Report on the

Assessment of Electronic

Government Information Products

Prepared under contract

by

Westat

Rockville, Maryland

for the

United States National Commission on

Libraries and Information Science

commissioned by the

United States Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents

March 30, 1999
V
REPORT ON THE

ASSESSMENT OF ELECTRONIC

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION PRODUCTS

Prepared under contract

(#RN 97007001)

by

Westat

Rockville, Maryland

for the

UNITED STATES NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

commissioned by the

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS

March 30, 1999
v
March 30, 1999

Mr. Michael F. DiMario

The Public Printer

The Government Printing Office

North Capitol and H Sts. NW

Washington, D.C. 20401

Dear Mr. DiMario,

It is with great pleasure that I forward herewith a copy of the Final Report prepared by Westat, Inc., the contractor selected by the Government to undertake Phase II of the three-part study called "Assessment

of Electronic Government Information Products." As you requested, the U.S. National Commission on

Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) planned and implemented this research survey, pursuant to an

interagency agreement between NCLIS and the Government Printing Office (GPO), approved by the Joint

Committee on Printing (JCP).

This report follows on the process begun with the congressional requirement, contained in the Senate

Report on H.R. 1854, the FY 1996 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (P.L. 104-53), to identify the measures necessary for a successful transition to a more electronic Federal Depository Library Program.

That requirement resulted in a study published by the Government Printing Office in June 1996. There was

a consensus, however, that additional work was required (1) to identify the electronic formats and mediums

used and/or planned by Federal publishing entities, and (2) to determine whether public or private sector standards do, or could, play a stronger role in reducing the unnecessary proliferation of these formats and

mediums. These questions precipitated this survey.

I am extremely pleased to note that the survey enjoyed the active support and participation of all three branches of Government. Twenty-four different Federal entities participated, including the Supreme

Court, several committees of the Congress, one regulatory commission and 19 Executive Branch agencies,

including most of the Cabinet Departments. In addition to this broad and diverse Federal involvement in the survey, an impressive 74 percent of the survey forms sent to the agencies were returned completed. I believe this level of interest and support is highly unusual, and could, perhaps, be construed as a reflection of agency desires to help establish a systematic baseline for measuring and monitoring the rapidly changing

and evolving kinds and mix of preferred mediums, formats, and standards.

Our representatives and your staff have been in close, harmonious contact from the earliest stages of

planning for the survey, right up until the final stages of review of the final report. I want to take this opportunity to thank especially both the former and present Superintendents of Documents, as well as the

staffs of the present and former directors of the Library Programs Service, and the Office of Electronic

Information Dissemination Service, for the superb support NCLIS and the contractor received throughout

the process.
I also want to recognize the key role played by Forest Woody Horton, Jr. As consultant to NCLIS,

Woody's broad knowledge of how Government works and his deep understanding of Information

Resources Management helped to move the study along most effectively.

Finally, I would like to recognize the support of Vice-Chair Martha B. Gould, Commissioners C.E.

("Abe") Abramson who chairs the NCLIS Access to Government Information Committee, Joan R.

Challinor, and Jose-Marie Griffiths, all of whom have been staunch advocates throughout. I believe you

are also aware of the strong interest and support NCLIS Executive Director Robert S. Willard personally

accorded this study, beginning very early with his tenure as a commissioner and extending to the present

day.

The long review and analysis process of the contractor's statistical tabulations, findings, and

observations has just begun. This demanding process will take some time, in part because the number of

interested communities is so large, and in part because the subject matter is so technical, involving the full range of information handling formats, mediums, and standards, and quite diverse agency plans and

practices. Ultimately, actions needed to be taken will most likely involve new or strengthened policies,

rules, and regulations, as well as the adoption of technical standards, some of which could have legislative

ramifications.

It is now the Commission's intention to begin Phase III. We will take the now completed Phase II Westat report, as well as the Phase I report completed in 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences, as points of departure. They will be reviewed and we will determine if additional fact gathering is required.

We can then move forward to draw conclusions and make recommendations to the Congress and the

President from the multitude of facts and expert opinions received thus far.

NCLIS will continue to consult with GPO, along with various knowledgeable individuals,

interagency and special advisory groups, all of whom have been assisting us throughout the Phase I and II efforts, as we prepare a plan for the Phase III initiative. My hope is that we will keep most of the broader

advisory team we have utilized thus far in place until we have completed Phase III.

Finally, I want to thank you for your personal leadership, without which we could have never moved

ahead with this complex, landmark task.

Sincerely yours,

Jeanne Hurley Simon

Chairperson
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Acknowledgments

^e stu<^y was performed by Westat under contract with the U.S. National

Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS). The

Government Printing Office commissioned this study as part of the

transition to a more electronic FDLP. Westat's Task Leader was Denise

Glover, and the project staff included Sarah Bennett-Harper, Debbie

Alexander, and Ethel Sanniez. Libby Farris served as Westat's Project

Director. Forest Woody Horton, Jr., a consultant to NCLIS, served as the Project Director. Francis J. Buckley, Jr., the Superintendent of Documents,

Gil Baldwin, and T.C. Evans served as the key Government Printing Office

(GPO) liaison officials throughout all phases of study design,

implementation, and evaluation. Wayne P. Kelley, former Superintendent

of Documents, and James D. Young, former Director of GPO's Library

Programs Service, were instrumental in recognizing the need for this study

and in shaping its direction. Robert S. Willard, NCLIS Executive Director,

and Judy Russell, NCLIS Deputy Director, provided strong overall guidance and supervision.

Westat also wishes to thank the Depository Library Council, NCLIS

Chairperson Jeanne Hurley Simon, and Vice-Chair Martha B. Gould, and

the NCLIS Committee on Access to Public Information, chaired by

Commissioner C. E. ("Abe") Abramson, for their interest and support. In

addition, Westat expresses its deep appreciation to the 24 participating

Federal agencies, especially the Chief Information Officers, the agency

coordinators, the product respondents, and key officials in the agency

library, printing and publishing, information technology, public affairs, and

other functional offices. Finally, Westat expresses appreciation to the

various experts interviewed and the depository libraries visited, all of which

are listed in appropriate appendices.

i
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

V

1!
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table of Contents

Section Page

Acknowledgments i Executive Summary xi

1 . Introduction and Background 1

The Federal Depository Library Program 1

How the Federal Depository Library Program Works 2

Background of the Study 2

Project Phases 3 Study Goals and Objectives (Phase II) 4

Scope and Organization of the Report 5

2 Methodology 7

Product Selection 7 Coordinator Briefings 8 Questionnaire Design 9

Distribution of the Questionnaires 9

Followup for Nonresponse, Data Retrieval, and Inconsistency 10

Methodology for Qualitative Data Collection 11

Site Visits to Depository Libraries 1

Purpose and Procedures for Agency Meetings 12 Expert Interviews 14

3 Survey Analysis and Findings 17

Structure of the Questionnaire 17

Section A Responses 18

Section B Responses 19

Types of Data Contained in Product 19

Types of Mediums Used 20

Format Types Used 23

User Interfaces 28

Searchability of Product 30

Product Host 31

Retrievability of Product 32

iii
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Section C Responses (Planned Product Profile) 33

Types of Data 33

Types of Mediums 34

Types of Formats 36

Section D Responses (Other Information) 37

Metadata \ 37

Permanent Public Access 38

Permanent Retention 39

Ensuring Authenticity 40

Updating/Refreshing P lans 41

Changing Supporting Technology 42

User Fees 43

Licensing 43

Public Domain 44

Section E Responses 45

Study Questions 46

Preferred Medium and Format Standards 46

Public Access to Products 50

Other Issues: Authenticity and Metadata 53

4 Qualitative Findings 55

Site Visits to Federal Depository Libraries 55

Highlights of Site Visits to Three Depository Libraries 55

User Needs and Concerns 55

Librarians' Concerns: User Fees, Hardware, Training, and Costs 56

Agency Meetings 56

Agency Meeting Highlights 57

Preferred Mediums and Formats 57

Assessing User Needs 58

Information Life Cycle Management, Permanent Public Access,

and Permanent Retention 58

Cost-Effectiveness of Various Mediums and Formats 58

iv
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Section Page

4 (continued)

Expert Interviews 58

Interviews With Webmasters 59

Preferred Formats 59

User Needs 59

Interviews With Preservation Specialists 59

Goals of Preservation 59

Barriers to Preservation of Digital Materials 60

Current Preservation Models and Initiatives 60

CLIR Initiatives 60

Interviews With Information Resources Management Specialists 61

Barriers to Successful Implementation of Information Resources

Management Initiatives 61

5 Discussion of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings 63

Preferred Mediums and Format Standards 63

Evaluating Websites 65

Cost-Effectiveness of Formats and Mediums 65

Depository Library Needs 66

Public Access 67

Permanent Public Access to and Permanent Retention of Electronic

Government Information 67

Perspectives on Permanent Public Access and Information Life Cycle

Management from Information Resources Management Experts 68

Current Initiatives on Permanent Public Access and Permanent Retention 69

Next Steps 71

Bibliography 73

V
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

List of Appendixes

Appendix

A Agency Study Coordinator Meetings Agenda A

B List of Agency Coordinators and Other Key Officials B-l

C List of Participating Agencies and Products Surveyed C

D Coordinator and Respondent Cover Letters D-l

E Questionnaire and Glossary of Terms E-l

F Site Visits to Three Federal Depository Libraries and Interview Questions F-l

G Electronic Government Information Products Assessment

Agency Meetings Held and Discussion Questions G-l

H Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products List of Expert

Interviews and Interview Questions H-l

I Sample Agency Meeting Agenda Electronic Government Information

Products Assessment 1-1

J Task 16—Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products —Statement of Work J-l

vi
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

List of Tables

Table Page

I Number of surveys returned by each agency surveyed 18

2a Number and percent of types of data, by the type of data contained 20

2b Number and percent of types of data, by the primary type of data 20

3 a Number and percent of mediums publicly available, by the type of medium used

and primary medium used 22

3b Number and percent of mediums publicly available, by the standard for each

medium used 23

4a Frequency and percent of formats used, by the type of format used and primary

type of format used 25

4b Number and percent of formats used, by the standard for each format used 26

5 Number and percent of products reported as being in an online medium 28

6a Number and percent of online approaches used, by type of online tool used 29

6b Number and percent of online approaches used, by the standard for each online

tool used 30

7 Number and percent of responses regarding searchability of the product 31

8 Number and percent of responses regarding where the product is hosted 31

9 Number and percent of responses concerning the retrievability status of the

product 32

1 0 Number and percent of respondents reporting plans to discontinue publication of

the product 33

I I Number and percent of responses regarding the planned changes to the type of

data contained in the product 34

1 2 Number and percent of responses regarding the timeframe for planned changes to the type of data contained in the product 34

1 3 Number and percent of responses regarding the planned changes to the mediums

used for the future 35

1 4 Number and percent of responses regarding the timeframe for planned changes to product medium used 35

1 5 Number and percent of responses regarding the planned changes to the formats

the product will contain 36

1 6 Number and percent of responses regarding the timeframe for planned changes to the product format used 36

1 7 Number and percent of respondents reporting a metadata record for the product 37

1 8 Number and percent of responses regarding the entity providing permanent access

to the product 39

vii
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

List of Tables (continued)

Table Page

1 9 Number and percent of responses regarding products for which access will be

provided in the future 39

20 Number and percent of responses regarding permanent retention of the product 40

2 1 Number and percent of respondents who reported the agency ensures authenticity

for the product 41

22 Number and percent of responses regarding how frequently the product is updated

or refreshed 42

23 Number and percent of responses regarding the plans for supporting technology of

the product 42

24 Number and percent of respondents reporting that user fees are charged for the

product 43

25 Number and percent of respondents reporting about the use of licensed commercial

search and retrieval software for the product 44

26 Number and percent of responses regarding coverage by the agency software

license 44

27 Number and percent of respondents reporting the public domain status of the

product 45

28 Number and percent crosstabulations of products in both paper and CD-ROM

formats 47

29 Number and percent crosstabulations of products in both CD-ROM and web

formats 47

30 Number and percent crosstabulations of products in both paper and web formats 48

3 1 Number and percent crosstabulations of products in both HTML and PDF formats .... 48

32 Number and percent crosstabulations of products in both HTML and GIF formats 49

33 Number and percent of products that use HTML with GIF and ASCII formats 49

34 Number and percent of products that use HTML with PDF and ASCII formats 49

35 Number and percent crosstabulations of products that are permanently public

accessible and scheduled for retention with the National Archives and Records

Administration (NARA) 50

36 Number and percent crosstabulations for products with licensed commercial

search and retrieval software and user fees charged for the product 5

viii
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

List of Tables (continued)

Table Page

37 Number and percent crosstabulations of those products with licensed commercial

search and retrieval software and the product is scheduled for permanent retention

by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 52

38 Number and percent crosstabulations of those products for which agencies ensure

authenticity and permanent public access 53

39 Number and percent crosstabulations of those products for which agencies ensure

authenticity and another agency provides permanent public access 53

40 Number and percent crosstabulations of products that are hosted by the agency

and have a metadata record 54

4 1 Number and percent crosstabulations of products that are hosted by another

agency and have a metadata record 54

ix
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

X
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Executive

Summary

The Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) has served

and continues to serve the American public by ensuring

localized access to Federal Government information. The

mission continues to be as important today to the fundamental

success of our democracy as it was when the FDLP was created.

The FDLP 's original mandate, to assist Americans regardless

of economic, education, or geographic considerations, is one

that must not be lost as we strategically and thoughtfully use the

tools of the electronic age to enhance that mandate.

Letter to Michael F. DiMario, the Public Printer, from Senators

John Warner and Wendell Ford of the Senate Committee on

Rules and Administration, May 24, 1996.

Background Congress established the antecedents to the Federal Depository Library

Program (FDLP) in the Act of 1 8 1 3 to ensure that the American public has

access to its Government's information. The mission of the FDLP, part of

the Superintendent of Documents (SuDocs) in the Government Printing

Office (GPO), is to assure current and permanent public access to the

universe of information published by the U.S. Government. Depository

libraries safeguard the public's right to know by collecting, organizing,

maintaining, preserving, and assisting users with information from the

Federal Government. GPO provides that information at no cost to designated depository libraries throughout the country. These depository

libraries, in turn, provide local, no-fee access to Government information in

all formats in an impartial environment with professional assistance. Any

member of the public can visit these depository libraries and use the Federal

depository collections.

In order to administer the FDLP, as required by the enabling legislation for the program, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 19, the SuDocs is responsible for the

acquisition, classification, format conversion, dissemination, and

bibliographic control of tangible and electronic Government information

products; the inspection of depository libraries; and the continuing

education and training initiatives that strengthen the ability of depository

library personnel to serve the public. An emerging new responsibility is to ensure that electronic Government information products disseminated

through the FDLP, or incorporated in the FDLP Electronic Collection,

remain permanently accessible to the public. Under 44 U.S.C, Sections

1901-1903, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A- 130,

Management of Federal Information Resources, Federal agencies should

make all their publications in all formats available to SuDocs for distribution to depository libraries.

xi
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

This study to assess electronic medium and format standards for the

creation and dissemination of electronic information products is an essential step toward ensuring a successful and cost-effective transition to a more

electronic FDLP. The three goals of this assessment were to:

• Identify medium and format standards that are the most appropriate for permanent public access;

• Assess the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various alternative

medium and format standards; and

• Identify public and private medium and format standards that are, or could be used for products throughout their entire information life cycle, not just at the dissemination or permanent public access stage.

The Superintendent of Documents will use the results of this work effort to continue to plan and implement the transition to a more electronic FDLP.

The five major specific objectives are:

• First, with respect to electronic publishing practices and plans for Federal agencies (including ways in which the FDLP can best

accommodate them), the objective is to provide an analysis of current

practices as well as future plans for creating, disseminating, and

providing permanent public accessibility to electronic information

products, and to identify the standards for software and electronic

mediums and formats that are used throughout the product's

information life cycle, from creation to archiving but especially at the

stage of dissemination for permanent public access.

• Second, with respect to cost-effectiveness of various dissemination

mediums and formats that are, or could be utilized, the objective is to gather information on standards (whether mandated or consensual) that

will assist the FDLP in making near-term decisions regarding the cost- effectiveness of alternative mediums and formats for all FDLP

participants. This information should also assist participants in longterm planning for permanent public accessibility, and the collection and

analysis of overall information life cycle costs.

• Third, with respect to the practical utility of various electronic

mediums and formats to depository libraries and the public, the

objective is to identify preferred standards used in various mediums

and formats that depository libraries will need to support.

• Fourth, with respect to utilizing standards employed in mediums and

formats that can be used throughout all stages of the information life cycle (including creation, composition, computer terminal display,

encryption, secure digital signature with non-repudiation, and secure transmission capabilities), for electronic dissemination, but especially

permanent public accessibility, the objective is to assess standards for basic security services in order to provide for secure and reliable transmission and document interchange.

xii
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• Fifth, with respect to standards that are being developed and used in the private sector, the objective is to identify existing and planned

standards for the purpose of determining what the FDLP must do to accommodate their adoption in terms of hardware/software

requirements, staff and user education and training, and budgetary

impacts.

The study utilized both quantitative and qualitative data collection

activities: a survey of a cross-section of 314 Government information

products from 24 agencies and interviews with experts. The response rate for the survey was 74 percent. This cross-section ofproducts was not a randomly selected sample due to cost and time constraints. Instead. NCLIS and GPO—assisted by various groups, including the library

associations represented by the Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information Policy (IAWG), the Federal Library and

Information Center Committee (FLICC), the Depository Library Council

(DLC), and the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services

(ICPPS)—developed and refined the criteria for product selection. NCLIS,

GPO, and the other organizations asked knowledgeable members of these

groups to identify products that met one or more of six criteria.

NCLIS distributed the list of preliminary products to agency Chief

Information Officers (CIOs) who were asked to validate and coordinate the

final selections with their appropriate agency personnel. In addition.

NCLIS asked CIOs to select an agency coordinator. The coordinator's role was to oversee the distribution of product questionnaires to the appropriate

respondents and to encourage respondents to complete the questionnaire and

return it to Westat.

Product selection was based on six criteria:

• Increased emphasis on electronic dissemination, rather than

continuation of paper and microform dissemination;

• Replacement of older electronic mediums and formats with state-of-theart technologies;

• Adoption of mandated (Government or private sector) and consensual

(common agency practice) medium and format standards;

• Adoption and use of preferred mediums or formats that have

widespread support from agency, depository library, and user communities;

• Exemplified cost-effective mediums and standards, especially those that can be used throughout the entire information life cycle, rather than the use of expensive customized or shelf packages; and

xiii
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• Exemplified awareness of the important impact of medium and format

decisions on permanent accessibility, authentication, and/or security

encryption protection.

The survey requested information on four main topics:

• General information about the product and agency that produced it.

• The product's current profile including the kinds of data the product

contains, mediums in which it is produced, formats and online

approaches used (if applicable); and searchability and retrievability of

the product.

• Future plans for the product including changes in its data, mediums,

and formats.

• Other issues including metadata, permanent public access, permanent

retention, authenticity, updating/upgrading plans, user fees, licensing,

and public domain.

The qualitative data collection included site visits to three depository

libraries, meetings with representatives of five Government agencies, and

telephone interviews with six experts. The qualitative data collection

included site visits, agency meetings, and expert interviews. Westat

conducted site visits to three Federal depository libraries:

• McKeldin Library, University of Maryland College Park, College Park,

Maryland

• Washington College of Law Library, American University,

Washington, D.C.

• Montgomery County Rockville Regional Public Library, Rockville,

Maryland

The purpose of the visits was to discuss the effects of the transition to a more electronic Federal Depository Library Program on the end user and on

the services and resources of each library.

Meetings with agency representatives had a twofold purpose:

• To collect qualitative data about electronic Government information

products, such as cost-effectiveness of standards, use of locator tools, results of user surveys, etc., that were not covered in the survey; and

• To discuss the procedures for distribution of the questionnaire.

In addition to inviting agency coordinators and respondents, the statement of work specified that Westat invite representatives of the following offices

to attend the meetings:

xiv
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• Public affairs or communications offices,

• Agency printing and publishing units,

• Information technology or electronic information systems offices,

• Agency libraries, and

• Relevant program offices.

The following six agencies agreed to schedule a meeting: Department of

Health and Human Services, Department of Education, U.S. Supreme

Court, Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, and

the National Archives and Records Administration. Only four of the six agencies chose to discuss the qualitative questions at the meeting. The other

two agencies discussed the questionnaire only and agreed to respond to the discussion questions in writing, although only one actually submitted their written questions.

Finally, Westat held four telephone interviews with six content experts.

The experts included two webmasters (Linda Wallace from the Internal Revenue Service, and Jerry Malitz from the National Center for Education

Statistics); two preservation specialists (Evelyn Frangakis from the

National Agricultural Library, and Abby Smith from the Council on

Library and Information Resources); and two professors in information resources management (John Bertot and Charles McClure). The purpose of

expert interviews was to:

• Solicit opinions of experts on topics not adequately covered on the

survey or in the agency meetings,

• Ask questions to provide a broader context in which to view the issues,

and

• Explore current initiatives and future directions.

Key Findings These findings reflect the major results of the survey and qualitative data

collection:

Policy and Planning Issues

1. There is an overall lack of Government information policy guiding

electronic publishing, dissemination, permanent public access, or information life cycle management, especially as information policy

relates to agency missions. Also, there is a lack of overall coordination

of these initiatives at the Governmental, branch, or even agency level

(pp. 68-69).

2. Responsibility for electronic publishing within agencies is decentralized,

diffuse, and unclear. Some agencies either could not

XV
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

identify or had difficulty identifying the proper respondent within their own agency, or even the person who was responsible for the product

(pp. 11 and 14).

3. Some Government agencies are monitoring the information needs of

their users to enhance current access to electronic Government

information products (p. 65).

4. There is a lack of specific planning for product development and

technological migration (pp. 34-36; table 23 on p. 42).

5. There is a lack of planning for or consideration of web design

approaches that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) (table 6a, p. 29).

Permanent Public Access

6. The concept of permanent public access (PPA) is not well understood.

Respondents also had difficulty distinguishing between PPA for electronic products and archiving electronic Federal records with the

National Archives and Records Administration (tables 18-20, pp. 39-

40).

7. Metadata and their importance to public access are not well understood,

particularly as they may affect PPA. Only 27 percent of respondents

reported having a metadata record for the products surveyed (table 19,

p. 39).

8. For some products, PPA results from the agencies' use of a host

disseminator, such as GPO Access (p. 1 1).

Authenticity

9. There is a lack of understanding of what ensuring authenticity entails,

and a lack of planning for or consideration of ensuring authenticity of

electronic Government information products (table 21, p. 41).

Product Characteristics

10. Fifteen percent of the products surveyed are not in the public domain,

for all or part of the product (table 27, p. 45). In addition, user fees are charged for 30 percent of the products (table 24, p. 43).

1 1 . The most prevalent types of mediums are the web, paper, CD-ROM,

and bulletin board systems (table 3a, p. 22); the most prevalent formats

are HTML, PDF, GIF, JPEG, TIFF, and ASCII (table 4a, p. 25).

12. The most prevalent types of data contained in the products surveyed are

textual, numerical, bibliographic, and graphical (tables 2a and 2b, p. 20).

xvi
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Standards

13. There is a lack of standardization for producing Government

information products on CD-ROM (e.g., installation instructions, user documentation) (p. 55).

14. The most prevalent medium and format standards identified in the

survey are common agency practice rather than agency-mandated

(tables 3b, 4b, 6b, pp. 23, 26, and 30).

15. Some Government agencies have established guidelines or best practices for presenting and organizing Government information

products on the web, although full compliance with the guidelines is a

goal that has not yet been achieved (p. 64).

16. Some Government agencies are exploring a range of innovative formats

and web design approaches for electronic Government information

products (p. 57).

As a followup effort, NCLIS indicated that they will use these findings as a

point of departure and analyze them in greater depth. It is expected that this followup effort will result in broad conclusions and recommendations to the President and Congress about how the problems and challenges revealed in this study can be constructively addressed to improve current and future

public access to electronic Government information.

xvii
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

xviii
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Since 1813, the American public has benefited from the ability to gain free access to Federal Government information. This unique American right to no-fee access to Government information is made possible through the

Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) of the Superintendent of

Documents (SuDocs) in the Government Printing Office (GPO). The

FDLP has significantly contributed to creating an informed, educated, and

culturally enriched U.S. citizenry.

This introduction provides a brief overview of the FDLP and background

information on the purpose and objectives of this study to assess electronic

Government information products.

The mission of the Federal Depository Library Program is to assure current and permanent public access to the universe of information published by the

U.S. Government. The FDLP was established by Congress to ensure that the American public has access to its Government's information.

Depository libraries safeguard the public's right to know by collecting,

organizing, maintaining, preserving, and assisting users with information

from the Federal Government. The Government Printing Office provides

Government information at no cost to designated depository libraries throughout the country. These depository libraries, at their own expense, provide local, no-fee access to Government information in all formats in an

impartial environment with professional assistance. Any member of the public can visit these depository libraries and use the Federal depository

collections.

Products distributed by GPO for depository library collections include all electronic Government information products that are of public interest or educational value. By law, the FDLP excludes those products that are

solely for administrative or operational purposes, classified for reasons of

national security, or the use of which is constrained by privacy

considerations (GPO, 1998, p. 4).

In order to administer the FDLP, as required by the enabling legislation for the program, 44 U.S.C. Chapters 17, 19, and 41, the SuDocs is responsible

for the acquisition, classification, format conversion, dissemination, and

bibliographic control of tangible and electronic Government information

products; the inspection of depository libraries, and the continuing

education and training initiatives that strengthen the ability of depository

library personnel to serve the public. An emerging new responsibility is to ensure that electronic Government information products disseminated

through the FDLP, or incorporated in the FDLP Electronic Collection,

remain permanently accessible to the public. Under 44 U.S.C, Sections

1901-1903, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A- 130,

Management of Federal Information Resources, Federal agencies should

make all their publications in all produced formats available to SuDocs for distribution to depository libraries.

1 Introduction

and

Background

The Federal

Depository

Library Program

1
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

How the Federal

Depository Library

Program Works

GPO provides Government information at no cost to designated depository

libraries throughout the country. These depository libraries, at their own

expense, provide local, no-fee access with professional assistance to this information in all formats. Access to Federal Government information is available through more than 1,350 depository libraries located throughout

United States and its territories. Fifty-three of the depositories are regionals,

and the remaining are selective depositories. The regional libraries receive

and maintain everything that is distributed through the program, unless they

are superseded. The selective libraries pre-select the types of publications

they wish to receive based on the specific needs and interests of the

communities they serve. Of the libraries in the FDLP, approximately 50

percent are academic, 20 percent are public, 1 1 percent are law, 5 percent

are community college, 4 percent are Federal agency, and 10 percent are

special, state, court, and Federal court libraries.

