Gov.uk isn’t finished | Hacker News Reader

Gov.uk isn’t finished

gds.blog.gov.uk

38 pointsrobin_reala49 comments

I've met some of the guys working for gov.uk and they know the challenge is huge. A government is probably the worst sort of institution to try and change at a fundamental level using technology. They're good people trying their best.

This said, I don't see the point of such a puff-piece unless it's a combination of 1) recent bad press from The Register and 2) national election being in full swing. There is a very high chance that voters will not return the same government to power, so I guess GDS are trying to preempt an inevitable wave of "spoil system", considering they were appointed directly from the cabinet.

> 1) recent bad press from The Register

The Register is scum. I'm amazed anyone pays them any attention. It's kind of weird that the Register isn't one of the auto-blocked domains on HN. Their stories are mangled half-truths and misunderstandings.

It's got a lot worse since Guy Kewney died, but even when he was alive they just weren't very good.

"The Register is scum."

How so? I find it quite useful in staying on top of IT news in the UK. Their reporting is harsh, but to date, from what I know of the industry, appears to be accurate.

If it's not some examples would help?

I'm not a fan of the gov.uk project (see my other comment on this thread) but the Register is a pretty awful site, and Andrew Orlowski in particular is a total crackpot. For example he writes crazy climate change denial articles. To be fair, it's the same kind of crackpottery that you can find in papers like The Telegraph most weeks. The Telegraph is trash too, but some people still take it seriously. I'd put The Register in the same bracket: it still can product ok coverage of some stories but there are a bunch of topics where their politics or petty personal feuds leads them to write terrible articles full of factual inaccuracies.

In my experience people who actually interact with government sites regularly dislike the gov.uk changes. People inside the tech bubble don't actually use many of the government sites, so their opinion is mostly based on the fact that the new sites look prettier and are built with a fashionable stack.

A lot of the people who use government sites are those who try to keep government to account: journalists, charities, campaigners and so on. For those types of people the news sites are worse because they contain less information and have made it a lot harder to find the information you want (which also often happens to be information that the government department doesn't want people to know…).

As an example: http://markavery.info/2014/10/21/awful-gov/

>I want to make a serious point here. This one single government website is less informative and less easy to use than its multiple predecessors. If you were the least bit suspicious of this government then you might think it had been done on purpose to obscure government actions and policies from the taxpayers who pay for it and the voters who might well choose another bunch of politicians in future.

>This government has done away with watchdogs and independent commissions who had the time and wit to question what government was doing on the environment and now it has obscured its own actions on its own website.

>This is highly reprehensible. I suggest you send FOI and EIR requests to Defra on any subjects that you wish to know about and say that you can’t find the information on the government website. I also suggest that you write to your MP on this matter – I certainly shall.

Also of note is the fact that the sites for non-departmental bodies like Natural England that are supposed to act at arms length from government have been taken over by the cabinet's gov.uk site. That's a rather large power grab by central government.

Sadly it seems like too much money (and ego) has been sunk into this project to reverse it, so I'm not sure things are going to improve much when we get a new government. I wonder if all the information that exists on the old sites has even been archived.

I must admit, I had a dim view of what would come out of GOV.UK 3-or-so years ago. But I have to admit that I've been pleasantly surprised; the task they've set for themselves is gigantic in proportion, and so far the product has been pretty impressive.

So this is good, and I hope they continue to improve digital infrastructure in the UK. I like to think the current projects are the most important step — general improvements to accessibility, discoverability and usability of government documentation. But I expect we'll see progressive implementation of government departments' tools on top of the gov.uk platform as it comes time to renew them — and so far, it feels like that's a much better option than what we saw in the past.

I think it's interesting to see how well they've done. I think that if the US were also to employ programmers directly we'd see better products than with the current system.

Have you seen 18F (https://18f.gsa.gov/)? That's exactly what they're trying to do.

