost information from several states on the costs to start up and maintain a transparency website. Sites
developed and maintained at a level of functionality similar in scope to the UETF recommended design were included in
the cost estimate. Specifically, sites that scored high on the US PIRG score were included in the cost estimates. Sites that
did not provide cost information were excluded due to lack of data. Sites that did not score above a “B” on the US PIRG
report were excluded from the cost estimate.
INCLUDED
State
PIRG score
Arizona
B
Illinois
AIowa
B
Kentucky
AMassachusetts
AMichigan
ANebraska
B+
Oklahoma
APennsylvania
B
Texas
A
Utah
B+
Virginia
Washington
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
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
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
$2,607,800 / 12 =$217,317
EXCLUDED
State
Arkansas
Colorado
PIRG score
CD+
Kansas
Louisiana
Nevada
Missouri
CC
D+
C
User Experience Task Force
Existing budget
“Minimal”
$30,000
Less than $5,000
Page 33
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Final Recommendation
The UETF recommends that all websites be linked to a central portal where all budget information can be accessed at
once. The UETF recommends creation of this one navigation portal with information leading to websites focusing on
the four identified budget divisions: revenue estimates, budget, spend, and audit. The purpose of the portal is to
provide a single starting point that guides and educates users to the information they seek. The page should point the
users where they need to go to find the data. The page should also educate the users about transparency using
consistent information such as a glossary of terms and disclaimers, and should provide contact information.
In addition to state managed websites providing information on financial matters, budget and planning, and personnel
data, there may be state operational and fiscal information available on existing state and non state managed websites
that may, at the discretion of the task force, be relevant to the mission of the UETF but does not necessarily fall within
the four major categories of responsibility (i.e. University-managed websites). The Task Force recommends providing
links to these websites as appropriate.
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 landing page. 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 site ownership 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 landing page.
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;
PowerPoint presentation on the overall budget process in Florida; and
Video on the budget process in Florida
The UETF also recommends use of a consolidated glossary of terms containing explanations consistent with plain
language principles. The UETF also recommends increasing the functionality of this glossary by making it searchable.
User Experience Task Force
Page 34
2/24/14
User Experience Task Force
Additionally, the use of acronyms should be avoided or explained dynamically within the website. This could be
accomplished by hovering over the acronym to receive the definition/explanation, or linking the acronym to its
counterpart in the glossary.
Operational Model
The UETF recommends www.floridasunshine.gov as the portal for the transparency site. System Design and
Development within the Executive Office of the Governor is the current site manager for that website. The UETF also
recommends all current site managers for the subsidiary sites 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 Landing Page 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 landing page. 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 support should be
provided at the agency level for each website containing transparency information that is linked to the landing page.
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. The ultimate goal of a central transparency website, a data
warehouse where users have the ability to access any data in real time, is more encompassing than the
recommendation of this Task Force. Given the resource constraints, the current climate, and the current structure of the
State’s transparency website data, the UETF recommendation includes the most achievable options at this time. 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 recommended by the Transparency Steering Committee.
User Experience Task Force
Page 35
2/24/14