Before the evolution of electronic publishing media, especially the Internet, Federal Government agencies published information almost exclusively in a

centralized print environment that facilitated easy distribution to the Federal

depository libraries. Now, Federal Government agencies are doing their own electronic publishing and creating and managing their own websites to disseminate a variety of Government information products. This study

resulted from Congress's concerns about the short- and long-term effects of

electronic publishing on the ability of all U.S. citizens to continue to gain

affordable and easy access to Government information.

Background

of the Study

This study to assess electronic Government information products was

authorized by the Joint Committee on Printing and was sponsored by the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. The

initial need for this project was identified in GPO's cooperative 1996 Study

to Identify Measures Necessary for a Successful Transition to a More

Electronic Federal Depository Library Program. This study (see

www.access. gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/fdlppubs. html#4) was conducted at the

direction of Congress. In order to conduct the study, the Public Printer

established a working group consisting of representatives from the

following program stakeholders and constituents:

GPO,

Appropriate congressional committees,

Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress,

Office of Management and Budget,

National Archives and Records Administration,

Federal Publishers Committee,

2
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services (ICPPS),

• Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and

• Depository library community.

One of the committee's major recommendations was to assess electronic

medium1 and format standards for the creation and dissemination of

electronic information products. The committee considered this assessment an essential step toward ensuring a successful and cost-effective transition to a more electronic FDLP.

Project Phases This project is being undertaken in three phases. The first phase of the project consisted of a review by the National Academy of Science's

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) in which CSTB

developed a detailed statement of work that defined the data collection

process required to conduct the assessment (see

http://www.nclis.gov/info/gpol.html).

This report is a product of Phase II of the project. GPO commissioned the

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) to undertake a survey and assessment of electronic Government information

products. NCLIS awarded the contract to Westat, a survey research

company, to undertake research and data collection from Federal agencies

in all three Branches, as well as solicit the opinions of selected knowledgeable experts. The contract further called for Westat to complete an analysis of the data and expert opinions for the purpose of interpreting

their general meaning and significance, including identifying broad

emerging trends and patterns, and documenting findings.

In Phase III, NCLIS will identify an appropriate organization to review

Phase I and Phase II findings, as well as to review the data and develop

conclusions and recommendations for GPO, the Congress, and the

President.

1 The word medium is used throughout this report. It refers to the physical, chemical, or biological substrate used to create, organize, store, search for, retrieve, disseminate, or permanently archive data, documents or literature, including paper, microforms, fiber optic cables, photographic film, CD-ROMs,

floppy diskettes, magnetic storage devices, sound recordings, and videotape. The term media is not used

in this report as the plural of "medium." Media is the means used to publish, communicate, disseminate, and distribute information, regardless of format, such as radio, television, magazines, office or home

PCs, scholarly journals, and videotape.

3
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Study Goals and Information gathered from this assessment will be used by the

Objectives (Phase II) Superintendent of Documents to facilitate improved public access to Federal Government information made available to Federal depository

libraries and the general public through the FDLP. More specifically, for

this cross-section of Government information products, the Phase II goals were to:

• Identify medium (see glossary in Appendix E for the difference between

the medium and media) and format standards that are the most

appropriate for permanent public access,

• Assess the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various alternative

medium and format standards, and

• Identify public and private medium and format standards that are, or could be used for products throughout their entire information life cycle, not just at the dissemination or permanent public access stage.

The Superintendent of Documents will use the results of this work effort to continue to plan and implement the transition to a more electronic FDLP.

The five major specific objectives are:

• First, with respect to electronic publishing practices and plans of

Federal agencies (including ways in which the FDLP can best

accommodate them), the objective is to provide an analysis of current

practices as well as future plans for creating, disseminating, and

providing permanent public accessibility to electronic information

products, and to identify the standards for software and electronic

mediums and formats that are used throughout the product's

information life cycle, from creation to archiving, but especially at the stage of dissemination for permanent public access.

• Second, with respect to cost-effectiveness of various dissemination

mediums and formats that are, or could be utilized, the objective is to gather information on standards (whether mandated or consensual) that

will assist the FDLP in making near-term decisions regarding the cost-effectiveness of alternative mediums and formats for all FDLP

participants. This information should also assist participants in long-term planning for permanent public accessibility, and the

collection and analysis of overall information life cycle costs.

• Third, with respect to the practical utility of various electronic

mediums and formats to depository libraries and the public, the objective is to identify preferred standards used in various mediums

and formats that depository libraries will need to support.

• Fourth, with respect to utilizing standards employed in mediums and

formats that can be used throughout all stages of the information life cycle (including creation, composition, computer terminal display,

encryption, secure digital signature with non-repudiation and secure transmission capabilities), but especially for permanent public

4
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

accessibility, the objective is to assess standards for basic security

services in order to provide for secure and reliable transmission and

document interchange.

• Fifth, with respect to standards that are being developed and used in the private sector, the objective is to identify existing and planned

standards for the purpose of determining what the FDLP must do to accommodate their adoption in terms of hardware/software

requirements, staff and user education and training, and budgetary

impacts.

Scope and

Organization

of the Report

The primary data collection activities included a survey and interviews.

Westat, per the requirements established by NCLIS in consultation with

GPO, surveyed a cross-section of electronic information products from

Federal agencies in all three branches of Government and solicited the opinions of selected knowledgeable experts. This cross-section ofproducts was not a randomly selected sample due to cost and time constraints.

Therefore, readers are cautioned about generalizing the findings to all electronic Government information products.

Westat surveyed electronic Government information products to determine

the mediums and formats in which products are currently produced and the

standards, if any, that are being used. The survey also asked respondents

questions about the agency's future plans for adding or changing products,

including the mediums and formats in which they will be disseminated for permanent public access.

This report is limited to presenting and discussing the survey findings and

findings from qualitative site visits, agency meetings, and expert interviews.

Phase III of the project will focus on drawing conclusions and

recommendations based on work conducted during Phases I and II.

The report is organized in five parts: introduction and background,

methodology, survey analysis and findings, qualitative findings, and

discussion of quantitative and qualitative findings. Please note that Appendix E contains a glossary of terms and acronyms used on the

questionnaire and throughout this report.

5
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

6
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products 2

Methodology secon<^ Part °f tne report discusses the following topics:

• The process of selecting a cross-section of electronic Government

information products,

• Agency coordinator briefings,

• Questionnaire design and development,

• Nonresponse and data retrieval followup, and

• The methodology for the qualitative data collection activities, i.e., site

visits, agency meetings, and expert interviews.

Product Selection NCLIS and GPO—assisted by various groups, including the library

associations represented by the Inter-Association Working Group on Government Information Policy (IAWG), the Federal Library and

Information Center Committee (FLICC), the Depository Library Council

(DLC), and the Interagency Council on Printing and Publication Services

(ICPPS)—developed and refined a set of criteria for product selection. NCLIS, GPO, and the other representatives asked knowledgeable members

of these groups to identify products that met one or more of the following

six guidelines:

Increased emphasis on electronic dissemination rather than continuation

of paper and microform dissemination;

Replacement of older electronic mediums and formats with state-of-theart technologies;

Adoption of mandated (Government or private sector) and consensual

(common agency practice) medium and format standards;

Adoption and use of preferred mediums or formats that have

widespread support from agency, depository library, and user communities;

Exemplified cost-effective mediums and standards, especially those that can be used throughout the entire information life cycle, rather than the use of expensive customized or shelf packages; and

Exemplified awareness of the important impact of medium and format

decisions on permanent accessibility, authentication, and/or security

encryption protection.

The products were not randomly selected; therefore, readers are cautioned

about generalizing the findings to all electronic Government information

products.

In April 1998, NCLIS distributed the preliminary list of products to agency

Chief Information Officers (CIOs), who were asked to validate and

coordinate the final selections with appropriate agency personnel. In

7
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

addition, NCLIS asked CIOs to select an agency coordinator. The

coordinator's role was to oversee the distribution of product questionnaires

to the appropriate respondents and to encourage respondents to complete

the questionnaire and return it to Westat. (See Appendix B for a list of

coordinators who participated in this study.)

The final product list included 328 products from 24 agencies (Appendix

C). Over the course of the data collection, the number of products

decreased from 328vto 3 14 for the following reasons:

• Several products were discontinued and no longer exist.

• Several products were in paper only and agencies had no plans to migrate them to an electronic medium; therefore, they fell outside the

scope of this study.

• Agency coordinators could not identify respondents for some products, so there was no one to complete the questionnaire.

• Several questionnaires were undeliverable due to unknown or incorrect

respondent addresses; no alternate respondent could be located in a few

cases.

Coordinator

Briefings

NCLIS and GPO planned and conducted two coordinator briefings in June

and July 1998, and asked Westat to attend them (see Appendix A for agenda). The purpose of these briefings was to:

Provide an overview of the study including background, purpose, goals,

and schedule,

Discuss their specific tasks,

Review the draft questionnaire with coordinators and solicit their input on changes,

Collect their final list of products, and

Thank them for their participation and cooperation.

Coordinators were asked to:

Assist Westat in pretesting the survey instrument,

Identify and brief appropriate internal participating offices,

Identify product respondents for survey followup,

Schedule and participate in voluntary agency meetings with Westat,

Distribute questionnaires to agency respondents,

Ensure timely completion and submission of survey instruments, and

Cooperate with Westat on followup.

8
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Only a few coordinators brought their final selections to the agency

meetings; most agencies needed much more time to review and finalize their product selections. The questionnaire review also served as an informal

pretest of the questionnaire.

Questionnaire NCLIS, with consultation from GPO, developed the initial five-page list of

questions. This list of questions was included as an appendix to the Design statement of work. Westat worked with GPO and NCLIS from June

through July to expand and refine the list of questions to a 13 -page

instrument with appropriate instructions, examples, skip patterns, openended questions, please-specify questions, etc. Westat pretested the

questionnaire informally at the two coordinator briefings. The coordinators

helped Westat to clarify some questions, expand the format choices, and

add a few more questions.

Westat conducted a more formal pretest with personnel from six

Government agencies. These pretests led to the following substantive

changes in the questionnaire:

• Clarification of instructions and wording of several questions,

• Addition of more format options,

• Addition of the definition of "product" at the beginning of the

questionnaire, and

• Clarification of definitions included in the glossary.

Westat, with final approval by NCLIS and GPO, finalized the questionnaire

by mid-August 1998. (See Appendix D for the cover letters and Appendix

E for the final questionnaire.)

Distribution of the

Questionnaires

During the last week of September and the first week of October, Westat

distributed the questionnaires to 23 agencies through the agency

coordinators. On October 9, 1998, NCLIS requested that Westat add more

products to the survey by including a 24th agency, the Securities and

Exchange Commission (SEC).

Westat created a database of products and corresponding coordinators or respondents and their addresses, phone and fax numbers, and e-mail

addresses, and prepared and mailed packets to the agency coordinators. The

agency coordinators were responsible for ensuring that each packet was

sent to the appropriate product respondent in a timely fashion. These

packets included the following materials for each product that was to be

surveyed:

Cover letter to coordinator,

9
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• Cover letter to respondent,

• Questionnaire,

• Glossary of terms used in the questionnaire, and

• Postage-paid return envelope.

A few agency coordinators requested that Westat send questionnaires

directly to their product respondents and a copy of the respondents' packets

to the coordinators themselves. Westat sent questionnaire materials directly to the respondents at the Department of Commerce, the Department of the

Interior, the Executive Office of the President, and the U.S. Congress.

These respondent packets included the following materials:

• Cover letter to respondent,

• Questionnaire for each product he/she was assigned to survey,

• Glossary of terms used in the questionnaire, and

• Postage-paid return envelope.

In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services asked Westat to send an e-mail message to the individual product respondents notifying them

that they could download the final version of the questionnaire and cover

letters from the PDF file located on the NCLIS website at http://www.nclis.gov/news/nclisqux.pdf in order to complete the

questionnaire.

Followup for

Nonresponse, Data

Retrieval, and

Inconsistency

Westat made the first calls for nonresponse to agency coordinators. These

calls began in early November and continued through mid-December. In addition, NCLIS sent periodic coordinator bulletins to keep coordinators

updated on the progress of the study and to encourage respondents

through the coordinators—to complete questionnaires and return them to Westat.

Westat began a second round of nonresponse followup calls to respondents

from mid-December through the end of January 1999. From midNovember through the first week in January 1999, Westat made calls directly to respondents for data retrieval (i.e., missing data) and

inconsistencies (i.e., a respondent checked "yes" to one question, but the next question was answered in a way that suggested a "no" answer to the

first question).

Approximately 40 percent of the questionnaires required some type of data

retrieval followup for one or more questions. Some questions, such as 16,

18-19, and 21a, concerning metadata, permanent retention,

10
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

authenticity, and the product's supporting technology, presented particular

problems. Westat added a "don't know" category to these questions as a

result of the nonresponse data retrieval. In addition, most respondents

skipped questions 13d, 14d, and 15d about long-term plans for changing the product. Data retrieval phone calls and discussions with agency

coordinators suggest respondents skipped these questions because agencies

had not yet developed long-term plans.

The calls to respondents for data retrieval and data inconsistency revealed

the following reasons for nonresponse:

• Did not know the answer.

• Could not identify anyone who knew the answer.

• Did not understand the question or the concept; using glossary did not

help.

• Did not have time to research the answer; had other work priorities.

In a few instances, it was clear that the agency was not in a good position to respond to the questionnaire, in part because they rely on another agency,

vendor, or contractor to provide electronic access to their products.

Sometimes these "host disseminators," such as GPO, assisted in preparing

the responses sent in by the publishing entity.

Observations about the data collection process. Agency coordinators

had difficulty locating a single point of contact from each agency sub-unit

who was knowledgeable about the range and type of electronic information

products created for the agency. Furthermore, due to the nature of the survey questions, product respondents had to coordinate responses to some

questions with personnel who often did not work in their program areas. This process required respondents to identify personnel with whom they

appeared to have little prior contact, such as records managers, information

technology staff, and staff in planning offices, in order to respond to these

questions. In some cases, this extra step discouraged respondents from

seeking answers to these questions, so questions were left unanswered.

Also, agencies whose coordinators could not attend the coordinator

briefings and agencies that did not participate in the agency meetings had more problems with data consistency than did other agencies.

The qualitative data collection included site visits, agency meetings, and

expert interviews. Westat conducted site visits to Federal depository

libraries from July 30 through September 9, 1998. The statement of work

(Appendix J) specified that Westat visit three libraries: one regional

academic, one law, and one public. Furthermore, GPO suggested that Westat visit the following specific libraries in the Washington, D.C.,

metropolitan area:

Methodology for

Qualitative Data

Collection

Site Visits to Depository Libraries

11
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• McKeldin Library, University of Maryland College Park, College Park,

Maryland

• Washington College of Law Library, American University,

Washington, D.C.

• Montgomery County Rockville Regional Public Library, Rockville,

Maryland

The purpose of visits was to discuss the effects of the transition to a more

electronic Federal Depository Library Program on the end user and on the

services and resources of each library. The interview questions, which were

based on readings and discussions with GPO and NCLIS, covered three broad areas:

• What key issues or concerns do you have about users accessing and

using electronic Government information products?

• What are your concerns about providing access to electronic

Government information products?

• What specific ideas do you have for improving public access to online

and electronic Government information products in your library?

The site visits were audiotaped. In addition, the libraries gave Westat

representatives a tour of the facilities. (See Appendix F for a list of the

specific interview questions, the names of all interviewees, and detailed site visit notes.)

Site visit observations. In addition to the small number of libraries visited,

the problems and concerns of librarians in the D.C. metropolitan area may

not be representative of those experienced by librarians at most depository

libraries, especially the selective depositories. Some smaller selective depository libraries that are located in more remote areas as well as some of

the larger urban selective depositories might have fewer resources (e.g.,

fewer computers and trained librarians, training funds, and options for lowcost Internet providers).

Purpose and

Procedures for

Agency Meetings

Meetings with agency representatives were held between September 1 5 and

September 24, 1998. The purpose of the meetings was twofold:

• To collect qualitative data about electronic Government information

products that were not covered in the survey, such as cost-effectiveness

of standards, use of locator tools, results of user surveys, etc.; and

• To discuss the questionnaire and data collection procedures for distribution of the questionnaire.

12
Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products

In addition to inviting agency coordinators and respondents, the statement of work specified that Westat invite representatives of the following offices to attend the meetings:

• Public affairs or communications offices,

• Agency printing and publishing units,

• Information technology or electronic information systems offices,

• Agency libraries; and

• Relevant program offices.

Westat wrote the procedures for scheduling agency meetings and arranging

for logistics, which included developing meeting protocols, agenda, cover

letter, and script for interviewers to schedule meetings. We then contacted

coordinators and sent them the following materials:

• Cover letter explaining purpose of meeting and their tasks,

• Meeting agenda and discussion questions,

• Press release from NCLIS with background information on the project,

• Roster of potential agency representatives who will attend meeting (to

be completed by the coordinator), and

• Respondent product roster (to be completed by coordinator).

Agency meetings held. Westat contacted 15 of the 24 agencies to hold

meetings. Of the 7 agencies that were not contacted, 3 had fewer than 10

products. NCLIS instructed Westat not to hold meetings with the U.S.

Congress and the Executive Office of the President because NCLIS and

GPO worked with them directly.

Ten of the 16 agencies did not respond to Westat' s request to schedule a meeting. The following six agencies agreed to schedule a meeting:

• Department of Health and Human Services

• Department of Education

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Department of Commerce

• Environmental Protection Agency

• National Archives and Records Administration

Only four of the above six agencies chose to discuss the qualitative

questions at the meeting. The other two agencies wanted to discuss the

13
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

questionnaire only and agreed to respond to the discussion questions in writing. However, only one of them sent in responses.

Westat audiotaped all agency meetings and took notes as agency personnel

discussed the questions. (Appendix G includes the list of agencies that participated in meetings, the number of attendees, the discussion questions,

and summary notes from the meetings.)

In addition to vthe meetings held with Westat, NCLIS and/or GPO

representatives met with approximately 50 agency representatives. In these

meetings, NCLIS and GPO discussed survey goals and objectives and the

process for preselecting products, in addition to responding to specific

questions about the survey.

Agency meeting observations. Agency participation in the entire project was voluntary but essential. As with any voluntary activity, participation is based on availability and timing. For example, many agency coordinators were unavailable to schedule meetings during the summer months, or they were available but product respondents were on vacation, which may have

resulted in fewer agency meetings.

Product respondents needed to attend the agency meetings to review the

questionnaire, although they were not always the most appropriate

personnel to respond to all of the qualitative questions. The project

depended upon the good faith, interest, and cooperation of agency CIOs and

coordinators to participate in the meetings. Respondents and participants

from the private sector are often given an honorarium for participating in similar research activities, but Federal employees are exempt from this process.

Scheduling agency meetings, calling coordinators, and preparing paperwork

to send to coordinators took a considerable amount of planning and

coordination and time, but it did not result in many meetings. Agencies were cooperative, but it was difficult for them to identify the "right"

personnel to invite to the meetings, even though coordinators took a

significant amount of time to locate product respondents from other subunits within their agencies. Therefore, answers to the agency meeting

discussion questions reflected the perspectives of only 5 of the 24 agencies

surveyed.

NCLIS provided a list of experts from which Westat chose six names. Westat held four telephone interviews with the six experts between October

27 and November 24, 1998. The experts included two webmasters, two

preservation specialists, and two professors in information resources management. The purpose of expert interviews was to:

Expert Interviews

14
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• Solicit opinions of experts on topics not adequately covered on the survey or in the agency meetings,

• Ask questions raised during the agency meetings or site visits that require further explanation, or to provide a broader context in which to view the issues, and

• Explore current initiatives and future directions.

As with the site visits and agency meetings, Westat audiotaped the

interviews. Appendix H provides a list of experts, interview questions, and

a summary of interview notes.

15
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

16
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products 3

Survey

Analysis

and Findings

This section of the report presents the survey findings from each of the major survey questions as they appear in the questionnaire (Appendix E).

Appendix E also includes a glossary of terms and acronyms used

throughout this report. The discussion and presentation will then focus on

the key study questions explored on the following topics:

Preferred medium and formats used,

Planned medium and format changes,

Permanent public access issues,

Permanent retention issues,

Authenticity, and

Searchability, proprietary software, and licensing fees.

The final response rate was 74 percent. Respondents from 24 Government

agencies completed and returned a total of 242 of the 328 questionnaires

fielded. The word "respondents" refers to the 242 agency personnel who

completed the questionnaire. Since each agency submitted at least two

product questionnaires, the unit of analysis is the product or product

respondent, not the agency (table 1 ). The sample was not randomly selected due to cost and time constraints. Therefore, readers are cautioned about

generalizing the findings to all electronic Government information products.

Structure of the ^he questionnaire is organized into five sections, A through E. Section A

Onpctfnnnairp contains general information about the product and agency that produced it. Section B contains questions about the product's current profile including

the kinds of data the product contains, mediums in which it is produced,

and, if in an online medium, formats and online approaches used. This

section concludes with questions on searchability and retrievability of the product. Section C relates to the future plans for the product and is designed to solicit information about changes in the product's data,

mediums, and formats. Section D addresses the issues of metadata,

permanent public access, permanent retention, authenticity,

updating/upgrading plans, user fees, licensing, and public domain. The

final section, E, includes one open-ended general comments question.

17
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Section A Responses

Sections A and B of the questionnaire focus on format and medium

standards that address the key objectives of the study. Section A contains

general information about the product and the agency that produced it, including the name of the agency and its sub-unit, the product name and

description, and the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) for the site in which

the product appears. A list of the agencies surveyed and the number of

product questionnaires received from each agency appears in table 1 . (For

a description of how products were selected, refer to the methodology

section.) Appendix C contains the final list of products surveyed.

Table 1.

Number of

Agency

surveys returned

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 5 Department of Agriculture 19 Department of Commerce 14 Department of Defense 8 Department of Education 14 Department of Energy 12 Department of Health and Human Services 19 Department of the Interior 1

Department of Justice 8 Department of Labor 2 Department of State 3 Department of Transportation 9 Department of the Treasury 13 Environmental Protection Agency 16 Executive Office of the President 5 General Services Administration 8 Library of Congress 2

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 6 National Archives and Records Administration 10

Securities and Exchange Commission 1

Smithsonian Institution 11 Social Security Administration 4 Supreme Court of the United States 4 United States Congress 9

SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire: 1 998

18
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Section B Responses Section B covers the current product profile, including:

• How it is used;

• What types of data it contains;

• What mediums the product is available in, what is the primary medium

used, and what are the agency's medium standards;

• What kinds of formats are used, what is the primary format used, and

what are the agency's format standards;

• What user interfaces are supported and what web design approaches

are used;

• If the electronic product can be searched and how;

• What agency hosts the product on the web; and

• How the product can be retrieved.

Readers should note that most of the survey questions asked respondents to "check all that apply"; therefore, the percentages for these questions will exceed 100 percent. Also, for the first set of tables in this section (tables 1 through 6), the response categories appear in descending order by number

or percentage. Therefore, the responses will not match the order in which

they appear on the questionnaire.

Types of Data Contained in Product

Table 2a shows that the frequently mentioned types of data contained in the

products surveyed are textual (188 responses), followed by graphical (142

responses), numerical (141 responses), bibliographic (82 responses), and

spatial (53 responses). Multimedia, video, and sound are less common,

probably because they reflect the products surveyed and because of the

special plug-ins, hardware, and memory required to open, view, and listen to products that contain these data types. The primary data types contained

in products surveyed are textual (57 percent), numerical

(21 percent), bibliographic (10 percent), and graphical (5 percent; table 2b). These four types of data account for approximately 93 percent of

the products surveyed.

19
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 2a.

Number and percent of types of data, by the type of data contained

Type of data Type of data contained Number Percent

Textual data (books, serials, reports) 188 77.7 Graphical data (photos, charts, graphs, tables, drawings) 142 58.7 Numerical data 141 58.3 Bibliographic data „ 82 33.9

Spatial data (maps, coordinate files) 53 21.9 Multimedia (sound, video, text, graphics) 14 5.8 Video 10 4.1 Sound 9 3.7 Other 16 6.6 NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 because respondents could choose more than one item. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Table 2b.

Number and percent of types of data, by the primary type of data

Type of data Primary type of data Number Percent

Textual data (books, serials, reports) 138 57.0 Numerical data 50 20.7

Bibliographic data 24 9.9 Graphical data (photos, charts, graphs, tables, drawings) 13 5.4 Multimedia (sound, video, text, graphics) 3 1.2 Spatial data (maps, coordinate files) 2 0.8 Sound 1 0.4 Video 1 0.4 Other 10 4_1_ NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Types of Mediums Used

Respondents were asked to identify all the types of mediums in which the product is available to the public as well as the primary type of medium

used. The most common type of medium used among pre-electronic

mediums is paper (177 responses), followed by microform (22; table 3a).

The responses in the "other" category include Fax on Demand, audiotapes,

and Braille. Among electronic mediums used, it is not surprising that the web is the most common (204 responses), followed by

20
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

CD-ROM (70 responses), floppy diskettes (42 responses), hard drive

(30 responses), and magnetic tape (18 responses). These figures reflect the medium types the public is most likely to easily access, as well as the

availability and growing interest in the web.

Table 3a also displays the frequency and percentage distribution of the

primary types of mediums in which the product is publicly accessible. The

web (42 percent) and paper (4 1 percent) are the primary types of mediums

used, followed by CD-ROM (8 percent) as a distant third.

Standards for all mediums checked. For each type of medium checked,

respondents identified one medium standard (see Appendix E glossary)

among four types:

• Agency mandated,

• Common agency practice,

• Other, and

• None.

While most agencies have some type of standards for their pre-electronic

and electronic mediums, they are primarily "common agency practice"

rather than "agency mandated." For pre-electronic mediums, 33 percent of

the products in paper are in an agency-mandated standard (table 3b).

However, 52 percent of paper products are used as a common agency

practice. Only 13 percent of the CD-ROM products are in an agencymandated standard, as compared to 59 percent of CD-ROMs that are used

as a common agency practice. Eighteen percent of web-based products were reported to be in an agency-mandated standard, while 70 percent of

them are used as a common agency practice.