Wow, that's the first I've seen it. Neat. I hope that this gradually becomes the dominant model.

They've chosen just about the worst imaginable name...

Does 18F mean anything special?

Might refer to 18-year old female, a common trope in dating sites and porn.

I found this in an article:

> The name 18F refers to GSA headquarters building, which is located on 18th and F streets in Washington.

I agree that 18F is a bad name. They should have just called it "Government Digital Service" like the UK version of the same.

People high up in the government agree with you! From the aftermath of healthcare.gov, two US government entities were created:

1. 18F - An pool of in-house developers working with agencies to build (or rebuild) services. https://18f.gsa.gov/

2. US Digital Service - A group of technologists quietly trying to rescue projects (like healthcare.gov, the VA) and change policy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/digital/united-states-digital-serv...

Plenty of roadblocks and difficult times ahead for both groups - but unlike before when failure was guaranteed, they've already had some wins and have a non-zero chance of success.

I really admire the commitment to openness and transparency displayed by the team on this project. Even though that may be common in the startup world or open source community, it's still somewhat rare in lots of other types of projects.

This blog post is worryingly vague about anything of concrete value for users. It suggests a large reengineering effort without any idea of what they really want to achieve. For example, one of the blog posts it links to, they introduce the new VAT manual

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-government-and-...

vs old

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/vatgpbmanual/index.htm

It's identical, except for a modified stylesheet. This may be 'unapologetically unifying and simplifying the experience of interacting with government', but this is not very much to show for all the time that has been spent on GDS.

> It's identical, except for a modified stylesheet.

They're taking legacy sites and modernising them. They aren't re-writing HMRC's VAT manual and never claimed they were.

You call it identical, but they've altered the underlying HTML layout and change the stylesheet to make it work better in modern browsers and made it easier to interact with using touch devices.

That was their entire spec. That is their job. They've done their job. And while the content is "identical" by design, they fixed the part that was broken: bad markup and poor styling.

PS - The old site looks absolutely terrible in Chrome 40. It "works" but I need to zoom to 200%, and with a touch device I keep hitting the wrong link because they're so close together.

"That was their entire spec. That is their job. They've done their job."

The 25 exemplars say otherwise. They're about process re-engineering, technology modernisation and legacy integration. And they're also nowhere near complete (only 9 are live[1]).

[1] https://www.gov.uk/transformation

I could have worded that quoted section better.

People have been complaining that some legacy documents and manuals weren't available on the new gov.uk site. So now they've started bringing them over, updating them to work in modern browsers and on touch devices, so in this context their only spec was to make that content available on the new site.

In the larger context, yes, they've been doing some actual redevelopment. But how do you re-develop a HMRC manual? Heck up until a few years ago it was only available as a PDF(!). Even the old site was a marked improvement, and this one just keeps that document pleasantly available for the future.

This would come under legacy integration I'd assume.

GDS claim to be 'leading the digital transformation of government'. If their spec is to perform routine modernisation of websites, then this hype is completely unwarranted.

I'm just going to roll my eyes at that.

Seems like you have an axe to grind for some reason and your complaints are so petty I'm done talking to you about the topic. You want to be unhappy, fine, be unhappy.

I like gov.uk. However I think they are overselling the value of centralising and modernising existing government websites, which are generally speaking quite good (albeit perhaps not on an ipad).

In this case, the format of the documentation provided by HMRC is legally important. gov.uk's remit isn't to get the law changed, it's to improve digital services wherever possible - and in this case, all they can really do is integrate it into the existing site.

And, of course, this is all integrated into gov.uk - using much of the backend infrastructure, and integrating into the gov.uk search system.

This is, as you say, the entity which has been put in charge of publishing data, continuing to take over data publishing roles from internal departments throughout Government.

A contrary opinion: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/18/the_inside_story_of_...

I'm afraid I have to agree. gov.uk has been a reversion to the mean. It's not nearly as good as direct.gov that preceded it. On the other hand it replaces many cruddy government websites that had impossible navigation.

