Difference between revisions of "The e-consultation"
(→Not ready for respondents) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Not ready for respondents== | ==Not ready for respondents== | ||
| − | We set up a site for the e-consultation on our own servers, at [http://waterways.econsultation.org http://waterways.econsultation.org], as the Waterways Ireland | + | We set up a site for the e-consultation on our own servers, at [http://waterways.econsultation.org http://waterways.econsultation.org], as the [http://www.waterwaysireland.org Waterways Ireland] [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/consultation.php E-Consultation Website] was not set up at that time to run [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/forum/index.php discussion forums]. They publicised the URL ([http://waterways.econsultation.org http://waterways.econsultation.org]) in the e-mails they sent out inviting organisations to respond to the consultation, but did not highlight the e-consultation on their own [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/consultation.php home page]. |
==Neglected how users browse online== | ==Neglected how users browse online== | ||
| − | The consultation document was put on-line, not as one long linear PDF to download and print, but in HTML, broken up into a number of pages, with the hope that readers might browse to particular issues that concern them, and then respond on those issues. It was, however, written in the same language as the paper consultation document. That ensured that everyone was responding to the same text. However, it took no account of the differences in the ways people read linear paper documents and browse on-line web pages. | + | The [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/online-doc.php consultation document] was put on-line, not as one long linear PDF to download and print, but in HTML, broken up into a number of pages, with the hope that readers might browse to particular issues that concern them, and then respond on those issues. It was, however, written in the same language as the [http://waterways.e-consultation.org/images/External%20Consultation%20Screening%20paper%20-%20October%202005.doc paper consultation document]. That ensured that everyone was responding to the same text. However, it took no account of the differences in the ways people read linear paper documents and browse on-line web pages. |
==Lack of online discussion== | ==Lack of online discussion== | ||
| − | Readers were invited to read the consultation document, then submit their views in an on-line forum. 12 people went as far as to register on the discussion forum (6 internal, 6 from outside Waterways Ireland), but no-one from outside went on to submit a comment to the discussion forum. But Waterways Ireland had half a dozen responses to their consultation, all of which were paper submissions. | + | Readers were invited to read the consultation document, then submit their views in an on-line forum. 12 people went as far as to register on the discussion forum (6 internal, 6 from outside [http://www.waterwaysireland.org Waterways Ireland]), but no-one from outside went on to submit a comment to the discussion forum. But [http://www.waterwaysireland.org Waterways Ireland] had half a dozen responses to their consultation, all of which were paper submissions. |
It seems that quite a few people viewed the discussion forum but hardly any were willing to write their views. The starting questions for each thread were hardly designed to generate emotional engagement. | It seems that quite a few people viewed the discussion forum but hardly any were willing to write their views. The starting questions for each thread were hardly designed to generate emotional engagement. | ||
Revision as of 00:25, 6 March 2007
Not ready for respondents
We set up a site for the e-consultation on our own servers, at http://waterways.econsultation.org, as the Waterways Ireland E-Consultation Website was not set up at that time to run discussion forums. They publicised the URL (http://waterways.econsultation.org) in the e-mails they sent out inviting organisations to respond to the consultation, but did not highlight the e-consultation on their own home page.
Neglected how users browse online
The consultation document was put on-line, not as one long linear PDF to download and print, but in HTML, broken up into a number of pages, with the hope that readers might browse to particular issues that concern them, and then respond on those issues. It was, however, written in the same language as the paper consultation document. That ensured that everyone was responding to the same text. However, it took no account of the differences in the ways people read linear paper documents and browse on-line web pages.
Lack of online discussion
Readers were invited to read the consultation document, then submit their views in an on-line forum. 12 people went as far as to register on the discussion forum (6 internal, 6 from outside Waterways Ireland), but no-one from outside went on to submit a comment to the discussion forum. But Waterways Ireland had half a dozen responses to their consultation, all of which were paper submissions.
It seems that quite a few people viewed the discussion forum but hardly any were willing to write their views. The starting questions for each thread were hardly designed to generate emotional engagement.