A considerable number of products in CD-ROM (21 percent) were reported

as having no standards (table 3b). Compare these numbers to 9 percent (15 products) of products reported by respondents as having no

standards for the use of paper, and 8 percent (16 products) reported as having no standards for the use of the web.

21
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 3a.

Number and percent of mediums publicly available, by the type of medium used and primary medium

used

ivicuium Type of medium used

1 Primary medium used

2

Number Percent Number Percent

Online mediums

Web 204 84.3 102 42.1

Bulletin Board Systems .V 13 5.4 1 0.4 Gopher 10 4.1 0 0.0 Other 24 9.9 3 1.2

Pre-electronic mediums

Paper 177 73.1 99 40.9 Microform 22 9.1 0 0.0 Other 12 5.0 2 0.8

Optical mediums

CD-ROM 70 28.9 20 8.3 WORM (write once, read many disk) 1 0.4 1 0.4 DVD (digital video disk) 1 0.4 0 0.0 Other 1 0.4 1 0.4

Electronic mediums

Floppy diskette 42 17.4 1 0.4 Hard drive 30 12.4 4 1.7 Magnetic tape 18 7.4 1 0.4 Other 10 4.1 1 0.4 'Column percents do not add to 100 because respondents could choose more than one item.

2 Percents do not add to 100 due to nonresponse. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

22
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 3b.

Number and percent of mediums publicly available, by the standard for each medium used

Medium

Standard for each medium used

Agency mandated Common agency

practice Other None

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Online mediums

Web 36 17.6 143 70.1 9 4.4 16 7.8

Bulletin Board Systems 1 7.7 10 76.9 0 0.0 1 7.7 Gopher 0 0.0 8 80.0 0 0.0 2 20.0 Other 4 16.7 14 58.3 0 0.0 6 25.0

Pre-electronic mediums

Paper 58 33.0 92 52.3 9 5.1 15 8.5 Microform 6 26.1 14 60.9 3 13.0 0 0.0 Other 2 16.7 6 50.0 2 16.7 2 16.7

Optical mediums

CD-ROM 9 12.9 41 58.6 4 5.7 15 21.4 WORM (write once, read many disk) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 DVD (digital video disk) 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 Other 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Electronic mediums

Magnetic tape 3 16.7 12 66.7 1 5.6 2 111

Floppy diskette 3 7.1 29 69.0 5 11.9 5 11.9 Hard drive 2 6.7 24 80.0 0 0.0 4 13.3 Other 1 100 5 50.0 4 40.0 0 0.0 NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Format Types Used

Databases. Responses to all formats used are shown in table 4a. Wide

Area Information Server (WAIS) is the most common type of database

identified (22 responses), followed by Oracle (17 responses), and dBase

(9 responses). In some cases, WAIS is reported because the products

surveyed are made available through GPO Access. The 44 responses in the

"other" category reveal few multiple responses except for Microsoft Access

that received 5 "write-in" responses in this category.

WAIS (24 percent) and Oracle (14 percent) are the primary types of

databases used (table 4a). Ninety-one percent of the respondents who

checked WAIS as one of the databases used also indicated that the use of

WAIS is a common agency practice, while only one respondent indicated

that WAIS is agency mandated (table 4b). However, only 44 percent of the

respondents identified the use of Oracle as a common agency practice,

23
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

but 39 percent of respondents indicated their use of Oracle is agency

mandated.

Spreadsheets. For spreadsheet formats used, Excel and Lotus 1-2-3 received 33 and 23 responses, respectively (table 4a). When respondents were asked to choose one of the databases as the primary type used,

59 percent chose Excel, while only 33 percent chose Lotus 1-2-3. Close to 7 1 percent of the respondents also identified the use of Excel as a common

agency practice as compared to 3 8 percent who indicated the use of Lotus

1-2-3 as a common agency practice (table 4b).

Tagged mark-up. Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) is both the most

commonly used tagged markup language (157 responses) and the primary

type of tagged markup language used (89 percent; table 4a). The

Government agencies surveyed seldom use Extensive Markup Language

(XML) (2 responses), and Standard Generalized Markup Language

(SGML) (14 responses). This is noteworthy since SGML is one of the few

formats that NARA accepts for electronic records.

Even given the fact that HTML is the primary type of tagged markup

format used, 72 percent of the respondents reported that HTML is used as a common agency practice, while only 13 percent reported that its use is mandated by the agency (table 4b). Sixty percent of the respondents who

use SGML for their online products reported it as a common agency

practice, while only 13 percent reported that its use is mandated by the

agency.

Image formats. Portable Document Format (PDF) is the most common

image format (132 responses) and the primary type of format used

(49 percent) by the agencies surveyed in this study (table 4a). The use of

PDF is followed by GIF (99 responses), JPEG (77 responses), then TIFF

(36 responses) as image formats used. Perhaps PDF is the most commonly

used format by the agencies surveyed because the Federal Government

disseminates a wide range and large number of forms and documents that must be printed in the exact format in which they are created.

Almost 64 percent of respondents reported that PDF is a common agency

practice, while 16 percent reported it is mandated by the agency

(table 4b). While a higher percentage of respondents reported using GIF

(69 percent) and JPEG (7 1 percent) as a common agency practice, PDF is the most used agency-mandated image format (16 percent).

Audio formats. The number of responses reported in this category reflects the small numbers of products surveyed that contain sound (see table 2a).

WAV (12 responses) is the most commonly used sound format followed by

AU (5 responses), and AIFF with 1 response (table 4a). WAV is also the

primary type of audio format used (73 percent).

24
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 4a.

Frequency and percent of formats used,

by the type of format used and primary

type of format used

Format Type of format used' Primary type of

format used

2

Number Percent Number Percent

WAIS ZZ Q 1 y. 1 zz

Oracle 17 7.0 13 14.4 dBase 9 3.7 8 8.9 4 1.7 1 1.1 MARC 2 0.8 3 3.3 Other 44 18.2 40 AAA

Spreadsheet

Excel 33 13.6 30 coo 58.6

1 ntus 1-2-3 23 9.5 17 55.5 Other 3 1.2 2 3.9

"TqcjctpH l aggtu marknn ill a I r\U UTU1 157 64.9 152 88.9 SGML 14 5.8 8 4.7 XML 2 0.8 0 0.0 Other 12 5.0 10 5.8

Image PDF 132 54.5 84 48.8 GIF 99 41.1 43 25.0 JPEG 77 31.8 16 9.3 TIFF 36 14.9 4 2.3 Other 19 7.9 13 7.6

Table 4a.

Frequency and percent of formats used,

by the type of format used and primary

type of format used (continued )

Format Type of format used

1 Primary type of

format used

2

Number Percent Number Percent

Audio WAV 12 5.0 1

1

73.3 A I 1 5 2.1 0 0.0 Alrr 1 0.4 0 0.0 4 1.7 3 20.0

Video MPEG 9 3.7 4 26.7 MOV 7 2.9 5 33.3 AVI 4 1.7 4 26.7

1 0.4 1 6.7

TextASCII 122 50.4 106 80.9 ANSI 11 4.5 0 0.0 RTF 9 3.7 5 3.8 Other 17 7.0 17 13.0

Word processing

Word Perfect 75 31.0 62 63.9 Microsoft Word 55 22.7 21 21.6 Other 23 9.5 10 10.3

Other 5 2.1 3 60.0 'Column percents do not add to 100 because respondents could choose more than one item.

2 Percents do not add to 100 due to nonresponse. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information

Science, Government Information Product Assessment

Questionnaire, 1998.

Sixty-two percent or eight of the agency respondents who indicated using

WAV reported it as a common agency practice; only two respondents

(15 percent) reported that WAV is an agency-mandated standard

(table 4b). Perhaps it is not surprising that WAV is the most commonly

used audio format; since it was built into Windows95, it has become the de

facto standard for sound on PCs. AIFF is the standard audio format for Macintosh computers (PC Webopaedia; see www.pcwebopaedia.com).

25
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 4b.

Number and percent of formats used, by the standard for each format used

Format

Standard for each format used

Agency mandated Common agency

practice Other None

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Database

Oracle v 7 38.9 8 44.4 1 5.6 1 5.6 WAIS 1 4.3 21 91.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 MARC 1 33.3 1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 Sybase 0 0.0 4 80.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 dBase 0 0.0 8 80.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other 2 4.4 21 46.7 12 26.7 9 20.0

Spreadsheet

Lotus 1-2-3 6 25.0 9 37.5 3 12.5 5 20.8

Excel 4 11.8 24 70.6 0 0.0 4 11.8 Other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 50.0

Tagged markup

HTML 21 13.3 114 72.2 6 3.8 15 9.5 SGML 2 13.3 9 60.0 2 13.3 1 6.7 XML 0 0.0 1 33.3 0 0.0 1 33.3 Other 0 0.0 7 53.8 1 7.7 4 30.8

Image PDF 21 15.9 84 63.6 15 11.4 11 8.3 GIF 11 11.0 69 69.0 11 11.0 8 8.0 JPEG 7 9.1 55 71.4 10 13.0 4 5.2 TIFF 2 5.4 22 59.5 10 27.0 2 5.4 Other 3 13.6 6 27.3 10 45.5 2 9.1

Video formats. As with the audio formats used, the even smaller number

of responses reported in this category also reflect the small numbers of

products surveyed that contain moving images. Table 4a shows that Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) (9 responses) is the most

commonly used format, followed by MOV (7 responses) and Audio Video

Interleave (AVI) (4 responses). MPEG may be more commonly used since

it generally produces better quality video than AVI (PC Webopaedia). Of

all the video formats used, however, the primary type of video format used

is MOV (33 percent), followed by MPEG and AVI

(27 percent each).

26
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 4b.

Number and percent of formats used, by the standard for each format used (continued)

Format

Standard for each format used

Agency mandated Common agency

practice Other None

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Audio WAV 2 15.4 8 61.5 0 0.0 2 AU 4 66.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 AIFF 1 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0

Other . 0 0.0 1 20.0 2 40.0 1

Video MOV 0 0.0 5 62.5 0 0.0 2 MPEG 1 ... 10.0 5 50.0 1 10.0 2 AVI 1 20.0 3 60.0 0 0.0 0 Other 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 50.0 0

TextASCII 14 11.4 87 70.7 6 4.9 14 RTF 4 40.0 4 40.0 1 10.0 0 ANSI 1 8.3 10 83.3 0 0.0 0 Other 3 16.7 11 61.1 2 11.1 1

Word processing WordPerfect 19 25.3 45 60.0 1 1.3 8 Microsoft Word 8 14.3 33 58.9 12 21.4 2

Other 1 4.2 6 25.0 12 50.0 3

Other 2 40.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 0 NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 due to nonresponse. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

15.4

16.7

0.0 20.0

25.0

20.0

0.0

0.0

11.4

0.0

0.0

5.6

10.7

3.6

12.5

0.0

Of the respondents who reported using MPEG, 50 percent indicated its use

is a common agency practice, while only 1 respondent ( 1 0 percent) reported

that its use is agency mandated. Sixty-three percent of the respondents

reported that MOV is used as a common agency practice, and none

indicated that its use is agency mandated (table 4b).

Text formats. ASCII is by far the most commonly used text format

(122 responses) and the primary type of text format used (81 percent; table

4a). The second most commonly used text format is ANSI (11 responses)

followed by Rich Text Format (RTF) (9 responses). Seventy-one percent

(87) of the respondents reported that their use of ASCII is a common

agency practice, as compared to 11 percent (14) who reported its use is agency mandated (table 4b).

27
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Word processing formats. Between the two most popular wordprocessing software packages, Microsoft Word and WordPerfect, the latter (75 responses) is more commonly used than Microsoft Word

(55 responses; table 4a). These responses are also consistent with the primary type of word processing used. Sixty-four percent of respondents

reported WordPerfect as the primary type of format used while only 22

percent of respondents reported Microsoft Word as the primary type of

format used. PageMaker received the largest number of responses (5) in the

"other" category, v Nineteen respondents (25 percent) reported that WordPerfect is an agency-mandated format standard, while only 8

respondents (14 percent) indicated that Microsoft Word is an agencymandated format standard (table 4b).

Summary of format types used. Each of the 242 respondents from the 24

agencies surveyed was asked to identify the primary type of format used of

each of the categories. The primary types of formats used in each category

are WAIS, Excel, HTML, PDF, ASCII, and to a lesser degree, WAV and

MOV.

User Interfaces

Online approaches. Question 9 on the survey refers to online approaches

used. Eighty-five percent of the respondents reported that their product is in an online medium (table 5). These respondents were then asked to respond

to a set of questions on user interfaces supported and web design

approaches.

Table 5. Number and percent of products reported as being in an online medium

Product characteristic Number Percent

Is this product in an online medium?

Yes 206 85.1 No 33 13.6 NOTE: N = 242; 3 cases were not ascertained. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

User interface supported. Table 6a shows that Netscape Navigator

(195 responses) is a more commonly supported browser than Internet Explorer (170 responses). However, close to 70 percent of agency

respondents indicated that both of these browsers are almost equally

supported as a common agency practice rather than an agency-mandated

standard (table 6b).

28
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 6a.

Number and percent of online approaches

used, by type of online tool used

Type of online Online approach tool used Number Percent

User interfaces supported

Netscape 195 93.3

Internet Explorer 170 81.7 FTP 40 19.1

Telnet 27 12.9

Nongraphical/dial-up shell 15 7.2 Other 22 10.5

Web design approaches

Basic HTML only 150 71.8 Tables Ill 53.1 CGI Scripts 66 31.6 Frames 53 25.4 Use of Javascript 43 20 .6 Use of Java Applets 23 11.0 XML 11 5.3 Other 25 12.0

Bulletin board systems (BBS)

Graphical interface/browser 7 3_4 NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 because respondents could choose more than one item. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information

Science, Government Information Product Assessment

Questionnaire, 1998.

In addition, respondents reported that file transfer protocol

(FTP), Telnet, and nongraphical/dial-up shells are also

supported by their agencies (table 6a). Designs that support LYNX, a text-based browser, account for 1 2 of the 22 responses in the "other" category. The number of

responses for the category nongraphical/dial-up shell are low (15 responses), especially given the need for agencies

to comply with the American with Disabilities Act by

making their sites more accessible to the visually and

hearing impaired.

Like the browsers, the other user interfaces supported are primarily supported as a common agency practice rather than an agency-mandated standard. Almost 83 percent of

the 40 respondents who reported their agency supports

FTP also reported it is a common agency practice, while 79

percent of the 27 respondents who reported supporting

Telnet also indicated it as a common agency practice (table

6b). No respondents reported that Telnet is an agencymandated standard; however, 8 percent reported that FTP

is an agency-mandated standard for their surveyed

products. Seventy-five percent of the respondents reported

the support of a nongraphical/dial-up shell as a common

agency practice while only 13 percent indicated that it is agency mandated.

Web design approaches. Various web design approaches

used, in descending order, are HTML

(150 responses), tables (111 responses), CGI Scripts

(66 responses), frames (53 responses), Javascript

(43 responses), Java Applets (23 responses), and XML (1

1

responses; table 6a). ColdFusion was reported in three of

the responses in the "other" category.

The use of these web design approaches is overwhelmingly

a common agency practice rather than an agency-mandated

standard (table 6b). Basic HTML—tags that consistently

display content in a similar fashion by the most popular

browsers—is the only approach to which almost one-fifth

(18 percent) of the respondents reported that its use is agency mandated. Less than

10 percent of the respondents using each of the other

approaches indicated that they are agency-mandated

standards. Since the use of frames, Javascript, Java

Applets, and XML may not be supported or enabled for many users' browsers, the agencies surveyed appear to be

adopting them slowly, if at all.

29
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 6b.

Number and percent of online approaches used, by the standard for each online tool used

Standard for each online tool used

Online approach Agency mandated Common agency

practice Other None

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

User interfaces supported

Netscape 36 18.3 139 70.6 4 2.0 17 8.6

Internet Explorer 25 14.5 120 69.4 4 2.3 22 12.7 FTP 3 7.5 33 82.5 0 0.0 3 7.5 Nongraphical/dial-up shell 2 12.5 12 75.0 0 0.0 1 6.3

Telnet 0 0.0 22 78.6 1 3.6 4 14.3 Other 1 A Q 1 O OJ. / A

U U.U

1

1 A 0

\Vph TT CU Hpcion UCMgll aonnrntirhpc \t Jil Udl lit S Basic HTML only 27 17.9 105 69.5 1 0.7 16 10.6 Tables 10 8.9 88 78.6 3 2.7 9 8.0 CGI Scripts 4 6.0 55 82.1 0 0.0 7 10.4 Use of Javascript 3 6.8 30 68.2 6 13.6 4 9.1 Frames 2 3.7 44 81.5 3 5.6 4 7.4 Use of Java Applets 2 8.3 15 62.5 3 12.5 3 12.5 XML 0 0.0 10 83.3 1 8.3 0 0.0 Other 3 11.1 17 63.0 2 7.4 4 14.8

Bulletin board systems (BBS)

Graphical interface/browser 1 12.5 5 62.5 0 0.0 1 12.5 NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 due to nonresponse. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Searchability of Product

Searchability of an electronic product is important for users because it allows them to effectively access the information they need. Most electronic

products are searchable either by full-text with no fielding

(74 responses) and/or by full-text and field (99 responses; table 7). The

"view only" category contains a higher number of responses than expected

(79 responses).

The "other" category contains the following common responses:

• Inapplicable because product is in a paper medium (most common

response);

• In PDF, which is not searchable; and

• Product is indexed by field only.

30
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 7. Number and percent of responses regarding

searchability of the product

Product characteristic Number Percent

Indexed by full-text and field 99 40.9 Available as "view only" — non-searchable 79 32.6

Included as part of a full-text searchable database with no 74 30.6

fielding Other 32 13.2 NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 because respondents could choose more than one item. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Product "Host"

Most of the products surveyed (199 responses) were hosted by the agency

that created them, although other agencies or institutions might also host the

products since respondents were asked to "check all that apply" for this question (table 8). There are fewer responses for products hosted by another

agency (42 responses), a contractor (17 responses), and an educational

institution (9 responses).

Table 8. Number and percent of responses regarding

where the product is hosted

Product host Number Percent

Your agency 199 82.2 Another agency 42 17.4 Contractor 17 7.0 Educational institution 9 3.7 Other 15 6.2 NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 because respondents could choose more than one item. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

31
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Retrievability of Product

In order to ensure broad access to the product, the public should be able to download and save electronic Government information products without

restrictions (GPO, 1996, p. 7). Responses to Question 1 1 indicate that for the most part, products surveyed for this study can be downloaded and

saved without restrictions (173 responses; table 9). Responses in the second category indicate that some products cannot be downloaded or saved

(20 responses). A small number of products (14) cannot be downloaded or saved because their use requires proprietary software that is not freely

distributed (table 9). Common write-in responses in the "other" category

include:

• Can be downloaded and saved, but subject to restrictions.

• Can be printed from browser, but not downloaded.

• Product available only in paper. The United States Advisory Council on the National Information

Infrastructure, in its publication "A Nation of Opportunity," identifies as one of the basic principles of Government information and services that "the

Federal Government should not charge for making its information

available... nor charge for access to that information" (GPO, 1996, p. 28).

Table 9. Number and percent of responses concerning

the retrievability status of the product

Product and software characteristic Number Percent

Can be downloaded, saved, and is not subject to any

restrictions on use or re-use by the end user 173 Cannot be downloaded, saved, and/or re-used because it is part of a database and does not exist as a distinct product 20

Cannot be downloaded, saved, and/or re-used because it requires proprietary software that is not freely distributable 14 Other 41 NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 because respondents could choose more than one item. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

71.5

8.3

5.8 16.9

32
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Section C Responses Section C contains a series of questions related to thefuture product profile.

(Planned Product Profile) Respondents were asked questions about changes in the types of data,

mediums, and formats used and reported on in Section B of the

questionnaire. Respondents also were asked to identify the time span in which the changes would occur and to describe the planned changes.

Types of Data

The first question in this section of the questionnaire asked respondents

about plans to discontinue publication of the product. Only 5 percent (12)

of the respondents planned to discontinue the product (table 10). Several of

the most commonly listed responses provided for discontinuation of a product was that the product was a one-time "prototype" or that the paper

version of the product would be discontinued.

Table 10. Number and percent of respondents reporting plans to discontinue publication of the product

Product characteristic Number Percent Are there any plans to discontinue

publication of this product? Yes 12 5.0 No 230 95.0 SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Table 1 1 shows responses to question 1 3 about the kinds of data

(i.e., bibliographic, textual, graphical) the product will contain in the future. The majority of respondents (76 percent) reported that the agency plans no

changes to the product. Twenty-one percent reported that the agency would

add one or more new types of data. A total of 3 percent reported either the

discontinuation of one type of data (0.4 percent), or a complete change to new data types (2.6 percent). Several respondents reported that the changes

in data types would include adding audio or video and multimedia.

33
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 11. Number and percent of responses regarding the planned changes to the

type of data contained in the product

Product characteristic Number Percent What kind of data will this product contain?

Retain existing type(s) of data, no changes planned 178 76.4 Retain existing type(s) of data and add items of one or more new types of data 48 20.6 Discontinue one or more types 1 0.4 Change to new type(s) of data 6 2.6 NOTE: N = 242; 9 cases are missing. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Most agency respondents reported that these changes in data types would

mainly occur in the short term (40 responses) and, to a lesser degree, in the medium term (24 responses; table 12). Most respondents skipped the

question about long-term plans for changing data types. Respondents noted

in the "please specify" categories in questions 13c and 13e indicate that respondents' plans for product changes have not yet been solidified.

Table 12. Number and percent of responses regarding the timeframe for planned

changes to the type of data contained in the product

Product characteristic Number Percent

Change(s) will occur in the: Short term: within 1 year or less 40 72.7 Medium term: within 2 to 5 years 24 43.6 NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 because respondents could choose more than one item. Numbers

reflect respondents who indicated changes. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Types of Mediums

Responses to changes in types of mediums parallel those for changes in data

types. Seventy-six percent of the respondents reported no plans to change

mediums (table 13). Eighteen percent of respondents reported that they are planning to add one or more mediums, 2 percent indicated they will discontinue one or more mediums, and 3 percent reported they will change

to a new type of medium.

34
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 13. Number and percent of responses regarding the planned

changes to the mediums used for the future

Product characteristic Number Percent

What kind ot meaiurn(s) will this product use: 11 product is delivered in more than one medium, respond

for all mediums.

Retain existing medium(s), no changes planned 178 if. /O.I1 Retain existing medium(s) and add items of one or more new types of mi 42 17.9 Discontinue one or more types 4 1.7 Change to new type(s) of medium 8 3.4 No agency mandated medium applies 0 0.0 NOTE: N = 242; 8 cases are missing; 2 cases were not ascertained. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

The two most frequently mentioned additions to medium types are to provide web access to the product, and to make the product available on CD-ROM. Most of the respondents (35) who reported changes in medium

types indicated that the changes will occur in the medium term; 21 respondents indicated that these changes will occur in the short term

(table 14). Again, most respondents skipped the question about long-term

plans for changing product mediums. The few respondents who provided

descriptions of their long-term plans mentioned that they will produce the product in multiple mediums (paper and web), or that paper items will be

migrated to the web. Other respondents indicated that their long-term plans

are undetermined or undefined.

Table 14. Number and percent of responses regarding the timeframe for planned

changes to product medium used

Product characteristic Number Percent

Change(s) will occur in the: Short term: within 1 year or less 21 37.5 Medium term: within 2 to 5 years 35 62.5

NOTE: Numbers reflect respondents who indicated changes. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

35
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Types of Formats

One might expect to see more dramatic changes in types of formats since

the range of formats is varied and broad (i.e., database, spreadsheet, tagged

markup, image, etc.). The pattern of responses to question 15 mirrors the

responses to changes in types of data and mediums, except for the change to new types. Seventy-two percent of the respondents reported no changes in format types. Eighteen percent indicated that they are planning to add one

or more formats, while 9 percent reported they will change to new format

types (table 15). This change to new format types is the largest percentage

change in this category as compared to changes to new types of data (3

percent; table 11) and new types of mediums (also

3 percent; table 13). Respondents who provided specifics about the

changes to new format types indicated these new types would be PDF and

XML.

Table 15. Number and percent of responses regarding the planned

changes to the formats the product will contain

Product characteristic Number Percent What kind of format(s) will this product contain?

Same as existing format(s), no changes planned 167 71.7 Retain existing format(s) and add one or more new format

types 42 18.0 Change to new format types 21 9.0 Discontinue one or more types 1 0.4 No agency-mandated format applies 1 0.4 NOTE: N = 242; 9 cases are missing; 1 case was not ascertained. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

The majority of respondents who reported changes indicated that they will occur in the short term (36 responses), and/or the medium term

(32 responses; table 16). The majority of respondents did not answer the question about long-term plans for changing formats.

Table 16. Number and percent of responses regarding the timeframe

for planned changes to the product format used

Product characteristic Number Percent

Change(s) will occur in the: Short term: within 1 year or less 36 55.4 Medium term: within 2 to 5 years 32 49.2 NOTE: Total frequency reflects respondents reporting changes only. Percents do not add to 100 because

respondents could choose more than one item. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

36
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Section D Responses Section D of the questionnaire contains a variety of questions in an effort to (Other Information) answer some of the critical issues of public access to electronic information

products:

• Metadata,

• Permanent public access (i.e., provided by what agency and how),

• Permanent retention,

• Ensuring authenticity,

• Updating/upgrading plans,

• User fees,

• Licensing, and

• Public domain.

Metadata

Metadata, data about data, are important for public access. Metadata

refers to describing the content of a document or record allowing users to find Government information more effectively. Examples of metadata

include Government Information Locator Service (GILS) and machinereadable cataloging (MARC) records. To that end, one of the requirements

of the Government Printing Office Electronic Information Access

Enhancement Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-40) was that the Superintendent

of Documents maintain an electronic directory of Federal electronic

information (44 U.S.C., Section 4101).

Only 27 percent of agency respondents reported that their products have a metadata record, while 69 percent reported no metadata record exists for

their products (table 17). In the followup question, most respondents

identified their metadata records as either MARC or GILS. Another

5 percent indicated they do not know if a metadata record exists.

Table 17. Number and percent of respondents reporting a metadata record for the product

Product characteristic Number Percent

Is there a metadata record for this product

(e.g., GILS, MARC)?