So it replaces variance with consistent mediocrity: the McDonalds of websites.

To those downvoting, let me illustrate:

This was the old directgov site: https://i.imgur.com/s7lHXGD.png

This is the new gov.uk site: https://i.imgur.com/IgyTCLL.png

Which do you think does a better job of presenting the information?

Andrew Orlowski added 'professional contrarian' to his business card many moons ago. (You can say much the same for the Register in general)

It's a shame because what used to be a useful source is now just noise. Maybe he's right in this case, but who would ever know?

I was using the job search[1] on the gov.uk domain yesterday, and the UX is extremely poor!

If the job site was a for-profit, it would probably be put out of business by competitors! But, since the government can jail people for not handing over their resources, products aren't held accountable by the Market (big 'M').

I wouldn't even mind if it had an API[2], so I could make a more useful tool[3]. But instead I have to manually go through a ton of jobs each day so I can get unemployment handouts from daddy government (if there was no such thing as VAT, I probably wouldn't need these! Anyway).

Gov.uk looks a bit nice with its san serif typeface[4] and minimalist design; but it's varnish on a clunky turd.

---

[1] https://www.gov.uk/jobsearch

[2] I couldn't find one yesterday. I'm going to have another look.

[3] Currently learning Python and looking for a little side project.

[4] Looking at the CSS, the particular font is 'nta'—and is presumably custom.

The custom font is most likely New Transport or a modification of it. It's a variant of the typeface used on British road signs.

https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2014/03/05/new-transport-for-gov-uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_%28typeface%29#New_Tr...

They're using it for its aesthetic and for its keeping with the national infrastructure.

It's almost certainly a modification, if it is New Transport. After all, what makes a road sign readable is different from body copy. But that's an interesting comment!

Aside: I've probably been past the road sign on that Wikipedia page.

"what makes a road sign readable is different from body copy"

I thought the very same, seems a odd choice to me. Interesting that they're using it though. It would be wonderful for them to provide more information about it as the current pickings are very slim.

They've provided a bit more information on how they chose it here: https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2012/07/05/a-few-notes-on-typography...

This reads like a tea party post from about 2007.

Not really. Defensible facts.

To be fair to the gov.uk team, Universal Job Search appears not to be run by them. They have a form on gov.uk which submits to the job search application from direct.gov (the organisation that was bad enough to convince government to give gov.uk a go in the first place).

> They have a form on gov.uk which submits to the job search application from direct.gov (the organisation that was bad enough to convince government to give gov.uk a go in the first place).

That validates my concern about quality.

Would you prefer that gov.uk didn't give you any way to access Universal Jobmatch at all? It's a legacy system that people still need to access. I assume the Job Centre have contracts that they need to fulfil that would prevent gov.uk from replacing it.

The marginal benefit—above and beyond other options—of Universal Jobmatch is so low (and probably negative) that it doesn't matter either way. Being mandated to use a suboptimal tool results in a net loss. Taking that into consideration, my answer is 'yes! Please'.

You would be mandated to use it whether or not gov.uk linked to it. gov.uk isn't in control of that - the DWP is. Maybe, once the DWP's contract with Monster expires in a few years, gov.uk will be able to make a case that they should be running it.

So your question relates to whether it makes a difference to me if the job search app is available via gov.uk?

No it doesn't. From the outside it's all bullshit branding. As a user I want to be able to find jobs, refine searches, use categories, and other activities based around getting-the-job-done.

Edit: URLs for unique resources works fine. The gov.uk as a namespace doesn't help usability. I'm happy to be corrected with evidence.

> No it doesn't. From the outside it's all bullshit branding. As a user I want to be able to find jobs, refine searches, use categories, and other activities based around getting-the-job-done.