Yes 65 26.9 No 166 68.6 Don't know 11 4.5 SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

37
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Permanent Public Access

In an electronic age, permanent public access to Government information, a

critical concept in information resources management, presents far-reaching

challenges to the Federal Depository Library Program, Congress, Federal

agencies, and ultimately the American public. GPO indicates that permanent public access "means that electronic Government information

products within the scope of the FDLP remain available for continuous, nofee public access through the program" (GPO, 1998, p. 19). GPO

recognizes and acknowledges its responsibility to provide ongoing public access to the electronic Government information available through the FDLP. However, in a decentralized networked environment, agencies are asked to share the responsibility for building, storing, disseminating, and

preserving a broad range of electronic information products in order to ensure continued public access.

Agency respondents reported that permanent public access is primarily

provided by their agency (177 responses), by another agency

(51 responses), and/or by some other entity (20 responses; table 18). Respondents reported that permanent public access is not provided for 28 products (table 18). However, on closer examination, the responses to the "please specify" questions indicate that either respondents may have

misunderstood the concept of permanent public access (as opposed to current access), or they assumed other entities have this responsibility.

Some of the common responses to "other" agencies include the Government

Printing Office, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),

and contractors and vendors. These responses illustrate respondents' lack

of understanding about the difference between permanent public access to electronic information products through their own agencies or through

partnerships with GPO, and permanent retention of official Government

records through NARA. Furthermore, only 4 of the 28 products for which

no permanent public access currently is provided have future plans for providing permanent public access (table 19).

38
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 18. Number and percent of responses regarding the

entity providing permanent access to the product

Product characteristic Number Percent

Permanent public access to this product is currently provided by: Your agency 177 73.1 Another agency 51 21.1 Other 20 8.3 No permanent public access provided , 28 58.3 NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 because respondents could choose more than one item. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Table 19. Number and percent of responses regarding products

for which access will be provided in the future

Product characteristic Number Percent

Are there plans to provide permanent public access in the future for this product? Yes No

42412.9 80.6 NOTE: Only those respondents (N=28) who indicated there is currently no permanent public access provided for this product were asked to complete this question. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Permanent Retention

The mission of the National Archives and Records Administration is distinct from that of GPO. NARA's mission is to preserve and provide

public access to permanently valuable records of the Federal Government.

Federal agencies are responsible for transferring products to NARA that are scheduled as permanent records (i.e., official records of the Federal

Government as defined by the Federal Records Act). Under 36 CFR

1228.188, mediums approved for transfer include open reel magnetic tape,

magnetic tape cartridge, and CD-ROM. Agencies currently may not

transfer to NARA electronic records that are in a format dependent on

specific hardware and software. However, SGML tags are permitted on

electronic textual documents as are records written in ASCII or Extended

Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code (EBCDIC) with all control

39
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

characters and other non-data characters removed (Lewis Bellardo, Deputy

Archivist of the U.S. in a written response to agency questions, October 14,

1998).

The responses to the questions on permanent retention may reflect the current status of transferring permanent electronic records to NARA (see

questions findings). Only 34 percent of agency respondents reported that

their products are scheduled for permanent retention by NARA (table 20).

Sixty-four percent reported their products are not scheduled for retention,

while another 3 percent reported they do not know if the product is scheduled for retention. However, it should be pointed out that at the time

of the survey, the schedule that would have covered electronic records of

permanent value was unenforceable under a court case declaring it null and

void; therefore, these figures may be unreliable.

Table 20.

Number and percent of responses regarding

permanent retention of the product

Product characteristic Number Percent

Is this product scheduled for permanent retention by the National Archives and Records Administration? Yes 82 33.9 No 154 63.6 Don't know 6 SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Ensuring Authenticity

Although 64 percent of respondents reported that their agency ensures

authenticity for the products surveyed (table 21), responses to the openended question about how the agency attests to authenticity indicate that respondents may not fully understand the concept.

Authentication refers to the process agencies use to ensure the public that the product is an official legitimate product created and produced by the Federal Government agency and no other source (see glossary, p. E-17).

Ensuring authentication includes technical as well as policy considerations.

Some technical examples of authentication include digital signature

technology, special watermarks, disclaimers, or statements on the products.

Respondents provided answers that address how the agency ensures that information or data in the product are valid or reliable— an

40
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

important process, but not the same concept as authenticity. Common

responses include the following:

• Program office verifies data.

• Review CD-ROM contents before public release.

• Regulations and source/reliability statement regarding data sources.

• Review and approval within agency.

• Source of content is the same as the hardcopy version.

• Test reliability of data every 5 years, or more often.

• Publications are subjected to review by subject matter expert and peer

review.

Table 21.

Number and percent of respondents who reported

the agency ensures authenticity for the product

Product characteristic Frequency Percent

Does the agency ensure authenticity

(official status determination) for this product? Yes 154 63.6 No 86 35.5 Don't know 2 0.8

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Updating/Refreshing Plans

Twenty percent of respondents reported that their products are updated

annually, followed by daily (16 percent), monthly (12 percent), and weekly

(5 percent; table 22). However, the majority (47 percent) of respondents

checked the "other" response category. The write-in responses covered a broad range of time periods in which products are updated. Below is a sampling of multiple responses:

• Quarterly,

• As needed,

• Irregularly,

41
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• Not updated,

• Semi-annually,

• Every 2 years,

• Periodically, and

Twice a month with old version staying on line.

Table 22.

Number and percent of responses regarding

how frequently the product is updated or refreshed

Product characteristic Number Percent How frequently is this product updated or refreshed? Annually 48 19.8 Daily 39 16.1 Monthly 30 12.4 Weekly 12 5.0 Other 113 46.7 SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998

Changing Supporting Technology

The majority of the respondents (71 percent) reported that there are no

plans to change the product's supporting technology (table 23). Twentyeight percent of respondents reported plans to change the product's

supporting technology.

Table 23.

Number and percent of responses regarding

the plans for supporting technology of the product

Product characteristic Number Percent

Are there plans for changing the product's supporting

technology? Yes 68 28.1 No 171 70.7 Don't know 2 0.8 NOTE: N = 242; 1 case not ascertained. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

42
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

User Fees

Public access to no-fee Government information products is one of the core

principles upon which the FDLP is based. However, users might be

charged a fee if they order certain types of electronic Government

information products directly from GPO or the agency that created the product. Nine percent of respondents reported that all users are charged

fees, while 20 percent reported some users are charged fees. The majority

(72 percent) of agency respondents reported that there are no fees charged

to access or use the product surveyed (table 24). The followup question

asks about specific fee amounts and the reasons for the charge. The

responses to this question vary greatly. A few common responses include

the following:

• No charge for web access.

• Single paper copy free; charge for additional copies.

• No subscription fee to libraries and some constituencies.

• Files can be downloaded from the Internet for free. There is a charge

for published books.

• Fees are for paper products only.

Table 24.

Number and percent of respondents reporting

that user fees are charged for the product

Product characteristic Number Percent

Is a user fee charged for this product?

Yes, for some users 48 19.8 Yes, for all users 21 8.7 No 173 71.5 SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Licensing

Many Government agencies purchase licenses from vendors for search and

retrieval software to be used with the product to make the data or information more accessible to users. Agencies negotiate various

agreements with vendors about who can use the software free of charge.

The majority of respondents (69 percent) reported that they do not license

commercial search and retrieval software (table 25). For the remaining

31 percent of respondents who have licensed commercial software, the

43
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

license covers use by all the key constituencies including agency personnel

(73 responses), public users (69 responses), agency's primary target

constituencies (65 responses), Federal depository libraries (59 responses), and/or all libraries (59 responses; table 26).

Table 25.

Number and percent of respondents reporting about the use of licensed

commercial search and retrieval software for the product

Product characteristic Number Percent

Has the agency licensed commercial search and retrieval software for use with this product? Yes No

76

166

31.4

68.6 SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Table 26.

Number and percent of responses regarding coverage

Product characteristic Number Percent

Does the agency's license cover use by:

Agency personnel 73 96.1 Agency's primary target constituencies 65 85.5 Federal depository libraries 59 77.6

All libraries 59 77.6

Public users 69 90.8 Other 10 13.2

NOTE: Percents do not add to 100 because respondents could choose more than one item. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Public Domain

Public domain, a critical component of public access, means that the

information, product, or publication is not copyrighted and therefore can be

reproduced by anyone without obtaining copyright permission. One of the goals of an electronic FDLP is to provide public access to any Government

information product free of copyright or copyright-like restrictions (GPO,

1996, p. 2). The majority of respondents, 86 percent, indicated that all parts of their surveyed products are in the public domain (table 27).

Another 10 percent indicated that part of the product is in the public

domain, while 5 percent reported that the product is not in the

44
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

public domain. The followup question that requests an explanation of the second response (i.e., part of product is in the public domain) uncovered

these typical responses:

• Copyrighted tables are not in the public domain.

• There are some copyright-protected logos and trademarks.

• Includes copyrighted material that would require approval for reproduction.

Respondents offered a wide variety of explanations for products that are not

in the public domain:

• Retrieval software is proprietary and use is licensed.

• Commercial vendors lease the database for distribution.

• Songs and performances are protected by copyright.

• Books are available only to eligible blind patrons of our program, by

law.

Table 27.

Number and percent of respondents reporting

the public domain status of the product

Product characteristic Number Percent

Is this product in the public domain?

Yes, for the entire product 206 85.5 Yes, for part of the product 24 10.0 No 11 4.6 NOTE: N = 242; 1 case missing. Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Section E Responses

^e ^"ina ^ sect i°n E °f the questionnaire contains one open-ended

"comments" question. These responses are too broad and disparate to provide a detailed itemization. Most of the comments are explanations of

issues covered in the survey. However, below are a few comments that cover issues not directly addressed in the survey.

• Our mission, mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),

is to satisfy all browser requirements (e.g., ASCII browsers like LYNX

through the latest versions of Netscape and Internet Explorer).

45
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• We produce printed documents and link to electronic documents

maintained on the GPO's server.

• The product is not published in any electronic form. It is a collection of

individual products that are individually published.

• I am very new to this area (2 weeks) and received significant contractor

assistance in completing this form.

• In addition to four other web sites, we will soon web-enable our database with some encrypted modules.

• The database is intended to be accessible to the largest audience

possible via free or public domain software whenever possible.

• This information is available in PDF format on our website to ensure

the integrity of the data. Coding in HTML (particularly tables) could

lead to mistakes with such a large amount of numeric data.

No respondents commented on the survey questionnaire, the project in general, or the process of filling out the survey.

Study Questions ^ms sect ' on use findings from two or more survey questions to provide

additional information on some of the key issues explored in the study. The

responses to these questions relate specifically to the products surveyed.

The following questions were chosen because they address one or more of

the critical study areas: preferred medium and format standards, permanent

public accessibility, permanent retention, user fees, commercial licensing of

search and retrieval software, and authenticity.

Preferred Medium and Study Question 1: What combinations ofpreferred medium standards are Format Standards currently used by the respondents?

The agencies surveyed are creating and using (in descending order):

• Products both in paper format and on the web.

• Products both in CD-ROM and the web.

• Products both in paper and CD-ROM.

Since most of the agencies surveyed create products in more than one medium, what combinations of preferred mediums are they using?

Of the respondents who indicated that paper was a medium used and the respondents who reported that CD-ROM was a medium used, only

19 percent reported that they are using both paper and CD-ROM products

46
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

(table 28). Table 29 shows that of the respondents who reported that they use CD-ROM, and those who reported that they use the web as a medium,

21 percent use both CD-ROM and the web as mediums. However, of the respondents who reported using paper and the respondents who reported

using the web as a medium, 64 percent use both paper and the web (table

30). Therefore, the respondents surveyed are creating and using products

both in paper format and on the web much more often than they are creating

and using products in CD-ROM and the web. An even smaller percentage

of products is being created in paper and in CD-ROM. This confirms the

earlier finding that paper and the web are the preferred mediums used by the agencies surveyed, but provides additional information about the

combinations of mediums used.

Table 28.

Number and percent crosstabulations of products

in both paper and CD-ROM formats

Paper

CD-ROM

Total Yes No

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 45 18.6 132 54.5 177 73.1 No 25 10.3 40 16.5 65 26.8

Total 70 28.9 172 71.0 242 99.9 NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Table 29.

Number and percent crosstabulations of products

in both CD-RO VI and web formats

CD-ROM

Web

Total Yes No

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 51 21.1 19 7.9 70 29.0 No 153 63.2 19 7.9 172 71.1 Total 204 84.3 38 15.8 242 100.1 NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

47
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 30.

Number and percent crosstabulations of products

in both paper and web formats

Paper

Web

Total Yes No

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 155 64.0 22 9.1 177 73.1 No V 49 20.2 16 6.6 65 26.8

Total 204 84.2 38 15.7 242 99.9 NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Study Question 2: What combinations ofpreferred format standards are used by the respondents?

The respondents are slightly more likely to use HTML in combination

with PDF than they are to use HTML together with GIF. However,

they are almost as likely to use HTML, GIF, and ASCH together as they are to use HTML, PDF, and ASCn together.

Of the respondents who reported using HTML as a tagged markup format,

and those who reporting using PDF as an image format, 39 percent reported

the use of both HTML and PDF (table 31). Of the respondents who

checked HTML, and those who checked GIF as an image format,

36 percent checked that they used HTML in combination with GIF (table

32), slightly less than those who used HTML and PDF in combination.

Since PDF is the preferred image format used by agencies (table 4), this is not an unexpected finding.

Table 31.

Number and percent crosstabulations of products

in both HTML and PDF formats

HTML

PDF

Total Yes No

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 94 38.8 63 26.0 157 64.8 No 38 15.7 46 19.0 84 34.7

Total 132 54.5 109 45.0 241 99.5 NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

48
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Table 32.

Number and percent crosstabulations of products

in both HTML and GIF formats

HTML

GIF

Total Yes No

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 86 35.7 70 29.0 156 64.7 No 13 5.4 71 29.5 84 34.9

Total 99 41.1 141 58.5 240 99.6

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

However, when the formats are used in combinations of three, it appears

that respondents are almost as likely to use HTML, GIF, and ASCII

(21 percent) together as they are to use HTML, PDF, and ASCII

(22 percent) together (tables 33 and 34).

Table 33.

Number and percent of products that use HTML

with GIF and ASCII formats

Format Number Percent Both GIF and ASCII 50 20.7 GIF only 36 14.9 ASCII only 27 11.2 SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Table 34.

Number and percent of products that use HTML

with PDF and ASCH formats

Format Number Percent Both PDF and ASCII 53 21.9 PDF only 41 16.9 ASCII only 25 10.3 SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

49
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Public Access to Products Study Question 3: If a product is permanently accessible, is it also likely to be scheduled for retention with the National Archives and

Records Administration (NARA)?

No, the majority of products surveyed that are permanently accessible are not likely to also be scheduled for permanent retention with NARA.

Permanent public accessibility and permanent record retention are two

distinct concepts. GPO, through the FDLP, has a historical commitment to permanent accessibility of paper products, and now to electronic products.

To that end, GPO requests that agencies provide information products in all mediums to GPO and work with GPO and Federal depository libraries to provide permanent public accessibility to electronic products. Agencies are responsible for transferring those products that are scheduled as permanent

records to NARA. However, not all records that are scheduled for permanent retention by NARA are products within the scope of the FDLP.

For such records, permanent public accessibility through the FDLP is not an issue.

Of the respondents who said yes, the product is permanently accessible, and

the respondents who reported their product is scheduled for retention with

NARA, only 25 percent reported that the product is both permanently

accessible and also scheduled for retention with NARA (table 35). The

majority of products that are publicly accessible are not likely to also be

scheduled for retention with NARA. While there is not information from

the survey data to identify reasons for this situation, some possibilities are

that:

• the product is not a permanent or official record of the U.S.

Government as defined by Federal Records legislation.

• the product is in a format that is accepted by GPO but in a format that NARA does not currently accept, and therefore could not be transferred

to NARA.

• agencies are overlooking this important part of the information life cycle of electronic products.

Table 35.

Number and percent crosstabulations of products that are permanently public accessible and

scheduled for retention with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

Permanent public access

Product scheduled with NARA

Total Yes No Don't know

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 61 25.2 113 46.7 3 1.2 177 73.1 No 21 8.7 41 16.9 3 1.2 65 26.8

Total 82 33.9 154 63.6 6 2.4 242 99.9 NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

50
Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products

Study Question 4: Is the licensing of search and retrieval software likely to be a barrier to unrestricted public access?

No, for the products surveyed, the licensing of commercial search and

retrieval software by the agency does not appear to be a barrier to unrestricted (no fee) use.

Of the respondents who reported that they license commercial search and

retrieval software for their products, and those who reported that all users are charged a fee for the products, only 2 percent who license commercial

search and retrieval software also charge a fee for all users (table 36). A

slightly larger number of respondents (4 percent) who use commercial

search retrieval software for their products also charge a fee for some

users. Twenty-five percent of respondents who license search and retrieval software for their products charge no user fees.

Table 36.

Number and percent crosstabulations for products with licensed commercial search and retrieval

software and user fees charged for the product

Licensed commercial search and

retrieval software

User fees charged for product

Total Yes, for all users No, for some users No

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 5 2.1 10 4.1 61 25.2 76 31.4 No 16 6.6 38 15.7 112 46.3 166 68.6

Total 21 8.7 48 19.8 173 71.5 242 100.0 NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

51
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Study Question 5: Are respondents who have purchased commercial

search and retrieval software for their products also transferring

the products to NARA ?

No, based on the products surveyed here, respondents are not

transferring permanent records to NARA for products in which they

have purchased commercial search and retrieval software.

Of the respondents who reported issuing commercial search and retrieval software, and those who reported scheduling products for permanent

retention with NARA, only about 10 percent who have purchased

commercial software for products have also scheduled their products for permanent retention with NARA (table 37).

Table 37.

Number and percent crosstabulations of those products with licensed commercial search

and retrieval software and the product is scheduled for permanent retention by the

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

Product scheduled for permanent retention by NARA

Licensed commercial search Total Yes No Don t know

and retrieval software Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 24 9.9 52 21.5 0 0.0 76 31.4 No 58 24.0 102 42.1 6 2.5 166 68.6

Total 82 33.9 154 63.3 6 2.5 242 100.0

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

52
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Other Issues: Authenticity Study Question 6: If an agency ensures authenticity, is it also likely to and Metadata provide permanent public access to the product or do agencies

rely on another agency to provide permanent public access?

Yes, based on the products surveyed, agency respondents who ensure

authenticity for their products are also more likely to provide

permanent access to them directly, rather than through another agency.

Of those respondents who reported they ensure authenticity and those who

reported they provide direct permanent public access to their products,

47 percent both ensure authenticity for their products and provide direct permanent access to them (table 38). However, only close to 14 percent of

the respondents who reported they ensure authenticity for their products

also reported that another agency provides permanent public access to the

product (table 39).

Table 38.

Number and percent crosstabulations of those products for which agencies ensure authenticity and permanent public access

Agency ensures authenticity

Permanent public access provided by the agency Total Yes No

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 113 46.7 41 16.9 154 63.6 No 63 26.0 23 9.5 86 35.5 Don't know 1 0.4 1 0.4 2 0.8 Total 177 73.1 65 26.8 242 99.9 NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Table 39.

Number and percent crosstabulations of those products for which

agencies ensure authenticity and another agency provides permanent public access

Another agency provides

Agency ensures authenticity

permanent public access Total Yes No

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 33 13.6 121 50.0 154 63.6 No 17 7.0 69 28.5 86 35.5 Don't know 1 0.4 1 0.4 2 0.8 Total 51 21.0 191 78.9 242 99.9 NOTE. Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

53
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Study Question 7: Are online products hosted by the agency that created

it more likely to have a metadata record than products hosted by

another agency?

Yes, based on the products surveyed, those that are hosted by the

agency that created it are more likely to have a metadata record than

those hosted by another agency.

Tables 40 and 41 show that almost 20 percent of the products that are hosted by an agency also have a metadata record, while only 7 percent of

the products that are hosted by another agency also have a metadata record.

Table 40.

Number and percent crosstabulations of products that are hosted by the agency and have a metadata

record

Products hosted by the agency

Metadata record

Yes No Don't know Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 48 19.8 141 58.3 10 4.1 199 82.2 No 17 7.0 24 9.9 1 0.4 42 17.3 Total 65 26.8 165 68.2 11 4.5 241 99.5

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

Table 41.

Number and percent crosstabulations of products that are hosted

by another agency and have a metadata record

Products hosted by another agency

Metadata record

Yes No Don't know Total

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Yes 17 7.0 25 10.3 0 0.0 42 17.3 No 48 19.8 140 57.9 11 4.5 199 82.2

Total 65 26.8 165 68.2 11 4.5 241 99.5

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. SOURCE: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire, 1998.

54
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products 4

Qualitative

Findings

This section of the report highlights the qualitative findings from the three

site visits with Federal depository libraries, five agency meetings, and six expert interviews. Appendices F through H include interview questions and

detailed responses from the site visits to depository libraries (F), agency

meetings (G), and expert interviews (H).

Site Visits to Federal

Depository Libraries

The purpose of the site visits to the three depository libraries was to identify

the key issues and concerns librarians have about providing public access to electronic Government information products through the Federal Depository

Library Program. (See Appendix F for a complete list of questions posed to

librarians.)

The site visits were held with one regional depository library and two

selective depository libraries in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. It

is important to note that the three libraries visited may not be representative

of all depository libraries in terms of the geographical location and library user characteristics (e.g., education level, socioeconomic status, etc.). Therefore, readers are cautioned about generalizing these observations to all depository libraries. Highlights of the three librarians' responses are provided below. Appendix F contains a detailed description of the

librarians' responses to the interview questions.

Highlights of Site Visits User Needs and Concerns

to Three Depository

Libraries • Librarians interviewed noted that the general public is still more

comfortable using Government information products in paper and

microfiche than they are using the Internet. Patrons (and librarians) are

least comfortable using products on CD-ROM.

• Librarians expressed concern about the difficulty patrons experience in accessing Government-produced CD-ROMs that are not standardized.

They reported that the search and retrieval software is different for each

CD, CD-ROMs often have no installation instructions or user documentation, and they are not user-friendly.

• Librarians indicated that some users are still intimidated by electronic

mediums and computers. Most users ask librarians to help them search

for materials on the web and frequently need help downloading large

files.

• Librarians noted that since most Government websites only contain the

most recent information, they are concerned about users having

permanent public access to retrospective Government information on

the web in the future.

55
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Librarians' Concerns: User Fees, Hardware, Training, and Costs

• Although none of the libraries visited currently charge fees for printing

materials from the Internet or CD-ROMs, all three librarians are either considering charging fees or are planning to charge fees and expressed concerns about how this will affect their patrons.

• Users do not have access to enough workstations, so the libraries must

limit use. Also, if libraries had additional money for hardware, they

would order hardware in support of CD-ROMs (e.g., a new CD-ROM

server and an 18-disk CD changer). (Even though CD-ROM is the

least preferred medium and declining in number in the FDLP.)

• All librarians interviewed expressed concerns about finding time and

money to train librarians and staff, especially on using CD-ROM

products, but also on downloading files, effectively searching the

Internet for Government information, and creating and maintaining web

pages. They welcome any additional training on using GPO Access,

Geographic Information Systems, etc.

• Time and money permitting, librarians expressed interest in establishing

partnerships with GPO and other Government agencies to put some

retrospective online Government information on their servers so users can have reliable access to it in the future. In addition, librarians would

like to provide outreach to public schools, community centers, etc., to educate students and adults about the wide variety of valuable

information available from the Federal Government.

• One librarian expressed strong feelings about the need for Congress to provide long-term financial support to Federal depository libraries so they can continue to provide permanent public access to digital

materials. This librarian's perspective was that the cost to provide

access to electronic Government information is steadily increasing.

AeeilCV Meetings Meetings were held with four agencies between September 14 through

J

September 24, 1998:

• Department of Health and Human Services

• Environmental Protection Agency

• U.S. Department of Education

• U.S. Department of Commerce

Although meetings also were held with the U.S. Supreme Court and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), these two agencies

did not respond to the agency discussion questions in the agency meetings;

they chose to discuss the survey questionnaire only. However,

56
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Lewis Bellardo, the Deputy Archivist of the United States, sent in written

responses to the discussion questions (Appendix G).

The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS)

provided discussion questions for the agency meetings; Westat modified some of the questions with NCLIS's approval. The purpose of the agency

meetings was to supplement survey data by collecting more general

information on electronic Government information products that are not

product-specific. For example, one of the survey objectives is to assess the

cost-effectiveness and usefulness of preferred medium and format

standards, an issue that was not directly addressed on the survey. In addition, the agency meetings afforded NCLIS, GPO, and Westat an

opportunity to review the survey questionnaire with agency respondents and

to address any questions they might have.

Highlights of the agency meetings are provided below. For a more detailed

summary of the responses to the 12 questions posed to agencies, see Appendix G.

Agency Meeting Highlights Preferred Mediums and Formats

• Agencies interviewed reported using the same preferred medium and

format standards as those reported by survey respondents: web, CDROM, bulletin board; HTML, PDF, and ASCII. Additional preferred

formats mentioned by agency representatives include TIFF, JPEG, and

Lotus/Domino.

• All agencies are exploring a wide range of innovative and creative web

design approaches including the use of SQL, Oracle, ColdFusion, and

animated GIFs. Some examples of ways in which agencies are utilizing

web technologies include data warehousing, interactive GIS,

multimedia CD-ROM, live "real-time" web casting of selected speeches, and real-time forecasting of air pollution levels for 22 states.

• Four of the five agencies have guidelines or "best practices" for presentation and organization of products or publications on the web.

Most of the guidelines discuss preferred formats for some types of

products. The most common problem experienced by the agencies in this regard is compliance issues (i.e., encouraging personnel to adhere

to them).

• There are some trends for migrating certain families of products to the web for newsletters, training manuals, annual reports, and conference

proceedings and presentations.

• Agencies consider many factors when making decisions to create/retain

products in more than one medium: budget, cost, accessibility to users, and size of audience the product reaches. The

57
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

decision-making process varies from agency to agency and sub-unit to sub-unit.

Assessing User Needs

• All agencies reported involving users in testing and evaluating the

usefulness of the web and CD-ROM products. The most frequently

used assessment methods are focus groups, videotaping of users, and

online user surveys. Agencies are using the results of these evaluation

methods to add and change some formats and mediums as well as

content.

• Four of the five agencies interviewed reported that they maintain some

type of GILS records to help the public locate their information

resources.

Information Life Cycle Management, Permanent Public Access, and

Permanent Retention

• No agencies are addressing the following key information resources management issues: permanent public access, information life cycle

management, and permanent retention. (The expert interviews provide some insight into the reasons that agencies are not addressing these

issues. See the summary section of this report.)

Cost-Effectiveness of Various Mediums and Formats

• No agencies have conducted a formal cost-benefit analysis for creating

products in formats and mediums for distribution to the Federal

Depository Library Program. Generally, agency representatives

reported it costs less to create products for the web because they can

avoid production, printing, and distribution costs for paper and CDROM products.

The interviews with six experts also enriched and supplemented the survey

findings. Since the interviews were conducted after the site visits and

agency meetings, they were helpful in providing a broad context within

which the survey findings could be viewed.

The expert interviews were conducted between October 27 and November

24, 1998. Telephone interviews were held with two webmasters, two

preservation specialists, and two professors of information resources management. These experts were selected from a list provided by the

NCLIS. Highlights from each set of interviews are provided here. (See

Appendix H for a detailed summary of each telephone interview.)

Expert Interviews

58
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Interviews With Highlights from interview with webmasters Jerry Malitz, National Center

Webmasters for Education Statistics (NCES), and Linda Wallace, the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS), on October 27, 1998.

Preferred Formats

• The IRS, unlike the other agencies surveyed, primarily uses SGML,

followed by PDF, HTML, and Postscript. They train their authors to use SGML because they consider it "intelligent data" that can

automatically generate other formats (e.g., web, BBS, Fax on Demand)

through templates and filters. All NCES publications are in PDF, then

HTML (optional); they rarely put an entire publication in HTML

format only.

• The IRS has conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the costs of delivering

requests through different formats. They have found that it costs $3 per phone call to fill a request, 1 cent to access their Internet site for forms,

etc., and $2.50 to make a CD-ROM containing 5 years of IRS

publications.

• IRS indicates that it provides permanent public access to tax information online for 5 years, and from their "core repository library"

for about 14 years, but not for every application. However, this 5 to 14

years means that IRS provides current but not permanent public access

to their Government electronic products.

• All IRS documents are ADA-compliant, online searchable, and

downloadable.

User Needs

• Both IRS and NCES assess and evaluate the effectiveness of their web

sites with advisory groups (IRS), or for NCES, through an Internet Working Group made up of representatives from each program area.

• Both agencies have GILS records.

Highlights from interview with preservation specialists Evelyn Frangakis

from the National Agricultural Library (NAL) and Abby Smith from the

Council on Libraries and Information Resources (CLIR), November 10,

1998.

Goals of Preservation

• It is useful to think about preservation goals such as enhancing the long-term preservation of and access to information of enduring value

for as long into the future as possible.

• There is no standard accepted method of ensuring long-term access to

digital information. It may be more accurate to say that one of the

Interviews With

Preservation Specialists

59
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

primary goals of preservation is to set up systems that "sustain

predictable levels of loss."

Barriers to Preservation of Digital Materials

• The concept of preservation in the traditional preservation world

examines the concept of permanence, but in the print world the concept

of permanence relates to chemical inertness and mechanical durability.

These concepts do not translate easily into a digital world.

• There are two problems with digital preservation: (1) media in which

information resides may be unstable; and (2) software/hardware

configurations on which information is stored becomes obsolete so quickly that even when one migrates information from one system to another, much of the data and functionality are lost.

• Other barriers to digital preservation include that it is difficult to understand what we can and cannot do under current copyright law,

and any transmission link is as strong as the weakest link. The weak

link in the transmission of electronic information is human beings, not technology (e.g., no one agency or organization has stepped forward to address issues like information life cycle management). Preservation of

information must be thought about at the creation stage, not after the

information has been collected and disseminated.

• One of the core infrastructure problems is the need to create a failsafe archives mechanism for materials that disappear from the web.

Current Preservation Models and Initiatives

• NAL and partner institutions are implementing a model for permanent

public access and preservation of agricultural literature that addresses

all the key issues in information resources management: inventory and

life cycle of information, permanent public access, technical

requirements, and user access and retrieval. (NAL is one of the few

examples for ensuring a failsafe archives for preservation of

agricultural literature.)

CLIR Initiatives

• CLIR commissioned a report by Jeff Rothenberg from RAND

Corporation on emulation. (Emulation is the process of imitating one

system with another so both accept the same data, execute the same

programs, and achieve the same results.)

• CLIR commissioned an analysis of migrating file formats to do a risk assessment associated with those file formats during migration.

60
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• CLIR identified a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University,

John Ockerbloom, who has developed a system of file conversion called TOM (Typed Object Model), a type of migration that converts webbased materials to different file formats.

Interviews With Highlights from interviews with John Bertot, November 18, and Charles

Information Resources McClure, November 28, 1998. (These two telephone interviews were held

Management Specialists separately.)

Barriers to Successful Implementation of Information Resources

Management Initiatives

• Agencies are struggling with issues such as permanent public access, information life cycle management, and permanent retention due to a general lack of information resources management (IRM), as well as organizational policy integration for Federal Government legislation

and initiatives.

• Agencies do not view information as a strategic resource that is directly related to agency missions. Most Government IRM initiatives focus on

the technology side of IRM because it is tangible.

• Sometimes smaller agencies are more successful in implementing IRM

initiatives due to fewer organizational and communication barriers to working collaboratively.

• The Information Technology Management and Reform Act of 1 996 did

little to clarify the role of the CIO and IRM staff, so agencies are now

struggling with what to do with these functions.

• Agency resources are now almost exclusively devoted to Y2K efforts with little time and resources left to devote to IRM, standards, and

operability.

• Staffing and training are critical for both IRM and CIO staff.

• Challenges for agencies in the next few years include how to coordinate

information technology and information technology management,

interoperability and standards that cut across agencies, and education

and training of staff.

61
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

62
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products 5

Discussion of

Quantitative

and

Qualitative

Findings

This section synthesizes, integrates, and discusses issues and the major

themes that emerge from the survey and the qualitative data collection

activities, including the interviews with Federal depository librarians,

agency personnel, and other experts, and the literature review. The section

is arranged by the following key study issues:

Preferred mediums and formats,

Evaluating websites,

Cost-effectiveness of formats and mediums,

Depository library needs,

Public access (public domain and user fees),

Permanent public access and preservation.

Preferred Mediums

and Format

Standards

Survey respondents and agency representatives reported they most often use

the following mediums:

• Paper

• Web

• CD-ROM

• Bulletin board systems (to a lesser degree)

Both respondents and representatives also reported use of the following

formats:

HTML

PDF

GIF

ASCII

TIFF

However, most agencies whose products were surveyed use these mediums

and formats as a common agency practice, rather than as an agency

mandate. In addition, agency representatives and webmasters reported they use SGML, Oracle (with ColdFusion or SQL), JPEG, and TIFF because

these formats meet the information needs of their individual constituents or are used in some of their creative web approaches. The IRS is one of the

few agencies interviewed that uses SGML. IRS' Linda Wallace, one of the

webmasters who served as an expert consultant for this project, indicates

that most agencies do not use SGML because it is difficult to use. But

Wallace noted that IRS uses SGML because it is

63
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

much more robust, and it is easy to change a document format to match

customer needs (e.g., tax law information for consumers and for lawyers).

(See Appendix H for detailed notes on the telephone interview with Linda

Wallace.)

A few survey respondents indicated they are planning to change to or add

XML or other object-oriented formats. XML may be appealing to some

agencies because data can be stored in a format provided by XML that is transferable to a v wide range of hardware and software environments

(Bryan, 1998, p. 14). In addition, according to Stuart Culshaw, XML

makes it easier for authors to produce documents for many different output

mediums (i.e., paper, online help, web) from a single source (Culshaw,

1998, p. 7).

Most of the agency representatives who participated in the meetings also

reported that their agencies have established written guidelines or "best

practices" that specify preferred formats for the presentation of information on the web. Even though these guidelines are not agency-mandated, they seem to be a common agency practice. Several of the agencies interviewed

indicated they have modified or adopted their agency guidelines from the

guidelines established by the Federal Web Consortium in 1996.

The Consortium, founded in 1 994 by the National Science Foundation and

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, established guidelines with other

Government agencies (see http://www.dtic.mil/staff/cthomps/ guidelines/).

The guidelines provide suggestions to help the Federal community

accomplish agency missions to improve services to customers. Consortium

guidelines cover a wide range of topics including:

• Home page checklist (content, navigation/organization, style/markup);

• File formats (i.e., agencies should not be restricted to proprietary

formats such as WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, SAS, PDF);

• Rationale for using certain kinds of formats such as HTML, GIF, and

JPEG;

• Guidelines for formats to be used for downloading or display (e.g., HTML, GIF, JPEG, PDF, Postscript); and

• Emerging standards.

Agency representatives indicated that one of their biggest challenges is to convince personnel from all program areas to follow the agency's internal guidelines when creating products for the web. Another challenge for agencies is to consolidate web guidelines from different agency sub-units so they are complementary rather than contradictory.

64
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Agency representatives, per OMB Circular A- 130 and the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993, are assessing the usefulness of their websites and CD-ROMs as part of a larger effort to measure program

effectiveness. Focus groups, online customer surveys, and videotaping of

customers online are the most common ways in which agencies evaluate and

test products on their websites.

One objective of the evaluation is to test both formats and web approaches.

Based on the evaluation results, agencies may change or add formats. For

example, one agency, after testing their site with children, eliminated PDF

files on the site and made it more interactive. Another agency made the decision to keep their BBS because many of their international users do not have ready access to the web. One agency webmaster indicated that the

needs of their business clients, who participate on their advisory board, help

drive their format needs. A fourth agency stores its documents in TIFF

format for image and textual data. As customers request documents, the

agency converts them to PDF so customers can download the material. A

fifth agency created a simple set of rules for producing CD-ROMs based

upon user input: keep it simple to use, intuitive, and self-tutorial.

User needs for easy access to electronic information products will continue

to affect how agencies make decisions about formats and mediums. Bertot and McClure suggest that more agencies should continue to monitor the

information needs of the public as well as targeted constituencies to enhance

current access to electronic Government information products (Bertot and

McClure, 1997, p. 288).

Evaluating

Websites

Cost-Effectiveness

of Formats

and Mediums

None of the agency representatives who attended the agency meetings has

conducted a formal cost-benefit analyses for producing or creating products

in preferred or emerging formats, mediums, or online approaches for distribution to the FDLP. Most agencies reported that migrating products

to the web substantially reduces printing and distribution costs associated

with paper mediums. However, the crosstabs in tables 28-29 reveal that many Government products are still produced in more than one medium and

often in more than one format. Providing permanent public access to electronic mediums ultimately may exceed the one-time costs associated

with producing and distributing the same information in print or microform

(GPO, 1996, p. 24 and A71-A74).

In her role as Chief, Electronic Information Services, at the Internal Revenue Service, Linda Wallace has analyzed the costs of delivering

documents to customers (Appendix H). She found that:

It costs IRS $3 per call for the public to call into their toll-free number

and for IRS to fill the request.

65
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• The cost to IRS for the public to use the Internet to access and use the forms is 1 cent, a difference of 300 to 1. (However, this shifts the cost

to the public, who must have access to the Internet.)

• It costs IRS $2.50 to make and distribute to all public libraries (including the Federal depository libraries) each CD-ROM containing 5 years of tax forms, instructions, and publications.

Based on these numbers, the IRS has made some internal decisions about

where they will focus their resources and time in order to reach the

maximum number of customers in the most cost-effective manner.

Since depository librarians serve as the intermediary between the users and

electronic information products, their observations and experiences about

user and library needs are critical. In general, the five agencies interviewed

focused on public users or their target audiences rather than depository

library users when discussing usage of their electronic Government

information products.

First, the librarians interviewed emphasized that many patrons still prefer

Government information in paper mediums, followed by the web and then

CD-ROM. The respondents surveyed indicated that many of their products

are produced both in paper and on the web.

Second, librarians expressed concerns about lack of standardization for producing Government CD-ROMs. One agency representative indicated

that they are undertaking several initiatives to make their CD-ROMs more

user-friendly by making them as intuitive as possible and incorporating a user testing component into the production schedule.

A third important concern for the librarians interviewed is the rising cost of

computer hardware and the simultaneous rise in user expectations for state- of-the-art computer workstations. Although the three libraries recently

received updated computer workstations that met or exceeded the

recommended minimum guidelines for depository libraries, they are beginning to change their policies on access to workstations by placing a time limit on their use. A fourth issue concerns the rising costs to purchase and maintain new

equipment, which have caused depository librarians to reconsider their policies on charging printing fees. One librarian indicated that their library

already charges patrons for photocopying materials; this change is not dramatic, but it does affect the concept of no-fee access when an overwhelming number of products are offered on the Internet.

Fifth, time and resources to train library staff (and patrons) on how to use

the new technology (i.e., how to download files), conduct Internet searches,

design and develop their own websites, and load, search, and use

Depository Library

Needs

66
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

CD-ROMs are major concerns expressed by the depository librarians interviewed. The fact that Government information exists in a variety of

mediums and formats only increases rather than diminishes the need for

training.

Finally, all librarians are troubled by how GPO, the FDLP, and

Government agencies will address the problems of permanent public access

to electronic information products that are constantly being replaced and

updated by new ones. In addition, the preservation of retrospective

electronic Government information is an issue of concern.

Public Access The survey data revealed that 15 percent of the products surveyed are not in the public domain, for all or part of the product. In addition, user fees are charged for 30 percent of the products. These data suggest that these two

critical public access goals have not yet been achieved.

Permanent Public Access

to and Permanent

Retention of Electronic

Government Information

Perhaps more than any other issues, permanent public access and

preservation pose two of the greatest challenges to the FDLP, and

ultimately to the public. Each of the experts raised different issues and

shared various perspectives about these issues. It might be helpful here to summarize their perspectives and describe initiatives underway to address

the problems associated with the provision of permanent public access and

preservation.

Most of the survey respondents indicated that permanent access is currently

provided for the products surveyed, although most of the responses

indicated that this concept is not fully understood and that access is not provided by the agency responsible for the product. Instead, they are relying on GPO, Federal depository libraries, the National Technical

Information Service, or other agencies to provide this permanent public

access. In its policy and planning document, Managing the FDLP

Electronic Collection (see http://www.access.gpo.gov/

su_docs/dpos/ecp lan. html), GPO states that "the 'first-level' collection

management activity depends upon knowledge that the products exist. In order to ensure current and permanent access, GPO will ...rely on

notification from and outreach to other agencies and notification from the

depository library community."

The responses of agency representatives on the issue of permanent public access may provide additional information about the problem. Most

agency representatives said their agencies had not discussed the issue or were exploring the issue to see how it should be addressed, and they

indicated that they did not understand the concept of permanent public access in relation to permanent retention. The one exception was the representative from National Archives and Records Administration, who is clear about the agency's role to provide permanent public access to its own

products.

67
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

It might be helpful here to clarify the distinctions between the two concepts.

GPO's definition of permanent public access "means that electronic

Government information products within the scope of the FDLP remain

available for continuous, no-fee public access through the program" (GPO,

1998, p. 19).

Lewis Ballardo, deputy archivist of the United States, in a recent article in the Washington Post (March 12, 1999, p. A01) stated that the problem of

digital preservation must be addressed "or memory will be lost for the latter half of the 20th century." In addition, Bellardo, in a written response to agency questions, articulated agency responsibilities to GPO for permanent

public access and to NARA for permanent retention. GPO will accept

products in all mediums to provide continuous, no-fee public access, if notified by agencies that access is being discontinued. Agencies are responsible for transferring those products that are scheduled as permanent

records (official records as defined by Federal Records legislation) to NARA.

Linda Wallace described the IRS' methods for providing current public access to their materials. Using SGML format, the IRS has built and

maintains a core knowledge repository to generate media output in any

application to respond to customer needs. The repository maintains

materials for 14 years, but not for every application. In addition, all tax forms, publications, instructional materials, etc., are available online for 5 years. Since none of the agencies interviewed is providing permanent

public access to its products, it was useful to ask two information resources management experts, John Bertot and Charles McClure, to provide some

larger context within which the problem can be viewed.

Perspectives on Permanent

Public Access and

Information Life Cycle

Management from

Information Resources

Management Experts

Both Bertot and McClure have extensively studied and taught information resources management (IRM). They attribute the lack of successful

implementation of IRM initiatives in the Federal Government to the following factors:

• There is no comprehensive integrated Federal IRM policy; current

policies do not adequately address permanent public access, information life cycle, and electronic records management.

• There is no strategic vision of IRM by agencies; information is not viewed as a resource that should be used to accomplish agency

missions.

• Most agency initiatives focus on the technology side of IRM because it

is tangible.

• Most agencies are targeting their information technology resources toward Y2K efforts.

• There is no clear distinction between the role of information resources managers and CIOs.

68
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• There is no ongoing training for IRM and CIO staff.

(See Appendix H for detailed notes on telephone interviews with Bertot and

McClure, and Bertot and McClure, 1997, pp. 280-282.)

There are many IRM policy instruments from the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1980 and 1986, OMB Circular A-130 (1985; and 1993 and 1994

revisions) through the Information Technology Management Reform Act

(ITMRA) of 1996 and Executive Order 13011 (July 1996). But Bertot and

McClure (1998) emphasize that there is still a lack of an integrated policy.

For example, in their focus group with IRM managers, Bertot and McClure

noted that managers felt that the Paperwork Reduction Act assumed that the

managers understood and knew how to manage the information life cycle,

but they agreed that agency management at all levels never grasped the concept either in theory or in practice. In addition, the ITMRA that created a position for an agency-based CIO to oversee agency IRM activities and to provide education for agency IRM personnel and agency managers (among

other things) does not clarify the relationships between and among CIOs

and IRM managers. Consequently, it is ambiguous about whether the

agency CIO's organization replaces, incorporates, or is separate from

current agency IRM functions.

Given this larger context, it is not surprising that IRM issues such as information life cycle management, preservation, and permanent public access have not been adequately addressed. Conventional organizational

barriers such as size, culture, poor communication and interaction across and within agencies, and lack of ongoing, strategic training for IRM and

CIO staff may exacerbate these challenges faced by agencies (telephone

interview with Bertot, Appendix H). (As an example, McClure states that IRM graduate students' degrees are useful for about 1-2 years after they

graduate. After that, their skills are 50 percent out of date; telephone

interview with McClure, Appendix H.) Several experts are involved in initiatives that address some of these important IRM issues.

Current Initiatives on Several agencies, organizations, and Federal depository libraries with

Permanent Public Access partner institutions are exploring ways to address the problems of

and Permanent Retention permanent public access, preservation, and electronic records management.

Appendix H contains more detailed information about each of these

initiatives that will be summarized here.

Abby Smith from the Council on Libraries and Information Resources

(CLIR), and Evelyn Frangakis from the National Agricultural Library

(NAL) are supporting research and testing models for permanent public access and preservation. The three CLIR initiatives are described below:

69
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• A commissioned report by Jeff Rothenberg from RAND Corporation on

emulation. The report has been completed and was published

in January 1999. The report describes the weaknesses of migration and

the strengths of emulation and sets up a research agenda to develop

emulation. (Log onto publications on CLIR site for a summary of

Rothenberg' s report: http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/

rothenberg/contents . html .

• A commissioned analysis of migrating file formats to support a risk assessment associated with those file formats during migration. The

study by Cornell University, using data from the Mann (agricultural)

Library, will use numeric file formats and databases and text formats.

The report, to be finished by September 1 999, will include analysis and

a template that others can use for doing a risk assessment of migration

of those file formats.

• CLIR is working with John Ockerbloom, a computer scientist at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) who has developed a system of file conversion called TOM (Typed Object Model). (See www.es. emu. edu/afs/cs . emu. edu/user/spok/www/defense/index, html) . CLIR

would like to see if they can bring his concepts into fuller application.

Smith describes NAL and its efforts to provide permanent public access and

to preserve agricultural literature as one of few examples where a failsafe archives might work, partly because NAL is a national library dedicated to one type of literature. Evelyn Frangakis is involved in NAL's efforts to develop its own preservation program that includes a traditional preservation program and digital efforts. Their digital efforts are twopronged:

• Conversion of brittle paper materials into digital products by working

with the best available guidelines to implement good preservation

practices. They will make this digital material available on the web.

• Development of a program to preserve USDA digital materials (i.e., materials that are born digitally).

In addition, Frangakis is also involved in a national effort to preserve

agricultural literature. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Digital

Publications Preservation Steering Committee was established in 1998 to oversee the implementation of the plan, A Framework for the Preservation

of and Permanent Public Access to USDA Digital Publications. This

group met for the first time in October 1998. The plan may serve as a model that other agencies or institutions can adapt. USDA is incorporating

the following needs and considerations into its framework:

• Inventory and life cycle management,

• Technical requirements, and

70
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

• User access and retrieval.

USDA is moving ahead to implement the plan. The USDA CIO accepted

the report, and under Frangakis' guidance, NAL established a national

steering committee made up of representatives from USDA and from

agribusiness, the research library community, the U.S. Agricultural

Information Network (USATN), Federal partners, etc. The group will meet on a quarterly basis for the first 2 years. They will establish test groups to explore the technical and funding issues. They are hoping to secure funding

for a pilot project to test the framework on an agency within USDA to see how manageable it will be for full-scale implementation (see Appendix H

for a detailed description of the Framework).

Finally, GPO has established partnerships with several depository libraries and Federal agencies to provide permanent public access to remotely

accessible electronic Government information products. Three such

partnerships include:

• Partnership with the University of Illinois at Chicago's Richard J. Daley Library and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) to provide

permanent access to remotely accessible electronic DOS information

products.

• An Online Computer Library Center/GPO pilot project with the U.S.

Department of Education/National Library of Education (NLE)

provided free public access through the FDLP to remotely accessible

electronic Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

documents.

• A project with the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) to provide public and depository

library access to DOE technical reports in image format via the web

service called "DOE Information Bridge" (Aldrich, 1998).

Preservation specialists Smith and Frangakis noted that technology is not

the biggest barrier to permanent access and preservation; the human

infrastructure is not in place yet that would ensure permanent access and

preservation (telephone interview with Smith and Frangakis, Appendix H).

The plans and initiatives described here, coupled with the recommendations

for training, policy integration, and support for best practices to implement

policies are a few of the strategic actions that appropriate agencies,

libraries, and institutions should undertake to ensure that future generations

will have unrestricted, no-fee access to Government information in all formats.

Next Steps As a fohowup effort, NCLIS indicated that they will use these findings as a point of departure and analyze them in greater depth. It is expected that

71
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

this followup effort will result in broad conclusions and recommendations to the President and Congress about how the problems and challenges revealed

in this study can be constructively addressed.
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Bibliography Books and Articles

Achenrach, Joel. 1999. The too-much information age: Today's glut jams

libraries and lives, but is anyone wiser? Washington Post, March

15, p. A01.

Adler, Prudence S. 1996. Federal information dissemination policies and

practices: One perspective on managing the transition. Journal of

Government Information 23, 4:435-441.

Adler, Prudence S. 1998. The times they are a changin' for our depository

libraries. Managing Technology, The Journal ofAcademic

Librarianship, September.

Aldrich, Duncan. 1998. Partners on the Net: FDLP partnering to coordinate remote access to Internet-based government information.

Government Information Quarterly 15, 1:27-38. [This issue of

Government Information Quarterly is devoted entirely to a symposium on Federal depository libraries. The issue was edited by

John A. Shuler and Gary Cornwell.]

Beachboard, John C. 1997. Assessing the Information Technology

Management Reform Act from a bureau's perspective. Government

Information Quarterly 14, 3: 291-311.

Bertot, John Carlo. 1997. The impact of federal IRM on agency missions:

Findings, issues, and recommendations." Government Information

Quarterly 14, 3:235-253.

Bertot, John Carlo, and Charles R. McClure. 1997. Key issues affecting

the development of federal IRM: A view from the trenches. Government Information Quarterly 14, 3:271-290.

Bertot, John Carlo, Charles R. McClure, William E. Moen, and Jeffrey

Rubin. 1997. Web usage statistics: Measurement issues and

analytical techniques. Government Information Quarterly 14,

4:373-395.

Bryan, Martin. 1998. An introduction to the extensive markup language

(XML). Bulletin ofthe American Society for Information Science

25, 1:11-14.

Culshaw, Stuart. 1998. SGML, HTML, and XML: Sorting out the

puzzle. Information Standards Quarterly 10, 2:6-8.

Depository Administration Branch, Library Division. Library Programs

Service. 1997. List ofclasses of United States Government

publications available for selection by depository libraries. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

73
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Dugan, Robert E., and Ellen M. Dodsworth. 1994. Costing out a

depository library: What free government information? Government

Information Quarterly 11, 3: 285-300.

General Accounting Office. 1988. Federal information: Agency needs

andpractices. GAO/GGD-881 15FS. Washington, DC:

Government Accounting Office.

Gorman, G. E., and R. H. Miller. 1997. Collection managementfor the

21st century: A handbookfor librarians. Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Hernon, Peter. 1994. Information life cycle: Its place in the management

of U.S. Government information resources. Government

Information Quarterly 1 1, 2:143-170.

Hernon, Peter. 1994. Discussion forum: A time of change. Government

Information Quarterly 1 1, 2:137-142.

Hernon, Peter. 1994. Information life cycle: Its place in the management

of government information resources. Government Information

Quarterly 2:143-170.

Hernon, Peter, and Charles R. McClure. 1993. Electronic U.S.

government information: Policy issues and directions. In Annual

Review ofInformation Science and Technology, vol. 28, edited by

Martha E. Williams. Medford, NJ: American Society for Information Science.

Marcum, Deanna B. 1996. The preservation of digital information. The

Journal ofAcademic Librarianship 22, 6:451-454.

McClure, David L. 1997. Improving Federal performance in the

information era: The Information Technology Management Reform

Act of 1996. Government Information Quarterly 14, 3:255-269.

Okay, John, and Roxanne Williams. 1993. Interagency workshop on

public access: A summary for historical purposes. Government

Information Quarterly 10, 2:237-253.

Radack, Shirley M. 1994. The Federal Government and information

technology standards: Building the national information

infrastructure." Government Information Quarterly 11, 4:373-386.

Ryan, J., Charles R. McClure, and R. T. Wigand. 1994. Federal

information resources management: New challenges for the nineties. Government Information Quarterly 11, 3:301-314.

Ryan, Susan M. 1996. Downloading democracy: Government

Information in an electronic age. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press,

Inc.

74
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Schwartz, Candy, and Mark Rorvig, eds. 1997. Digital Collections:

Implications for users, funders, developers and maintainers.

Proceedings for the 60th American Society for Information Science

Annual Meeting, 1997, vol. 34. Washington, DC, November 1-6. Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.

Tennant, Roy. 1999. Beyond GIF and JPEG: New digital image

technologies. Library Journal (February): 111-112.

Turock, Betty J., and Carol C. Henderson. 1996. A model for a new

approach to federal government information access and

dissemination. Journal of Government Information 23, 3:227-240.