It's not gov.uk's fault that you have a shitty experience doing that. The Government Digital Service (most well-known as "gov.uk") have never been involved in the Universal Jobmatch site that was contracted out by the DWP to Monster without consulting the GDS. I have no idea why you're attacking gov.uk for it - I repeat, they had literally nothing to do with it.

> URLs for unique resources works fine. The gov.uk as a namespace doesn't help usability. I'm happy to be corrected with evidence.

gov.uk is a platform developed by the GDS, not simply a namespace. It covers everything on the "gov.uk" main website, and a selection of subdomains, but not all (anything that existed while DirectGov was still a thing is not maintained by the GDS, essentially).

The majority of gov.uk revolves around a CMS that can manage many types of content. It provides a consistent interface for the people who create the content - people from every single Government department - to publish it, and a consistent backend that allows the developers to build new services that utilise the existing infrastructure.

Before, we had a pile of independent websites built and maintained by each Government department with no integrated search or organisation, a lot of duplicated technical effort as everyone had to maintain their own CMS, and an extremely poor user experience.

> I have no idea why you're attacking gov.uk for it - I repeat, they had literally nothing to do with it.

I'm answering your questions as frankly as I can. The questions involve gov.uk, and so the answers involve gov.uk.

> gov.uk is a platform developed by the GDS, not simply a namespace.

From the outside it's difficult to make the distinction. I'm talking from the perspective of a user.

> Before, we had a pile of independent websites built and maintained by each Government department with no integrated search or organisation, a lot of duplicated technical effort as everyone had to maintain their own CMS, and an extremely poor user experience.

For the scope of gov.uk, I can appreciate how that's beneficial. The dynamic I've seen is there's a bad solution to something which isn't even a problem—as there are already better job sites around. If my premise is correct, then even if gov.uk solved the UX problem for Universal Jobmatch, it's still solving a problem which doesn't really need to be solved (a clone of a job website isn't very valuable). And that government fixes problems which it creates, and then pats itself on the back. What I've said goes outside of the specific points I've been making, but that's how I see the context.

I'm not even anti-government, necessarily. I'm still making my mind up. Maybe the need for inequality is more important than efficiency and maximum wealth? Some of the things governments do are egregious; but so are some of the things individuals do. Knowing the answer wouldn't be of much benefit, anyway: the government isn't going anywhere any time soon, regardless!

> The dynamic I've seen is there's a bad solution to something which isn't even a problem—as there are already better job sites around.

gov.uk did not build Universal Jobmatch. gov.uk did not build Universal Jobmatch. Universal Jobmatch is not part of gov.uk. Universal Jobmatch is not part of gov.uk. It is a separate site, operated by separate people, under an entirely separate Government department, which happens to be linked from the gov.uk website.

I'm not entirely sure what part of this isn't getting to you. The DWP is to blame for outsourcing Universal Jobmatch to Monster, gov.uk has absolutely nothing to do with it any more than, say, the passport office does. What you are saying is equivalent to blaming the passport office for Universal Jobmatch - it's crazy, they had nothing to do with it.

If you're angry that Universal Jobmatch exists at all, that's still the DWP's fault, not gov.uk's. gov.uk doesn't get to decide other departments' policies for them, it is in charge of developing digital services to fulfil those policies - and Universal Jobmatch is a legacy system, so gov.uk didn't even do that for the DWP.

> Maybe, once the DWP's contract with Monster expires in a few years, gov.uk will be able to make a case that they should be running it.

I'm talking about a hypothetical situation based on what you said previously.

If you read what I've said with that in mind, it should make sense! Why wouldn't I take account of what's already been talked about?

Universal Jobmatch is built and maintained by the for-profit private firm Monster, not the gov.uk team.

The Monster.co.uk main site is better. They still aren't held accountable to the market. Being for-profit per se is the wrong distinction! Free market may be more apt.

That explains why there's so many jobs from Monster on there.

I agree that it's terrible and that its use is mandatory only compounds its failures.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com