Uhlir, Paul. 1997. Frameworkfor the preservation ofandpermanent

public access to USDA digital publications. Washington, DC:

National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.

U.S. Code 44: 1901-1916 Title 44-Public Printing and Documents.

Chapter 19, Depository Library Program.

U.S. Congress. 1988. Informing the nation: Federal information

dissemination in an electronic age. LCCN 88-600567.

Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment.

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Congressional Record, House.

HI 1245. October 19, 1998.

U.S. Department of Commerce. National Telecommunications and

Information Administration. United States Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure. 1996. A nation ofopportunity:

Realizing the promise of the information superhighway.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 1995. Biennial report to Congress on

the status ofGPO access: A service of the U.S. Government

Printing Office. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 1996. Report to the Congress. Study

to identify measures necessaryfor a successful transition to a more

electronic Federal Depository Library Program. As Required by

Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1996 Public Law 104-53.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Government Printing Office. Superintendent of Documents. Library

Programs Services. 1998. Managing the FDLP electronic

collection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

75
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Web Sites

Acrobat in Action. The Acrobat info source on the web.

http://www.purepdf.com/action/gov.html. Accessed February 24,

1999.

Guidelines for Accessible Web Pages. Microsoft, accessibility and

disabilities. For developers, writers and designers:

For web page designers.

http ://www. microsoft . com/enable/dev/web_gu idel ines . htm

Accessed February 24, 1999.

Introduction to Accessible Web Pages. Microsoft, accessibility and

disabilities. For developers and authors: For web page designers.

http://www.microsoft.eom/enable/dev/web_intro.htm#tools.

Accessed February 24, 1999.

McClure, Charles. Guidelines for electronic records management on state and federal agency websites. In Analysis and development ofmodel

quality guidelines for electronic records management on state and

federal websites. Chapter 6. http://istweb.syr.edu/~mcclure/nhprc/nhprc_chpt_6.html. Accessed

February 24, 1999.

National Academy of Science's Computer Science and Telecommunications

Board (CSTB). Review in which CSTB developed a detailed statement of work that defined the data collection process required to conduct the assessment, http://www.nclis.gov/info/gpol.html.

Accessed February 24, 1999.

National Archives and Records Administration Guidelines for Digitizing

Archival Materials for Electronic Access,

http ://www. nara . gov/nara/vision/eap/eapspec . html . Accessed

February 24, 1999.

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science. 1998.

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science,

government information product assessment questionnaire.

http://www.nclis.gov/news/nclisqux.pdf. Accessed March 15, 1999.

Ockerbloom, John. 1998. Mediating among diverse data formats. Thesis

defense.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/spok/www/defense/inde

x.html. Accessed March 15, 1999.

76
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

Rothenberg, Jeff. 1998. Avoiding technological quicksand: Finding a

viable technical foundation for digital preservation.

http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/rothenberg/contents.html.

Accessed March 15, 1999.

The Federal Web Locator. This site is a service provided by the Villanova

Center for Information Laws and Policy and is intended to be the one

site to locate federal government information on the World Wide

Web. http://www.law.vill.edu/fed-agency/fedwebloc.html.

Accessed February 24, 1999.

U.S. Department of Education Guidelines. (The Federal Consortium

Guidelines are based on the guidelines set by the Department of

Education.) http:/www.ed.gov/internal/wwwstds.html. Accessed

February 24, 1999.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Information resources management policy, http://www.hhs.gov/policy/irm-pol.html.

Accessed February 24, 1999.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. World Wide Web

applications and the Internet. Best practices and guidelines.

http://www.hhs.gov/progorg/oirm/bestguid.html. Version as of May

26, 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Information resources management

(IRM) policy, standards, guidelines and planning documents.

http://www.epa.gov/irmpoli8/. Accessed February 24, 1999.

U.S. Government Printing Office, Library Programs Service. Managing the FDLP electronic collection: A policy and planning document.

October 1, 1998. http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/

ecplan.html. Accessed March 25, 1999.

U.S. Government Printing Office. 1996. Final report to Congress: Study

to identify measures for a successful transition to a more electronic

Federal Depository Library Program.

http://www.access.gpo.gOv/su_docs/dpos/fdlppubs.html#4.

Accessed March 15, 1999.

Uncle Sam Migrating Government Publications. Government Publication

Department. Regional Depository Library, University of Memphis.

Last updated September 2, 1998.

http://www.lib.memphis.edu/gpo/mig.htm. Accessed February 24,

1999.

77
Assessment ofElectronic Government Information Products

WWW Federal Consortium Guidelines. 1996 revised guidelines.

http://www.dtic.mil/staff/cthomps/guidelines/. Accessed February

24, 1999.

78
Appendix A

Agency Study Coordinator Meetings Agenda
A-2
Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products

Agency Study Coordinator Meetings

July 23, 1998, and August 4, 1998

The Benton Foundation

1634 I Street, N.W.

11

th Floor

Washington, D.C.

Agenda

9:30 - 9:45 Background and Welcome

Robert S. Willard, Executive Director, National Commission on Libraries

and Information Science (NCLIS)

Francis J. Buckley, Jr., Superintendent ofDocuments, Government Printing Office (GPO)

9:45 - 10:15 Objectives, Timetable, and Required Actions

Forest Woody Horton, NCLIS Study Manager

10:15-10:30 Coffee Break

10:30 - 12:15 Specific Data Requirements (question-by-question review of survey instrument using

GPO Access as a specific product example)

Gil Baldwin, GPO

T.C. Evans, GPO

Ric Davis, GPO

Denise Glover, Westat

Elizabeth Farris, Westat

Steve Fischer, Westat

12:15 Wrap-up and C losing

Forest Woody Horton

12:30 Adjourn

A-3
v

A-4
Appendix B

List of Agency Coordinators and Other Key Officials
B-2
Agency

Agency Coordinators and Other Key Officials

Agency Coordinator(s)

Legislative Branch

Library of Congress

United States Congress

Nancy Davenport

Maggie Smith

Eric Peterson

Judicial Branch

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Gloria Malkin

Supreme Court of the United States Shelley L. Dowling

Wilma M. Grant

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Department of Education

Department of Energy

Department of Health and Human

Department of the Interior

Department of Justice

Department of Labor

Executive Branch

Betty Behal

Vera Whisenton

Cynthia Banicki

William Beyer

Rick Silva

Chiquitta Thomas

Linda Tague

Karen Spence

Services Deborah Burris

Fred Wood

Claude Christensen

Bob Mehnert

Regina Byrd

Chris Rudy

Dennis Feldt

Maureen Hill Deborah Klein

B-3
Agency Agency Coordinator(s)

Department of State

Department of Transportation

Department of the Treasury

Executive Branch (continued)

Colleen Hope

Dan Clemmer

Barbara Post Robert Zarnetske

Gladys Myatt

Mike Conklin

Environmental Protection Agency

Executive Office of the President

General Services Administration

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Archives and Records Administration

Securities and Exchange Commission

Smithsonian Institution

Social Security Administration

Richard Huffine

Peter Weiss

Odessa Brown

Roland Ridgeway

Debra Leahy

Bert Lee

Robert Schelin

Terry Hynes

B-4
Appendix C

List of Participating Agencies and Products Surveyed
C-2
Participating Agencies and Products Surveyed

Survey

status Legislative Branch

Library of Congress

American Memory: Historical Collections CM

Braille Books on Disk CM

Cataloger's Desktop CM

CD BLND CM

Classification Plus CM

Country Studies CM

French Poster Art CM

THOMAS CM

Thomas: A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation CM

Thomas: Bill Summary and Status CM

Thomas: Committee Reports CM

Thomas: Congressional Record CM

Thomas: Early Congressional Documents CM

Thomas: Enactment of a Law CM

Thomas: Federalist Papers CM

Thomas: Floor Activities for the House & Senate CM

Thomas: House Committee Schedules OS

Thomas: House Roll Call Votes CM

Thomas: How Our Laws are Made CM

Thomas: Major Legislation CM

Thomas: Senate Roll Call Votes CM

Thomas: Text of Bills CM

United States Congress

Congressional Bills CM

Congressional Directory CM

Congressional Record (bound permanent) CM

Congressional Record (daily) CM

Hearings, Reports, & Prints: House Agriculture Committee * Hearings, Reports, & Prints: House Appropriations Committee * Hearings, Reports, & Prints: House Education and Workforce Committee

Hearings, Reports, & Prints: House Government Reform and Oversight Committee

Hearings, Reports, & Prints: House Judiciary Committee * Hearings, Reports, & Prints: Joint Committee on Taxation CM

Hearings, Reports, & Prints: Senate Appropriations Committee CM

Hearings, Reports, & Prints: Senate Armed Services Committee CM

Hearings, Reports, & Prints: Senate Commerce Committee * Hearings, Reports, & Prints: Senate Foreign Relations Committee

*Survey nonrespondent.

CF = Complete by fax CM = Complete by mail CP = Complete by phone

OS = Out-of-scope

C-3
Survey

status Legislative Branch (continued)

United States Congress (continued)

Hearings, Reports, & Prints: Senate Judiciary Committee CM

Hearings, Reports, & Prints: Rules and Administration Committee *

Serial Set * United States Code V CM

Judicial Branch

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Federal Rules of Civil Procedures CM

Judicial Business of the United States Courts CM

The Official Bankruptcy Forms Collection CM

The Third Branch CM

Understanding the Federal Courts CM

Supreme Court of the United States

Bench Opinions of the Supreme Court CM

Rules of the Supreme Court CM

Slip Opinions of the Supreme Court CM

U.S. Reports CM

Executive Branch

Department of Agriculture

Agent Orange CM

AgExporter CM

AGRICOLA Database *

Agricultural Prices, Monthly CM

Agricultural Statistics CM

Aquaculture CM

Continuing Survey of Food Intake By Individuals CM

Crops County Data CM

Fact Sheets CM

FAS Hot Country Pages CM

Fire Effects Information System CM

Forest Land Distribution Data for the U. S. CM

Leaflets CM

Market News CF

NAFTA Agricultural Fact Sheets CM

Ornamental Horticultural Multimedia Project CM

*Survey nonrespondent.

CF = Complete by fax CM = Complete by mail CP = Complete by phone

OS = Out-of-scope

C-4
Survey

status Executive Branch (continued)

Department of Agriculture (continued)

Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Exports CM

Statistical Bulletins CM

The Plant Genome Database Collaboration CM

Wildland Fire Assessment System CM

World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates *

Department of Commerce

AgroBase Database * Cen-Data OS

CenStats * Census of Population and Housing * Commerce Business Daily/CBDNet CM

County and City Data Book CM

Current Population Reports * Economic Census Reports * Federal Research in Progress Database * Geophysics of North America * GOV.Research-Center * Imports/Exports CD CM

Local Climatalogical Data (for states) CM

National Trade Data Bank CM

NTIS Database * Regional Economic Information System (REIS) CM

Solar Radio Bursts *

Statistical Abstract of the United States CM

STAT-USA/Internet/State of the Nation CM

STAT-USA Newsletter CM

Survey of Current Business CM

TIGER/Line CM

U.S. Industry and Trade Outlook CM

USA Counties CM

Zip Code Area CD-ROM CM

Department of Defense

Airman Magazine CM

Airpower Journal CM

All Hands * Defense Logistics Agency Publishing System CM

Joint Electronic Library CM

Survey nonrespondent.

CF = Complete by fax CM = Complete by mail CP = Complete by phone

OS = Out-of-scope

C-5
Survey

status Executive Branch (continued)

Department of Defense (continued)

Marines Magazine CM

Notice to Mariners CM

Soldiers Magazine CM

Technical Manuals V CM

Department of Education

Condition of Education CM

Digest of Education Statistics CM

Disability Statistics Abstract CM

Disability Statistics Report CM

EDsearch, Education Statistics on Disk CM

ERIC Database CM

Guide to Education Programs CM

Helping Your Child (series) CM

NAEP (Nat'l Assessment of Educational Progress) Mathematics CM

National Education Goals Report CM

Projections of Education Statistics CM

Resources in Education CM

Student Guide CM

Think College? Me? Now? CM

Department of Energy

Country Analysis Briefs (CABs) * DOE Directives * DOE Information Bridge CM

DOE R&D Project CM

Electric Power Annual CM

Electric Power Monthly CM

Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the U.S. * Energy Consumption & Carbon Emissions by Region * Energy Files CM

Energy InfoDisc CM

Energy Science and Technology Database CM

International Energy Outlook CM

Monthly Energy Outlook * National Education Goals Report * Petroleum Supply Annual CM

State Energy Data Reports CM

State Energy Data System CM

Survey nonrespondent.

CF = Complete by fax CM = Complete by mail CP = Complete by phone

OS = Out-of-scope

C-6
Survey

status Executive Branch (continued)

Department of Energy (continued)

Weekly Petroleum Status Report CM

World Energy Consumption *

Department of Health and Human Serv ices

Annual Pesticide Residue Monitoring Report CM

Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories CM

CDC Wonder CM

Clinical Preventive Services CM

EHP (Environmental Health Perspectives) CM

FDA Almanac CM

FDA Compliance Policy Guide CM

HCFA Health Watch CM

HCFA's Laws, Regulations, Manuals * Healthcare Cost & Utilization Project (HCUP-3) CM

Medicare and You CM

Medicare Compare CM

Morbitity & Mortality Weekly report CM

National Health Interview Survey, State Data Files CM

NIOSHTIC Database CM

PubMed CM

Research Activities (Monthly Newsletter) CM

RTECS Database CM

SETS: Statistical Export & Tabulation System CM

Vital and Health Statistics (Rainbow Series) CM

Department of the Interior

Contaminant Information Mgt & Analysis System CM

Endangered Species Bulletin CM

Geographic Names Information System CM

Metal Industry Indicators (MTJ) CM

Mineral Industry Surveys (monthly & quarterly) CM

Minerals Yearbook CM

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting & Wildlife & • * National Wildlife Refuge System Profiles Database CM

New Publications of the Geological Survey CM

NPS Statistical Abstract CM

Preservation Briefs (numbered series) * The National Register Information System (NRIS) CM

Water Resources Abstracts CM

Survey nonrespondent.

CF = Complete by fax CM = Complete by mail CP = Complete by phone

OS = Out-of-scope

C-7
Survey

status Executive Branch (continued)

Department of Justice

Correctional Populations of the United States CF

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin CM

FOIA Annual Report CM

Justice Information Center Publications v CM

NCJRS Abstracts Database CM

Prison and Jail Inmates CF

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics CF

Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States CM

Department of Labor

General Wage Determinations Issued Under Davis-Bacon * Monthly Labor Review CM

Occupational Outlook Handbook CM

OSHA Documents and Files *

Department of State

Background Notes CM

Diplomatic List * Dispatch CM

Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts * Maximum Travel Per Diem Allowance for Foreign Area * Medical Information for Americans Traveling Abroad CF

Treaties and Other International Acts Series *

Department of Transportation

FAA Statistical Handbook CM

Highway Statistics CM

National Transit Database CM

National Transportation Statistics CM

Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey CM

Rail Waybill Data CM

Transportation Expressions CM

Transportation Statistics Annual Report CM

Worldwide Transportation Directory CM

Department of Treasury

A Visitors Guide OS

Arson Investigations Guide, ATF P 2220.1 * Bonded Warehouse-Manual for Proprietors, Importers & Customs Officers CM

*Survey nonrespondent.

CF = Complete by fax CM = Complete by mail CP = Complete by phone

OS = Out-of-scope

C-8
Survey

status Executive Branch (continued)

Department of Treasury (continued)

Business Taxpayers Information Publications, Pub 1 194.B CM

Buying Treasury Securities, PD P 0009 * Counterfeiting & Forgery * Customs Valuation Encyclopedia, 1980-1997 * Daily Treasury Statements CM

Federal Tax Forms CM

Firearms State Laws & Published Ordinances, ATF P 5300.5 CM

Importing a Car (Pub 520) CM

Know Your Money * Payment of Tax by EFT, ATF P 5000.10 CM

Quarterly Journal (Online) CF

Tables for Redemption Values for US Series E Savings Bonds & Savings Notes CM

Tables of Redemption Values for US Series EE Savings Bonds CM

Tax Guide for Small Businesses, Pub 334 * The History of Money OS

The Money Story CF

Treasury Bulletin * U.S. Mint Gift Collection CF

Your Federal Income Tax, Pub 1 7 CM

Your Guide to Federal Firearms Regulations, ATF P 5300.4 *

Environmental Protection Agency

Center for Environmental Info. & Statistics CM

Consumer Handbook for Reducing Solid Waste CM

Envirofacts Warehouse CM

EPA Online Library System (OLS) CP

Federal Register Environmental Subset CM

Guide to Environmental Issues CM

Integrated Risk Information System Database (IRIS) CP

National Air Quality and Emission Trends Report CM

National Environmental Publications Information CM

National Water Quality Inventory: Biennial Report to Congress (305b report) CM

Recycle City CM

Sector Facility Indexing Project CM

Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk CM

Superfund Hazardous Waste Site Query (CERCLIS Data) CM

Surf Your Watershed CM

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846) CM

Survey nonrespondent.

CF = Complete by fax CM = Complete by mail CP = Complete by phone

OS = Out-of-scope

C-9
Survey

status Executive Branch (continued)

Executive Office of the President

Art in the White House — A Nation's Pride

Best Kept Secrets in Government

Budget of the United States FBIS Publications Reports v From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government &

Interactive Citizens' Handbook

NAICS Manual

OMB Circulars

Putting Customers 1st, Serving the American Public

Reinvention Express

The White House for Kids

Virtual Library

White House Briefing Room

White House History (web)

White House Tour (CD-ROM)

World Factbook

World News Connection

General Services Administration

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance CM

Consumer Information Catalog CF

Consumer Information Series OS

Consumer Resource Handbook CM

Federal Acquisition Regulation * Government Registration Service CM

MarkeTips * U.S. Gold CM

U.S. Government TDD/TTY Directory CM

United States Online Directories * US Government Blue Pages Online Directory CM

US Real Property Sales List (online title varies) CM

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Aerospace Medicine and Biology CM

CASI Technical Report Server CM

NASA Thesaurus CM

NASA Video Catalog CM

Patent Abstracts CM

Scientific, Technical Aerospace Reports CM

* CM

* CM

**

* CM

CM

*

*

**

* CM

*

*Survey nonrespondent.

CF = Complete by fax CM = Complete by mail CP = Complete by phone

OS = Out-of-scope

C-10
Survey

status Executive Branch (continued)

National Archives and Records Administration

Code of Federal Regulations CM

Digital Classroom CM

Emerging Nation CM

Federal Register CM

National Archives Information Locator (NAIL) CM

Online Exhibit Hall CM

Privacy Act Issuances CM

Public Laws (slip laws) CM

United States Government Manual CM

Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents CM

Survey

status Securities and Exchange Commission

Administrative Proceedings CM

Cold Calling * Commission Legal Briefs * Completed Initiatives of Interest to Small Business * Directory of Companies Filing Annual Reports * EDGAR Database of Corporate Information *

Financial Facts Tool Kit * Investment Fraud & Abuse Travel to Cyberspace *

Litigation Actions and Proceedings Bulletin OS

Litigation Releases CM

Official List of Section 13 (f) Securities *

Official Summary of Security Transactions & Holdings * Pending Initiatives of Interest to Small Business *

Plain English Handbook: How to Create Clear SEC * SEC Annual Report * SEC Concept and Interpretative Releases CM

SEC Decisions CM

SEC Docket OS

SEC Final Rules CM

SEC News Digest (daily) CM

SEC Opinions CM

SEC Proposed Rules CM

SEC Special Studies CM

Staff Accounting Bulletins CM

Trading Suspensions CM

Survey nonrespondent.

CF = Complete by fax CM = Complete by mail CP = Complete by phone

OS = Out-of-scope

C-ll
Survey

status Executive Branch (continued)

Smithsonian Institution

Annals of the Smithsonian Institution CM

Anthology of American Folk Music CM

Gallery Exhibition Catalogues * SIRIS: SI Research Information System CM

Smithsonian (magazine) V

* Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology CM

Smithsonian Contributions to Botany CM

Smithsonian Contributions to Earth Sciences CM

Smithsonian Contributions to Marine Sciences CM

^mitliQruiian O 1 1 11 llloVJl 1 Idl 1 CrMitrihntinnc V^VJllll lULillVJllo tnK\J 1PaCLl\*\JUl\Jl\Jliy lpnhiolocrv CM

Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology CM

Smithsonian Folklife Festival: Culture of, by & . . . * Smithsonian Folklife Studies Series CM

Smithsonian Institute Research Reports * Smithsonian Photographs Online * Smithsonian Studies in Air and Space CM

Smithsonian Year *

Social Security Administration

Documents Published by the SSA Historian CM

Publications Information Pamphlets and Fax Sheets CM

Request a Personal Earnings & Benefits System CM

SSA Publications on CD-ROM CM

*Survey nonrespondent.

CF = Complete by fax CM = Complete by mail CP = Complete by phone

OS = Out-of-scope

C-12
Appendix D

Coordinator and Respondent Cover Letters
D-2
United Slates

National Commission on

Libraries and Information science

October 1998

Dear Agency Coordinator:

On behalf of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) and the Government

Printing Office, we would like to thank you for agreeing to distribute this survey of Government Electronic

Information Products to agency respondents.

The purpose of this assessment is to: (1) identify medium and format standards that are the most

appropriate for permanent public access, (2) assess the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of alternative

medium and format standards, and (3) identify public and private medium and format standards that are or could be used for products throughout their entire information life cycle. The broader objective of the

survey is to study the long-term impacts of shifting government information products from paper and

microform mediums to federal agency web sites and other electronic mediums. We want to ensure that as more government information is available in a variety of electronic mediums and formats, the American

public continues to have free and easy local access to this information through the Federal Depository

Library Program.

We are requesting that you, as the agency coordinator, promptly distribute the questionnaires to the

appropriate personnel in your agency. If you have any questions about this survey, please call Denise

Glover at Westat: 301-251-2269 or toll-free at 800-937-8281, ext. 2269. We will send you a copy of the

final report once it is completed.

The following suggested procedures and instructions will assist you to successfully distribute the product

questionnaires. However, some agency coordinators have decided to use different data collection

procedures. If you are one of those coordinators, it is essential that you explain your procedures to your respondents.

1 . All agency coordinators will receive a full packet from Westat on September 29 or shortly thereafter

that contains a cover letter and an information copy of the questionnaire. The coordinator's packet will also include a sealed packet for each product. Please make sure you have a packet for each product on your final list of product selections. If you are missing information or have incorrect information,

please call Debbie Alexander at Westat: 301-294-2088, or toll-free at 800-937-8281, ext. 2088.

2. The product packet includes a cover letter to the respondent, a product questionnaire, a glossary of

terms, and a postage-paid return envelope.

3. Each product questionnaire contains the following preprinted information: a five-digit ID, the agency's name and submit, and the name of the product.

4. Upon receipt of the packet, please distribute the product packets to the appropriate product respondents

in your agency.

1 1 IO Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite 820

Washington, D.C. 20005-3522

(202) 606-9200

Fax: (202) G06-9203

Federal Recycling Program ® Printed on Recycled Paper D-3
5. Due to the specialized nature of many of the questions asked on the survey, it may be necessary for product respondents to consult with other agency personnel such as records managers, information

technology staff, planning offices, and others to complete the survey in its entirety. We recommend

that you ask product respondents to leave blank any questions they feel uncomfortable answering and

to make arrangements for someone in their office or another office with more appropriate knowledge

and expertise to answer those questions. If product respondents decide to take this action, we strongly

suggest that, if possible, you standardize the arrangements in advance and ensure that all agency

respondents are aware of your procedures. One purpose of standardizing arrangements is to ensure

that product respondents do not lose control of a questionnaire because multiple individuals and

offices are handling it

6. Product respondents are responsible for ensuring that all questions are answered on their respective

questionnaires, even if they must consult with other personnel.

7. To ensure consistency and completeness, you might want to ask your assigned product respondents to allow you to review the surveys before they send them to Westat. You might also request that respondents send you a copy of the completed questionnaire for your files.

8. Product respondents should return completed questionnaires directly to Westat (not to you) in the

enclosed postage-paid envelope. If product questionnaires are not completed and returned to Westat by

the October 30, 1998 deadline, Westat will attempt to follow up directly with the designated product

respondent. However, if respondent information is unavailable or unknown, Westat will contact you

for followup.

Respondents are requested to return the survey by October 30, 1998 by mailing it in the postage-paid

envelope to:

Denise Glover

TA 2064

Westat, Inc. 1650 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

Thank you very much for your assistance and cooperation. We appreciate the time and hard work you have

invested in the coordination activities.

Sincerely,

Robert S. Willard Francis J. Buckley, Jr. Executive Director Superintendent of Documents

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science Government Printing Office

D-4
United states

National Commission on

Libraries and Information Science

January, 1999

Dear Respondent:

On behalf of the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) and the Government

Printing Office, we are requesting that you complete this survey of Government Electronic Information

Products.

The purpose of this assessment is to: (1) identify medium and format standards that are the most

appropriate for permanent public access, (2) assess the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of alternative

medium and format standards, and (3) identify public and private medium and format standards that are or could be used for products throughout their entire information life cycle. The broader objective of the

survey is to study the long-term impacts of shifting government information products from paper and

microform mediums to federal agency web sites and other electronic mediums. We want to ensure that as more government information is available in a variety of electronic mediums and formats, the American

public continues to have free and easy local access to this information through the Federal Depository

Library Program.

We recognize that many respondents will complete surveys for more than one agency product. We also

understand the burden this imposes upon you and appreciate the time and effort you will devote to completing the survey. However, we want to underscore the importance of your participation. We will send you a copy of the report summarizing the data from these surveys once it is completed.

Please carefully read all of the following suggested procedures and instructions that will assist you to successfully complete and return the product questionnaires. However, some agency coordinators have

decided to use different data collection procedures. You should contact your coordinator directly to find out if you are to follow the procedures outlined here. If your coordinator has made other

arrangements, please contact him/her to determine what they are.

1. Once you receive your packet(s) from your agency coordinator, please check to make sure each

packet contains the following information for each product you are to survey: a cover letter, questionnaire, glossary of terms, and postage-paid return envelope. If you feel you are missing

information or have incorrect information, please first contact your agency coordinator. (Your

coordinator's contact information is available on the NCLIS web site at www.nclis.gov.) If your coordinator is unable to provide this information, call Debbie Alexander at Westat: 301-

294-1088, or toll-free at 800-937-8281, ext. 2088.

2. Each product questionnaire contains the following preprinted information: a five-digit ID, the

agency's name and subunit, and the name of the product.

l l 10 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite 820

Washington, D.C. 20005-3522

(202) 606-9200

Fax: (202) 606-9203

Federal Recycling Program © Printed on Recycled Paper D-5
3. Due to the specialized nature of many of the questions asked on the survey, it may be necessary

for you to consult with other agency personnel such as records managers, information

technology staff, planning officers, and others to complete the survey in its entirety. We

suggest you leave blank the responses to questions you feel uncomfortable answering and then

arrange for someone in your office or another office with more appropriate knowledge and

expertise to answer those questions. Your agency coordinator may have standardized those

arrangements in advance and made you are aware of their procedures. The purpose of

standardizing arrangements is to ensure that you do not lose control of a questionnaire

because multiple individuals and offices are handling it.

4. Please note that you are responsible for ensuring that all questions are answered on your

respective questionnaires, even if you must consult with other personnel.

5. To ensure consistency and accuracy, coordinators might request that they be allowed to review

the completed surveys before you return them to Westat.

6. Return completed questionnaires directly to Westat in the enclosed postage-paid envelope by

January 15, 1999. Your coordinator may request that you also send him/her a copy of the

completed questionnaire.

7. If you have any questions about this survey, please call Denise Glover at Westat: 301-251-

2269, or toll-free at 800-937-8281, ext. 2269.

Please return the questionnaire by January 15, 1999 by mailing it to:

Denise Glover

TA 2064

Westat, Inc. 1650 Research Blvd.

Rockville, MD 20850

Thank you very much for your assistance and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Robert S. Willard

Executive Director

National Commission on Libraries and Information Science

Francis J. Buckley, Jr. Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office

D-6
Appendix E

Questionnaire and Glossary of Terms
E-2
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON LIBRARIES AND INFORMATION SCIENCE

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

PRODUCT ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions: This form is to be completed only for products that are either already in electronic mediums or products that are

to be migrated to electronic mediums. Do not complete this form for products that will remain in paper or microform

mediums only. A product is defined as "a Government publication or other work of the United States Government conveyed

in a tangible physical medium such as a book, CD-ROM, etc., or disseminated through an electronic Government information

service and intended for public dissemination." (See enclosed glossary for definitions of terms used throughout this questionnaire.) Complete one questionnaire for each product. (Please note that a Website is not considered a product,

although products might be on a Website.)

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Agency Name:

Sub-Unit:

2. Name of Product:

3. Brief Description of Product:

4. URL for Product Website:

O Check if no Website

B. CURRENT PRODUCT PROFILE

5. How is this product used by the end user? (Check all that apply.)

a. Information access and retrieval 0

1

b. Data analysis (e.g., to support analysis by end user) 0

1

c. Other (specify) 0

1

E-3
What types of data are contained within this product?

In Column A, indicate which type of data this product contains. (Check all that apply.)

In Column B, indicate the primary type of data contained in this product. For example, if you checked boxes for items b and f in column A, indicate which of the two is the primary type of data by placing a check in the appropriate

box in column B.

Type of data

A. Type of data contained

B. Primary

type of data (Check only

one)

(Check all that apply)

a. Bibliographic data

'

b. Graphical data (photos, charts, graphs, tables, drawings) 2

c. Numerical data

3

d. Sound

lr1 1 I 1 A4

e. Spatial data (maps, coordinate files)

5

f. Textual data (books, serials, reports)

' 6

g. Video

' 7

h. Multimedia (sound, video, text, graphics)

* 8

i. Other {specify)

' 9

E-4
7a. In what mediums is this product publicly available?

In Column A, indicate which type of medium is used. (Check all that apply.)

In Column B, for each medium used, indicate whether there is a medium standard that is mandated by the agency, a common practice in the agency (although not mandated), other (i.e., not agency-mandated standard or common

agency practice, but new and promising and beginning to be used, etc.), OR none of these. In Column C, for each type of medium used, check one box to indicate the primary type used.

Medium

A. Type of mediums used

(Check all that apply)

B. StandardIs there... Agencymandated

standard

Common

agency

practice

Other None

(Check onefor each category)

C. Primary type

of medium used (Check only one)

Pre-Electronic Mediums

a. Paper

b. Microform

c. Other (specify)

Electronic Mediums

Magnetic Mediums

d. Magnetic tape

e. Floppy diskette

f. Hard drive

g. Other {specify)

Describe medium in more detail

Optical Mediums

h. CD-ROM

i. WORM (Write once, read many disk)

j. DVD (digital video disk) ,

k. Other (specify)

Describe medium in more detail

Online Mediums

1. Web

m. Gopher

n. Bulletin Board Systems,

o. Other (specify)

Describe medium in more detail

Q

1

'

rij

1

o1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

7b. If you checked "Other" category in Question 7a, Column B, please explain.

E-5
8a. Which of the following types of formats does this product use?

In Column A, indicate which type of format is used. (Check all that apply.) In Column B, for each format used, indicate whether there is a format standard that is mandated by the agency, a common practice in the agency although not mandated, other (i.e., not agency-mandated standard or common agency

practice, but new and promising and beginning to be used, etc.), OR none of these. In Column C, for each type of format used, check one box to indicate the primary type that is used within each

major category (e.g., database, spreadsheet, word processing, etc.).

Format

A. Formats

used?

B. Standard

Is there... C. Primary type

of format used (Check one in each category)

(Check all that

ap^ply)

Agencymandated

standard

Common

agency

practice

Other None

(Check onefor each category)

Database

a. Oracle n2

3

4

5 n6

c. dBase

d. WAIS

e. MARC

f. Other (specify) Spreadsheet

a. Excel 2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4 '

2

3

b. Lotus 1-2-3

c. Other (specify) Tagged Markup

a. HTML 2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

'

2

3

4

D. AML

c. SGML

d. Other (specify) Image

a. GIF 2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

4

U |T)L (

' D. JrbU

c. TIFF

d. PDF

e. Other (specify)

A. udio

a. WAV 2

2

2

2 U4

L*J

l*J

w 4

4

4

4

'

2

3

4

b. AU

c. AIFF

d. Other (specify) Video

a. MOV 4

4

4

4

'

2

3

4

b. MPEG

c. AVI

d. Other (specify) Text

a. ASCII 2

2

2

2

4

4

4

4

'

2

3

4

b. Rich Text Format

c. ANSI

d. Other (specify)

E-6
8a. (continued)

Format

A. Formats

used?

B. StandardIs there... C. Primary type

of format used (Check one in each category) (Check all that apply)

Agencymandated

standard

Common

agency

practice

Other None

(Check onefor each category)

Word Processing

a. Word Perfect .

3

3

3

4

4

4

'

2

3

b. Microsoft Word

c. Other (specify) Other (specify) 2 3 4 ]

8b. If you checked "Other" category in Question 8a, Column B, please explain.

E-7
9a. Is this product in an online medium?

Yes (Continue with question 9b) No (Skip to question 1 Oa)

9b. Which of the following online approaches are used?

In Column A, indicate which type of approach is used. (Check all that apply.)

In Column B, if the approach is used, indicate whether it is mandated by the agency, a common practice in the agency

although not mandated, other (i.e., not agency-mandated standard or common agency practice, but new and promising

and beginning to be used, etc.), OR none of these.

vanillic dp|iru<tciics

A. Type of online tool used

B. Standard

Is there...

(Check all that apply)

Agencymandated

standard

Common

agency

practice

Other None

(Check one for each category) User Interfaces Supported

a. Netscape (specify version)

b. Internet Explorer (specify version)

c. Telnet

d. FTP

2

2

2

1—1 02

2

2

4

4

4

l 1 A4

4

4

e. Nongraphical/dial-up shell

f. Other (specify) Web Design Approaches

a. Basic HTML only (specify version)

b. Tables

c. Frames

d. CGI Scripts

e. Use of Javascript

f. Use of Java Applets

g. XML

i

i

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4 h. Other (specify)

Bulletin Board Systems (BBS)

a. Graphical interface/browser 2 3 4

9c. If you checked "Other" category in Question 9b, Column B, please explain.

E-8
Searchability of Product

10a. Please indicate whether this product is... (Check all that apply.)

a. Included as part of a full-text searchable database with no fielding

b. Indexed by full-text and field D

1

c. Available as "view only" — non-searchable Q

1

d. Other (specify)

1

10b. This product is officially hosted by... (Check all that apply.) (Host refers to the primary site where the public can

find the product.)

a. Your agency

1

b. Another agency (specify) D

1

c. Contractor Q

1

d. Educational institution 0

1

e. Other (specify) D

1

Retrievability

1 1 . This product and any associated software. . . (Check all that apply.)

a. Can be downloaded, saved, and is not subject to any restrictions on use or re-use by the end user CI

1

b. Cannot be downloaded, saved, and/or re-used because it is part of a database and does not exist as a distinct product \Z\

1

c. Cannot be downloaded, saved, and/or re-used because it requires proprietary software that is not freely distributable D

1

d. Other (specify) D

1

C. PLANNED PRODUCT PROFILE (This next section refers to future plans for the product.)

Type(s) of Data - Future Plans

12a. Are there any plans to discontinue publication of this product?

Yes 1 (Continue with question 12b) No D

2 (Skip to question 13a)

12b. If yes, please explain. (Skip to Section D.)

13a. What kind of data will this product contain? If product contains more than one type of data, respond for all data types. (Check one.)

Retain existing type(s) of data, no changes planned .. (Skip to question 14a) Retain existing type(s) of data and add items of one or more new types of data

(specify)

2 (Continue with question 13b)

Discontinue one or more types (specify)

3 (Continue with question 13b)

Change to new type(s) of data (specify)

4 (Continue with question 13b)

;e(s) will occur in the: (Check all that apply.)

(Skip to question 14a)

If you checked both "short term" and" medium term" in question 13b, continue with question 13c. Otherwise, skip to question 13d. E-9
13 c. If you have short-term and medium-term plans, how are your short-term plans different from your medium-term

plans? For example... (Check all that apply.)

Short-term plans call for one type of data, but medium-term plans call for a different type of data.

(specify) ,

1

In the medium term there are plans to combine resources to create a new version of a product using a

different type of data that may be different from short-term plans.

(specify) Q

1

Other (specify) ED

1

13d. Do you have any long-term plans (6 or more years) for changing this product to new types of data?

Yes D

1 (Continue with question lie) No ED

2 (Skip to question 14a)

1 3e. If yes, please describe them here.

Medium - Future Plans

14a. What kind of medium(s) will this product use? If product is delivered in more than one medium, respond for all mediums. (Check one.)

Retain existing medium(s), no changes planned ED

1 (Skip to question 15a) Retain existing medium(s) and add items of one or more new types of mediums

(specify) ED (Continue with question 14b) Discontinue one or more types (specify) O

3 {Continue with question 14b) Change to new type(s) of medium

(specify) ED

4 (Continue with question 14b)

No agency-mandated medium applies (Continue with question 14b)

14b. Change(s) will occur in the: (Check all that apply.)

Short term: within 1 year or less D

1 Medium term: within 2 to 5 years D

1 No changes indicated D

1 (Skip to question 15a)

If you checked both "short term" an*/ "medium term" in question 14b, continue with question 14c. Otherwise, skip to question 14d.

E-10
14c. If you have short-term and medium-term plans, how are your short-term plans different than your medium-term

plans? For example. . . (Check all that apply.)

Short-term plans call for one type of medium, but the medium-term plans call for a different type of medium, (specify) O'

In the medium term there are plans to combine resources to create a new version of a product in a medium that may be different from short-term plans.

(specify)

'

Other (specify)

1

14d. Do you have any long-term plans (6 or more years) for changing mediums for this product?

Yes CD

1 (Continue with question 14e) No O

2 (Skip to question 15a)

14e. If yes, please describe them here.

Format - Future Plans

15a. What kind of format(s) will this product contain? If the product uses more than one format, respond for all formats. (Check one.)

Same as existing format(s), no changes planned 0

1 (Skip to question J 6a) Retain existing format(s) and add one or more new format types

(specify) CD

2 (Continue with question 15b)

Change to new format type(s) (specify) D (Continue with question 15b)

Discontinue one or more types {specify) O

4 (Continue with question 15b) No agency-mandated format applies

s (Skip to with question 16a)

15b. Change(s) will occur in the: (Check all that apply.)

Short term: within 1 year or less D

1 Medium term: within 2 to 5 years D

1 No changes indicated

1 (Skip to question 16a)

If you checked both "short term" and "medium term" in question 15b, continue with question 15c. Otherwise, skip to question 15d.

E-ll
15c. If you have short-term and medium-term plans, how are your short-term plans different from your medium-term

plans? For example... (Check all that apply.)

Short-term plans call for one kind of format, but the medium-term plans call for a

different type of format, (specify) D

In the medium term there are plans to combine resources to create a new version of a product using a

different format that may be different from short-term plans.

(specify)

1

Other (specify) V

1

15d. Do you have any long-term plans (6 or more years) for changing formats for this product?

Yes 0' (Continue with question 15e) No O

2 (Skip to question 16a)

1 5e. If yes, please describe them here.

D. OTHER INFORMATION

Metadata

16a. Is there a metadata record for this product (e.g., GILS, MARC)?

Yes ED' (Continue with question 16b) No O

2 (Skip to question 17a)

16b. If yes, please specify

Permanent Access

17a. Permanent public access to this product is currently provided by: (Check all that apply)

Your agency EH

1 (Continue to question 17b) Another agency {specify) O

1 (Continue to question 17b) Other (specify) EH

1 (Continue to question 17b) No permanent public access provided D

1 (Skip to question 17c)

17b. How is permanent public access provided? (specify)

(Go to question 18a)

17c. Are there plans to provide permanent public access in the future for this product?

Yes 'No D

2

Permanent Retention

1 8a. Is this product scheduled for permanent retention by the National Archives and Records Administration?

Yes O' (Continue with question 18b) No \Z\

2 (Skip to question 19a)

18b. What is the planned retention period for this product? (specify)

E-12
Ensuring Authenticity

19a. Does the agency ensure authenticity (official status determination) for this product?

Yes (Continue with question 19b) No Q

2 (Skip to question 20)

19b. How does the agency attest to authenticity? (specify)

Updating/Upgrading Plans

20. How frequently is this product updated or refreshed? (Check one.)

Daily

'

Weekly D

2 Monthly fj

3

Annually Q

4

Other (specify)

5

21a. Are there plans for changing the product's supporting technology?

Yes CD' (Continue with question 2 lb) No O

2 (Skip to question 22a)

21b. If yes, specify

User Fees

22a. Is a user fee charged for this product? {Check one. )

Yes, for all users d

1 (Continue with question 22b)

Yes, for some users d

2 {Continue with question 22b)

No dl

3 (Skip to question 23a)

22b. If yes, explain and specify amount of fees.

Licensing

23a. Has the agency licensed commercial search and retrieval software for use with this product?

Yes

1 (Continue with question 23b) No D

2 (Skip to question 24a)

23b. Specify the software vendor and product name.

23c. Does the agency's license cover use by. . . (Check all that apply.)

a. Agency personnel D

1

b. Agency's primary target constituencies CD

1

c. Federal Depository Libraries D

1

d. All libraries d

1

e. Public users

f. Other

E-13
Public Domain

24a. Is this product in the public domain? (Check one.)

Yes, for the entire product

Yes, for part of product.... No

CH

1 {Continue with question 25) 0

2 {Continue with question 24b)

D

3 (Skip to question 24c)

24b. If yes for part of product, please explain.

24c. If no, has the agency entered into an arrangement with the private sector that would limit use of this information?

(Please briefly explain the arrangement.)

E. COMMENTS

25. If you wish to comment on matters that you believe are not otherwise adequately covered in this survey, do so here.

26. Key person completing this form.

Contact Name:

Title:

Telephone: Fax:

E-Mail:

Other person(s) providing responses to questions or assistance in completing this form.

27. Contact Name:

Title:

Telephone: Fax:

E-Mail:

E-14
Contact Name:

Title:

Telephone: Fax:

E-Mail:

THANK YOU. PLEASE RETURN THIS SURVEY TO:

DENISE GLOVER

WESTAT, ROOM TA2064

1650 RESEARCH BOULEVARD

ROCKVILLE, MD 20850

FAX: 301-517-4134

PHONE: 301-251-2269

gloverd 1 @westat.com

FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPLETING THE SURVEY, CONTACT DENISE GLOVER.

PLEASE KEEP A COPY OF THIS SURVEY FOR YOUR RECORDS.

E-15
v

E-16
Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Acronyms for the

Government Information Product Assessment Questionnaire

ASCII—An acronym for American Standard Code for Information Exchange, ASCII is an international standard

in which numbers, letters, punctuation marks, symbols, and control codes are assigned numbers from 0 to 127.

AIFF—Short for Audio Interchange File Format, a common format for storing and transmitting sampled sound.

ANSI—Acronym for the American National Standards Institute, a voluntary organization that creates standards

for the computer industry. In addition to programming languages, ANSI sets standards for a wide range of

technical areas, from electrical specifications to communications protocols.

AU—Short for audio, a common format for sound files on UNIX machines.

AVI—A format developed by Microsoft Corporation for storing video and audio information.

Accessibility—The degree to which the public is able to retrieve or obtain Government information products,

either through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP) or directly through an electronic information

service established and maintained by a Government agency or its authorized agent. The other aspects of

accessibility include the degree to which these Government information products are available to the public in a

useful format or medium and in a time frame in which the information has utility. In the context of the FDLP,

accessibility includes the degree to which Government information is accurately identified and described

bibliographically, the information's availability is made known to the public, and technological, social, economic,

political and physical barriers to gaining access are minimized.

Authentication—The certification of a Government information product attesting to its legitimate official status. Ensuring the authenticity of a product involves product design, planning, and policy development, as well as

technical considerations.

Availability—The degree to which information is physically or electronically obtainable through the intentional or unintentional provision of Government information products to the public. In the context of the FDLP,

availability includes the measures taken by Government agencies and the FDLP to include Government

information products in the program. Accessibility is meaningless if information is unobtainable from its source.

BBS—Bulletin Board System, an electronic message center. Most bulletin boards serve specific interest groups. They allow users to dial in with a modem, review messages left by others, and leave their own message.

CGI Scripts—Abbreviation for Common Gateway Interface, a specification for transferring information between

a World Wide Web server and a CGI program. CGI programs are the most common way for Web servers to interact dynamically with users. An increasingly common way to provide dynamic feedback for Web users is to include scripts or programs that run on the user's machine rather than the Web server. CD-ROM—Compact Disk-Read Only Memory; an optical disk from which information may be read but not

written.

DVD—Short for digital versatile disk or digital video disk, a new type of CD-ROM that holds a minimum of

4.7GB (gigabytes), enough for a full-length movie.

Digital Image—An electronic version of a bit-mapped image of a document or other information format that allows text to be searched at the character level; "digitalize" means the process and accompanying technologies

required to effect the conversion from bit-mapped (e.g., a fax) to searchable format.

E-17
Dissemination—The act of making Government information products accessible to the public through

distribution to depository or program libraries or by using a Government electronic information service.

Electronic Government Information—Information that is organized, stored, and disseminated using electronic or optical mediums as opposed to paper-based or microfiche-based mediums.

FTP—An acronym for of File Transfer Protocol, the protocol (agreed-upon format) used on the Internet for sending files.

Format—The manner in which data, documents, or literature are organized, structured, named and described,

classified, and arranged. For example, full narrative texts in English language could be in the following forms:

books or articles, abstracts of text used in reviews and summaries, indexes and catalogs, maps, photographs,

drawings, sound recordings, video tapes, bibliographies, and statistical and other numeric kinds of tabulations. A

screen format is the layout of fields on the screen. A report format is the layout of the printed page including print

columns and page headers and footers. A record format is the layout of fields within a record. A file or database

format is the layout of fields and records within a data file, layout codes within a word processing document, or display lists (vector) or bit maps (raster) within a graphics file. The term is sometimes used to refer to the way

digital data is encoded or inscribed. Archivists used the terms "genre" or "form of material" to cover what is meant by format in this context.

Frames—A feature supported by most modern Web browsers that enables the Web author to divide the browser

display area into two or more sections (frames). The contents of each frame are taken from a different Web page.

GIF—Pronounced jiff or giff (hard g), it is short for graphics interchange format, a bit-mapped graphics. GIF

supports color and various resolutions. It also includes data compression, making it especially effective for scanned photos.

GILS—Short for Government Information Locator Service. A metadata tool for identifying, locating, and

describing publicly available Federal information resources, including electronic information resources.

Gopher—A method of making menus of material available over the Internet. Gopher pre-dates the World Wide

Web for organizing and displaying files on Internet servers.

Government Electronic Information Service—The system or method by which a component of the

Government, or its authorized agent, disseminates Government information products to the public via such means

as a network or use of CD-ROMs at a kiosk.

Government Information—Refers to information, regardless of form, medium, or format, that is created or compiled by employees of a component of the Government, or at Government expense, or as required by law.

Government information as used here does not include information for official use only, information classified for reasons of national security, or information used strictly for administrative or operational purposes (e.g., not of

public interest or educational value).

Government Information Product—A Government publication or other work of the United States Government

conveyed in a tangible physical medium such as a book or CD-ROM, or disseminated through an electronic

Government information service established and maintained by a Government agency or its authorized agent.

Graphical User Interface—A program interface that takes advantage of the computer's graphics capabilities to make the program easier to use. HTML (HyperText Markup Language)—The authoring language used to create documents on the World Wide

Web.

E-18
HTTP—Short for HyperText Transfer Protocol, the underlying protocol used by the World Wide Web. HTTP

defines how messages are formatted and transmitted and what actions Web servers and browsers should take in response to various commands.

Information Intermediary—Refers to any person, institution, or mechanism that adds value to information

products so that they are more useful to information users. Intermediaries perform their work at the middle

information life cycle stages—that is, between information creation and information disposition or destruction.

Federal libraries and information centers are examples of intermediaries.

Information Life Cycle—The various stages through which information passes, including creation, production or

collection, review and editing, organization and reorganization, packaging, storage, search and retrieval,

communication and re-communication, dissemination, disposition, archiving, and destruction.

JPEG—Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) is an image compression format used to transfer color

photographs and images over computer networks.

Java Applets—The use of small Java programs. Java Applets allows Web pages to include functions such as animations, calculators, and other fancy tricks.

Javascript—A scripting language developed by Netscape to enable Web authors to design interactive sites. MARC—Short for machine-reading cataloguing. The USMARC formats are standards for the representation and

communication of bibliographic and related information in machine-readable form. The Library of Congress, in consultation with various user communities, maintains USMARC formats.

MPEG—Short for Moving Picture Experts Group, a working group of ISO. MPEG generally produces highquality video.

Medium—The physical, chemical, or biological substrate used to create, organize, store, search for, retrieve,

disseminate, or permanently archive data, documents, or literature including, for example, paper, microforms,

fiber optic cables, photographic film, CD-ROM, floppy diskettes, magnetic storage devices, sound recordings, and

videotape.

Metadata—Metadata is data about data. Metadata describes how and when and by whom a particular set of data was collected and how the data are formatted. These data can be collections or individual instances of objects or documents, Internet resources, etc.

Migration—The transfer of an information product from one hardware type, software package, system, network,

format, or medium to another. The transfer of an information product from a pre-electronic medium such as paper

or microform to an electronic medium such as CD-ROM is an example of migration.

PDF—Short for Portable Document Format. A file format developed by Adobe Systems, PDF captures

formatting information from a variety of desktop publishing applications, making it possible to send formatted

documents and have them appear on the recipient's monitor or printer as they were intended.

Permanent Public Access—The indefinite, continuing accessibility of Government information products by the

public including the policies, programs, formats, mediums, and standards used. Simply because data such as weather and tide information, lists of Government contractors, editions of annual reports, and statistical series are continuously updated with more current information does not necessarily mean that provision should not be made

for retaining (making permanently accessible) the replaced information. Care should be exercised in this regard,

however, to ensure no harm is done to the public by making available out-of-date information.

Preferred Medium or Format Standard—A medium or format standard that may not be agency mandated but

is either common agency practice or applies to a new or promising product format or medium.

E-19
Public Domain—A term of American copyright law referring to works that are not copyright protected; free for

all to use without permission.

Refreshing—A technical term meaning the manner in which information mediums and technologies are

periodically reassessed and upgraded to ensure that they are not becoming obsolete, thereby risking the loss of

information and the compromising of Permanent Public Access policies. The term is also sometimes applied to formats and standards (not just mediums) that are in danger of becoming obsolete and need to be replaced or upgraded.

Rich Text Format (RTF)—A standard for specifying formatting of documents. RTF files are actually ASCII

files with special commands to indicate formatting information, such as fonts and margins.

SGML—Short for Standard Generalized Markup Language, SGML is a system for organizing and tagging

elements of a document. SGML was developed and standardized by the International Organization for Standards

(ISO) in 1986.

Standard—An agreed-upon authoritative convention, whether formal or informal, whether official or unofficial,

whether de facto or de jure, by which information products are created, produced, formatted, published, stored,

communicated, and moved through the remainder of the stages of the information life cycle. Standards (and the more informal concept and term "guidelines") minimize incompatibility and interoperability problems when an

information sender tries to move data, documents, or literature into and out of several different formats and

mediums to a receiver. Standards may be set by formal national or international standard- setting bodies, or by

agencies, or by groups of users informally by common consent.

TIFF—The acronym for Tagged Image File Format, a graphic file format developed by Aldus and Microsoft.

Telnet—A terminal emulation program for TCP/IP networks such as the Internet. The Telnet program runs on a

user's computer and connects his/her PC to a server on the network. This enables users to control the server and

communicate with other servers on the network.

Type of Data—The general nature of the information content of a Government information product and how it is arranged, structured, and presented for ease of handling in a medium. Some examples include textual data,

graphical data, spatial data, numerical data, etc. WAIS—Short for Wide Area Information Server. A distributed information service that offers simple natural

language input, indexed searching for information retrieval, and a relevance feedback mechanism. It has an easy- to-use interface that searches all documents relative to your query, ranks them, and makes them available to

retrieve. WAV—The format for storing sound in files developed jointly for Microsoft and IBM.

WORM—Short for write once, read many, an optical disk technology that allows one to write data onto a disk

just once.

World Wide Web (WWW)—WWW is a system of Internet servers that support specially formatted documents.

The documents are formatted in a language called HTML (HyperText Markup Language) that supports links to other documents, as well as graphics, audio, and video files. XML—Short for extensible Markup Language. XML is a pared-down version of SGML, designed especially for Web documents. It enables designers to create their own customized tags to provide functionality not available

with HTML.

E-20
Appendix F

Site Visits to Three Federal Depository Libraries and

Interview Questions

F-l
v

F-2
Site Visits to Three Federal Depository Libraries

Libraries Visited

McKeldin Library

University of Maryland

College Park, Maryland

(Regional Federal Depository Library)

Date visited: July 30, 1998

Washington College of Law Library

American University

Washington, D.C.

(Selective Federal Depository Library)

Date visited: August 11, 1998

Rockville Regional Library

Montgomery County Public Libraries

Rockville, Maryland

(Selective Federal Depository Library)

Date visited: September 9, 1998

Interviewees

Linda Spitzer, Acting Head

Government Documents and Maps

Joanne Zich, Chief

Government Documents and Media

Services

Patrick Kehoe, Library Director

Judith Horowitz, Documents Coordinator
Interview Questions for Site Visits to Federal Depository Libraries

Date of Site Visit

Contact Name

Title

Library Name

Address

Phone Fax

Email

Background Information

1 . How long have you been in your current position?

2. Describe range of duties related to Government documents?

3. How long has this institution been a Federal depository library?

4. Who are your primary and secondary users of Government information products?

5. Do you know what mediums patrons tend to be more comfortable using? (e.g., paper, CDROMs, Internet, diskettes or does it matter?) What about what formats they prefer to use?

(text and graphics)

Accessibility for Users

6. What key issues or concerns do users have about accessing Government electronic

information products? Have you conducted any user surveys or focus groups to determine the needs of patrons who use Government information products and

services?

F-4
If they do not mention these issues, probefor them:

• Bibliographic and findings tools to identify and describe online and electronic Government

products

• Problems with changing URLs

• Charging user fees (specify types of fees: printing costs, fees to access products)

• Copyright restrictions (can you give an example?)

• Downloading large files from the Internet

• User guides and documentation

• Providing reference and other public services to people with disabilities

• Other (specify)

Concerns about Services and Resources

7. What are your concerns about providing access to electronic Government information

products?

If they do not mention, probefor:

• Are you notified that a product is available through electronic and online storage? If yes, how?

• Are you currently notified that a product has been removed from the Internet? If so, how?

• Is there a better way to inform the depository libraries of additions, discontinued products, or modified products? If so, what are your recommendations?

• What about retention and preservation of Government electronic information products in the

future?

F-5
(Hardware and software issues to probefor:)

• What do you think about the latest minimum recommended specifications for public access workstations?

• Is your library able to keep pace with these minimum specifications?

V

• Do the current recommended minimum specifications accommodate current online and

electronic Government information products?

• Other hardware/software issues

Recommendations for Improving Access

8. Within the last three years, have you or your predecessor conducted any formal or

informal studies (i.e., surveys, observations) of your users to identify specific needs or concerns they have in using Government electronic information products?

9. If yes, could you please briefly describe what you found and what, if anything, you did

to make adjustments in your services or resources?

10. If you were given a pot of money (say $25,000) to improve access to Government

electronic information products, how would you spend the monies, in priority order?

11. If you had unlimited resources, what would you do to improve public access to online

and electronic Government information products?

12. Are there other issues or concerns you would like to share with us about the transition

to a more electronic FDLP that we haven't already covered?

F-6
NCLIS Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products

Summary Notes for Site Visits to Three Depository Libraries

1. What mediums do patrons tend to be most comfortable using? (e.g., paper, CD-ROMs,

Internet, diskettes)?

• Paper and microfiche; Internet a close second.

• CD-ROM is the least preferred medium (by librarians and patrons).

2. What key issues or concerns do users have about accessing Government electronic

information products?

Accessing Electronic Resources

All three librarians expressed major concerns about the problems in using Governmentproduced CD-ROMs that are not standardized:

• The search and retrieval software is different for each CD, often they come with no

installation instructions or user documentation, and they are not user-friendly.

• Librarians must call in a computer technician to load the CDs and show librarians or

users how to access the information.

• Two of the three libraries have significantly reduced the number of CD-ROM titles they

select because of the above-mentioned problem. The third librarian indicated that they

have a ton of CD-ROMs that are not used due to the problems with loading, accessing,

and using them.

Users are still intimidated by electronic mediums and computers. Most users ask librarians

to help them search for materials on the web.

Since most Government websites only contain the most recent information, all librarians

expressed concerns about users accessing retrospective Government information on the

web. Two selective depository librarians often send their patrons to the regional depository

to use their paper files for some historical Government information.

3. What key library issues or concerns do you have about providing access to electronic

Government information products?

Charging Fees

Two of the three libraries do not currently charge fees for printing materials from the

Internet or CD-ROMs. One library was planning to change its policy beginning in September 1998 because it cannot continue to fund this expense. The second library is also

contemplating changing its policy after installing the next generation computer system.

F-7
Hardware issues

• Patrons expect the library to have state-of-the-art equipment and expect librarians to know how to use it. Although all librarians felt their libraries had state-of-the-art

equipment, they were concerned about how they could meet rising user expectations for

the "best" computer hardware.

• Users do not have access to enough workstations, so the libraries must impose a time

limit on computer use.

• Costs of hardware, telecommunications, and access to electronic information have

increased dramatically. For example, one library reported spending $60,000 on these

services and equipment 10 years ago; now they spend about $270,000 on hardware

including maintenance agreements.

Training Issues

All librarians expressed concerns about finding time and money to train librarians and

staff, especially on the use of CD-ROM products, but also on downloading files, effectively

searching the Internet for Government information, and creating and maintaining web

pages.

4. If you were given a pot of money (e.g., $25,000) to improve access to Government electronic

information products, how would you spend the monies, in priority order?

• New CD-ROM server; an 18-disk CD changer (3 responses).

• More staff training (2 responses).

5. If you had unlimited resources, what would you do to improve public access to online and

electronic Government information products?

• Form partnerships with GPO and a Government agency to put some retrospective

Government information on their server so it will be accessible to users in the future (2

responses).

• Provide outreach to public schools, community centers, etc., to educate students and

adults about the wide variety of valuable information available from the Federal

Government (2 responses).

Other Comments:

One librarian expressed strong feelings about the need for Congress to provide long-term

financial support to Federal depository libraries so they can provide permanent public

access to digital media.

F-8
Appendix G

Electronic Government Information Products Assessment

Agency Meetings Held and Discussion Questions

G-l
G-2
Electronic Government Information Products Assessment

Agency Meetings Held

Agency Number of Attendees

Department of Health and Human Services 1

0

Meeting Date: September 14, 1998

Supreme Court of the United States 1

1

Meeting Date: September 15, 1998

Environmental Protection Agency 12

Meeting Date: September 17, 1998

Department of Education

Meeting Date: September 22, 1998

Department of Commerce

Meeting Date: September 23, 1998

National Archives and Records Administration

Meeting Date: September 24, 1998

G-3
Electronic Government Information Products Assessment

Agency Meeting Discussion Questions

1. Does your agency have preferred medium and format standards for Government electronic

information products at the permanent public accessibility stage? If so, what are the top

three? What factors does your agency consider in determining preferred standards (e.g., user

needs, agency's dissemination requirements or policies, cost, security etc.)? What about

specific standards for CD-ROMs as they relate to user documentation, installation, search

software, etc.?

2. Can you give us any examples of particularly innovative and creative product formats,

mediums and/or online approaches? We have in mind formats, mediums, or online

approaches that may well point to the wave of the future, not only for a particular product but

also for other kinds of products, yet is neither an agency-mandated standard nor even a common agency practice.

3. Is there any difference between your agency's preferences for mediums and formats as opposed to the preferences of intermediary distributors? If so, what are those differences, and

why are the two preferences different?

4. Has your agency involved external user groups in assessing the value and effectiveness of the

dissemination of Government electronic information products? If so, are there formats and

mediums that seem particularly appropriate for public dissemination to users who may be

economically, technically, or physically disadvantaged?

5. Does your agency follow any internally or externally prescribed guidelines for the

presentation and organization of products in online formats? If so, what are they (e.g.,

WWW Federal Consortium, FIPS Guidelines, agency or departmental publication

specifications or guidelines)?

6. Has your agency undertaken any kind of cost benefit analyses for producing or creating

products in preferred or emerging formats, mediums, or online approaches for distribution to the FDLP? If so, which ones appear to be the most cost-effective?

7. What factors does your agency consider in deciding to create or retain products in more than one medium? Is this a common agency practice?

G-4
8. Are there trends with respect to migrating specific families of products from pre-electronic

mediums to electronic mediums or formats? For example, are loose-leaf publications,

training manuals, annual reports, conference proceedings, newsletters, rules and regulations,

scientific journals, etc., targeted for migration to a particular medium? If so, which mediums

and formats are used for specific families of products?

9. Has your agency identified any medium and format standards that seem particularly

appropriate for use throughout a product's entire information life cycle, not just at one stage

(i.e., creation, storage and retrieval, communication and dissemination, archiving and

disposition) for electronic Government information products? If so, which ones?

10. How do you determine whether a product should be made permanently publicly accessible

when you create or produce it? If so, what criteria do you use to determine which products

will be permanently publicly accessible? Can you give us any examples of how you ensure permanent public accessibility for a given product?

1 1 . Does your agency routinely provide locator tools (e.g., GILS or specific agency locators) to enhance access to information sources and services available to external users and customers?

If so, is this an official policy, common agency practice, or both?

12. Are there trends for facilitating public access to your agency products by including them in broad electronic Federal Government information services such as GPO Access, LOC

Thomas, and NTIS FedWorld? Are you using any particular guidelines to facilitate that decision, and if so, what are they?

G-5
Summary of Responses to Agency Meeting Questions

1. Does your agency have preferred medium and format standards for Government electronic

information products at the permanent public accessibility stage? If so, what are the top

three? What factors does your agency consider in determining preferred standards.

Agencies reported using the following electronic mediums most often: CD-ROM, Internet,

and Bulletin Board System (BBS). The most frequently used formats include:

• HTML, PDF, ASCH

• TD7F, GD7, JPEG

• Lotus/Domino

In determining medium and format standards, agencies consider the amount of information or files used, the timeliness of the information (e.g., more recent products or publications

often placed on the web), and user needs for easy and quick access to information. For

example, some agencies are looking to Windows as an interface for CD-ROM products

since the public is used to seeing and using Windows.

2. Do you have any examples of particularly innovative and creative product formats, mediums,

and/or online approaches? We have in mind formats, mediums or online approaches that may

well point to the wave of the future for not only a particular product but also for other kinds

of products, yet is neither an agency-mandated standard nor even a common agency practice.

Almost all the agencies interviewed are exploring a wide range of innovative and creative

format, medium, and web applications. Below is a sampling of some of the interesting

online approaches and formats used by the agencies interviewed.

• Data warehousing: Taking information not previously publicly accessible and

integrating it into an online format. The format used is an Oracle database using SQL

to query.

• Interactive Geographic Information System (GIS). Provide mapping capability through

GIS combined with regulatory information to create dynamic maps.

• Online catalog of all products on the agency's website, using Oracle with a ColdFusion

interface with their search engine (Verity).

• Creating user guides for CD-ROMs as pop-up HELP or short Read-Me files so users

will be more inclined to use HELP.

• Live "real-time" web casting of selected speeches. Format: RealPlayer software,

available free from the web.

• Radio news broadcast news service. Provides daily radio sound-bits for news reports.

Format: RealAudio RealPlayer software and WAV file format for downloading.

G-6
• Real-time forecasting of air pollution levels for 22 states from one site. Format:

animated GIFs created by nonproprietary software designed by computer center in North Carolina.

• Multimedia CD-ROM (i.e., art, music, animation, fdm, and video).

• Searchable electronic inventory of all proposals funded over the last 30 years so the

agency can analyze its own information and make it available to others. Format: legacy

database put into WAV database using HTML on the fly.

• Documents stored in TIFF format for image and textual data. As customers request

documents, the agency converts them to PDF so customer can download.

3. Is there any difference between your agency's preferences for mediums and formats as opposed to the preferences of intermediary distributors?

Generally, agencies indicated that intermediary distributors do not find agency formats to be restrictive. However, the distributors often modify formats (e.g., from HTML to ASCII,

or reformat data using compression technology).

4. Has your agency involved external user groups in assessing the value and effectiveness of the

dissemination of electronic Government information products? If so, are there formats and

mediums that seem particularly appropriate for public dissemination to users who may be

economically, technically, or physically disadvantaged?

Yes, all agencies reported that they involve users in assessing some aspects of their

products, per OMB Circular A-130. Examples include the following:

Focus groups are used to:

• Determine the capability of new products (e.g., Can you use the same technology for

the newer version of a product? Do users lose anything (e.g., Macros) when they

update a product?).

• Determine ways to create more user-friendly CD-ROMs that resulted in the agency

establishing three principles for producing CD-ROMs: make them simple to use,

intuitive, and self-tutorial.

• Determine how information is presented on the web (Alpha and Beta testing).

• Solicit feedback on usability and accessibility; focus groups conducted with tribal

Governments, teachers, librarians, children, etc.

• Learn about expectations, behavior, and problems in accessing products on the web

experienced by the elderly.

• Interview and videotape users to assist agency redesign of website.

G-7
• Solicit ideas from educators at professional conferences about topics that they would

like to see presented in online products.

For technologically or economically disadvantaged customers, one agency sub-unit faxes

free copies of information printed from the CD-ROM or the Internet. Another agency subunit reported they try to reach economically disadvantaged customers by training rural

community leaders in isolated areas on ways to access health-related information on the

web .

5. Does your agency follow any internally or externally prescribed guidelines for the

presentation and organization of products in online formats? If so, what are they (e.g.,

WWW Federal Consortium, FIPS Guidelines, agency or departmental publication

specifications or guidelines)?

Most agencies have developed guidelines or "best practices" for presentation of products in online formats. However, several agency representatives indicated that the real challenge is in convincing agency staff to comply with the guidelines. The following agencies provided

information on their guidelines:

1. NARA: NARA Guidelines for Digitizing Archival Materials for Electronic Access (not

to be considered a standard for digital imaging).

(http://www.nara.gov/nara/vision/eap/eapspec.html)

2. Federal Web Consortium's guidelines are based on Dept. of Education's guidelines

(http://www.ed.gov/internal/wwwstds.html). One sub-unit, NCES, also has developed

guidelines.

3. EPA used WWW Federal Consortium guidelines

(http://www.dtic.mil/staff/cthomps/guidelines/) to develop their own guidelines for

presentation.

4. Census uses a process and structure for submitting items for the web, but it is not yet

formalized.

5. No departmental guidelines exist for the fifth agency, but most sub-units have some

kind of guidelines for presentation and organization, although they might vary among

sub-units.

G-8
6. Has your agency undertaken any kind of cost-benefit analyses for producing or creating

products in preferred or emerging formats, mediums, or online approaches for distribution to the FDLP? If so, which ones appear to be the most cost-effective?

Generally, agencies have not conducted a formal cost-benefit analysis. Agency

representatives made the following observations, however:

• One agency sub-unit tracks the number of customers who purchase a product and

compares this amount against the cost of producing it. They discontinued a product on CD-ROM because so few people could afford to buy it.

• The web reduces administrative costs for printing and mailing hard copies of

publications.

• One agency reported a dramatic decrease (by 25,000) in the number of publications

requested under the Freedom of Information Act due to the web.

• One agency tracks the number of people that a product can potentially reach (e.g., they

sell 2,000 paper copies through GPO, but have 9,000 hits on the website).

• One agency reported that they order fewer publications to fill customer requests as a

result of the web.

7. What factors does your agency consider in deciding to create or retain products in more than one medium? Is this a common agency practice?

Agency representatives reported that they consider a variety of factors in creating and

retaining products in more than one medium, although they did not characterize these

factors as a common agency practice. Several agencies reported that these issues are considered on a case-by-case basis or by the individual program unit. The key factors

considered are:

1. Budget (e.g., some products in CD-ROM are too expensive to make available to a small

audience).

2. Cost (e.g., cost to print and mail product as opposed to make it available on the web).

3. Needs of technologically disadvantaged users (e.g., one agency maintains its Fax on Demand service, even though it is not cost-effective).

4. Accessibility (e.g., one sub-unit stores products in TIFF image format so they can produce them in whatever medium of output customers want).

5. Size of audience (e.g., agencies survey users and use web software to track use).

6. Number of queries or type of customer requests. Customers will often request a

publication or product in more than one medium.

G-9
7. Regulatory requirements. Some products must be produced in paper regardless of

whatever other medium it is produced in.

8. Type of product/publication (e.g., searchable databases are only suitable for electronic

mediums).

8. Are there trends with respect to migrating specific families of products (e.g., loose-leaf

publications, training manuals, annual reports, conference proceedings) from pre-electronic

mediums to electronic mediums or formats? If so, which mediums and formats are used for specific families of products?

The general trend reported by agency representatives is to migrate more products to the

web, especially recent ones. Some examples include:

• Conference proceedings and presentations online in PowerPoint or PDF.

• Newsletters in HTML.

• Training manuals and annual reports in HTML and PDF.

• Information for records managers are posted to Gopher, but will move to the

agency's website in 1999.

9. Has your agency identified any medium and format standards that seem particularly

appropriate for use throughout a product's entire information life cycle, not just at one stage

(i.e., creation, storage and retrieval, communication and dissemination, archiving and

disposition) for electronic Government information products? If so, which ones?

Most agencies have either not addressed this issue of information life cycle or are struggling

with it.

• NARA has established medium and format standards for transferring permanent

records to the National Archives in 36CFR 1228.188.

• One sub-unit reporting putting documents in ASCII, but using Oracle for database

management.

• One sub-unit is beginning to think about standardization for some documents. They

draft documents in Lotus Notes (GroupWare) and publish final document in

another database that goes onto the web. They use Rich Text Format (RTF) to accommodate images and text.

• Several sub-units indicated that the technology is changing so rapidly they cannot

establish standards.

G-10
10. How do you determine whether a product should be made permanently publicly accessible

when you create or produce it? If so, what criteria do you use to determine which products

will be permanently publicly accessible? Can you give us any examples of how you ensure permanent public accessibility for a given product?

No agencies could provide responses to this question or indicated that this issue has not

been resolved. Some observations:

• One sub-unit is committed to making paper and CD-ROM-based products available

for permanent access, but they are less clear about their commitment to products on

the Internet.

• Some agency representatives did not understand the differences between permanent

public access and permanent records.

(The experts interviewed for this study provide some insight into the reasons that agencies are not addressing this issue.)

11. Does your agency routinely provide locator tools (e.g., GILS or specific agency locators) to enhance access to information sources and services available to external users and customers?

If so, is this an official policy, common agency practice, or both?

Most agencies indicated that the web format supercedes the original GILS concept.

However, most agencies have their own locators:

• NTIS has a catalog and maintains some GILS records.

• EPA's website has a GILS record and they put all Internet products on one server so there is one access point for all their products.

• Development and maintenance of GILS records is official agency policy for NARA.

12. Are there trends for facilitating public access to your agency products by including them in broad electronic Federal Government information services such as GPO Access, LOC

Thomas, and NTIS FedWorld? Are you using any particular guidelines to facilitate that decision, and, if so, what are they?

About half of the agencies use GPO Access or NTIS FedWorld. The other half relies more

heavily on individual agency websites with good links.

G-ll
G-12
Appendix H

Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products

List of Expert Interviews and Interview Questions

H-l
H-2
Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products

List of Expert Interviews and Discussion Questions

Interviewees Date of Telephone Interview

Jerry Malitz, Webmaster October 27, 1998

National Center for Education Statistics U.S. Department of Education

Washington, D.C.

Linda Wallace, Chief October 27, 1998

Electronic Information Services

Internal Revenue Service

Washington, D.C.

Evelyn Frangakis, Preservation Officer November 10, 1998

National Agricultural Library

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Beltsville, Maryland

Abby Smith, Director of Programs November 10, 1998

Council on Library and Information Resources

Washington, D.C.

John Bertot, Associate Professor November 18, 1998

State University of New York at Albany

Albany, New York

Charles McClure, Distinguished Professor, November 24, 1998

School of Information Studies

Syracuse University

Syracuse, New York

H-3
Interview Questions for Webmasters:

Jerry Malitz and Linda Wallace

(October 27, 1998)

Role of Webmaster

1. How long have you been in your current position as webmaster? When and how was the position

created? Were you the first webmasteV in your agency? How does the position reside

administratively in the structure of your agency? What office or unit do you report to?

2. Please describe your current job responsibilities and duties. What portion of the following skills, experience, and knowledge do you use to perform your job: technical, administrative, analytical,

program, other?

3 . Is there a formal or informal structure for working with staff and administrators in other departments

or units (e.g., program staff, IT, publications, public relations, records managers, librarians, etc.)? If yes, please describe how you interact with them?

4. What do you envision as the future role of the webmaster in Federal Government agencies? Do you

see your role as being very different in 5 years than it is now? How?

Format Standards and Public Accessibility

5. Please describe the website development process in your agency from the time you receive or generate requests through design, development, evaluation, testing, and implementation, etc.

6. Has your agency developed policies or guidelines including format standards to ensure technical

consistency in the development of web products that are intended for public dissemination? What are

the most frequently used file formats and why? Can you identify any formats you plan to use in the

future?

7. Are there limitations or specific designations of software tools that may be used to develop and

implement web pages or sites? What standards are applied to configuration control and arrangement

of web-based applications? Do you have a direct role in determining these standards, or are they

developed at an agency or departmental level?

8. Are there general security standards applied to the availability or distribution of web-based

information? What is your role in determining or implementing these standards? Which software

products do you use to implement these standards?

H-4
9. How do you evaluate the effectiveness of your websites? Who is involved in the process? What

methodology and criteria have you or others used to evaluate websites?

10. Has your agency discussed the concept of permanent public accessibility as it relates to Government

electronic information products intended for public dissemination? How is your agency addressing

the concerns of librarians, GPO, and others for ensuring permanent public accessibility for electronic

Government information products?

1 1 . What consideration are you giving to creating a metadata record for your information resources or

services on the web (e.g., GILS, MARC, or specific agency locators)?

Cost Analysis

12. Linda, we know you have collected data on the comparative costs of delivering services to customers

via different delivery mechanisms such as mail, e-mail, Fax on Demand, kiosks, Internet, telephone,

walk-in, CD-ROM, etc. What have you learned about the costs of delivering services to customers

using these different systems? Which delivery mechanisms are the most cost-effective for what types

of services?

H-5
NCLIS Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products

Summary Notes from Interview with Linda Wallace (IRS) and Jerry Malitz (NCES)

1 . Please describe your current job responsibilities and duties. WALLACE (IRS): \

(Wallace was a telecommunications expert and technical advisor to CIO when IRS asked her to be

webmaster. She also holds the title of Chief, Electronic Information Services. She is responsible for

all electronic information products including Fax on Demand, Internet, e-mail, etc.)

Wallace's three major areas are content, applications, and development. Her office:

• Generates new services and authorware, including creating automated filters and templates

through core knowledge repository.

• Participated in the development of SGML format (standard format for IRS since 1970s).

• Interacts with customers to automate a standard way to build a core knowledge repository.

Repository contains automated templates and filters to generate media output to serve customers via Internet, Fax on Demand, CD-ROM, bulletin board system, telephone, or mail

requests.

a. Core repository can satisfy 95 percent of requests using 86 different variables or

attributes that are indexed so everything is searchable. All documents include individual

catalog and document numbers.

b. Documents are always authored in SGML and can automatically be converted into a

different format or posted on the web, BBS, etc., in 10-12 hours to fill customer

requests.

c. Filters and templates are solely by this group. They also track history of a document.

d. A knowledge base is being built by developing a database of frequently asked questions.

e. They use ICON tagging to provide accessibility to the visually impaired. All DiS

documents are ADA-compliant, online searchable, and downloadable.

MALITZ (NCES):

As Technology Outreach Officer for NCES, Malitz services state education agencies, school districts, etc.

a. Each one of NCES's 30 programs has a web publisher and a web liaison.

b. Contractors actually prepare materials for the web once program officer has approved content.

c. Malitz sets standards, guidelines, and procedures for web publisher to follow.

H-6
d. Web publisher in program area develops website on a separate development server; Malitz

reviews and makes technical changes to ensure that the site meets minimum standards and

guidelines.

e. Sometimes, he develops a new application for others to use (e.g., NEWS FLASH subscription

service featuring daily breaking news from the Department of Education).

2. Do you have a formal or informal structure for working with staff and administrators in other

departments or units (e.g., program staff, IT, publications, public relations, records managers,

librarians, etc.)? If yes, please describe how you interact with them.

WALLACE:

Wallace deals with high-level senior executives, review ing their business plans, problems, and goals,

then recommending solutions that include productivity measures, production rates, and cost per

person. In one case, she recommended a business CD-ROM.

• Establishes strong liaisons with industry (has marketing person on staff). They receive one-half

of funding from industry to support business projects that benefit industry and IRS customers.

• Established various delivery service programs: Internet in '96, Fax on Demand in '96, CDROM in '95, BBS a while ago.

MALITZ

• Each one of NCES's 30 programs has a web publisher and a web liaison.

• Contractors prepare materials for the web once content has been approved by the program

officer.

• Web publisher in program area develops web site on a separate development server; when

finished, Malitz reviews and makes technical changes to ensure that site meets minimum

standards and guidelines.

• Sometimes, Malitz develops a new application for others to use such as the NEWS FLASH

subscription service that features daily breaking news from the Department of Education.

• Malitz's work is divided fairly evenly between technical, administrative, analytical, and

program areas.

H-7
3. What do you envision as the future role of the webmaster in Federal Government agencies? How you

see your role as in 5 years as compared to now?

MALITZ:

The role of webmaster will be completely different. In the future, he/she will have more of a coordinating function and will set policies and procedures. The program staff will be forced to do

their own work on the web, just as they now do their own word processing and e-mail.

WALLACE:

The role of the webmaster will be that of an enabler for business units with everyone involved.

There will be more of a focus on multimedia (e.g., BBS, CD-ROM, Fax on Demand) and not just the

Internet.

4. Please describe the website development process in your agency from the time you receive or generate requests through design, development, evaluation, testing, and implementation, etc.

WALLACE:

Her unit receives and generates requests. Requests from the core repository can fit into an existing

template filter application.

a. Staff and contractors conduct testing and implementation.

b. Second year after web in operation, requests for paper copies of forms dropped by 50

percent.

c. Provide hidden codes to track where returns come from: fax, Internet, libraries, phone

requests, etc.

d. Evaluation includes a simple three-question customer service survey on content: did you get

what you needed, where would you have gone if not here? They build evaluation into every

step of the process.

e. A panel of experts measures the effectiveness of their websites. Also, they have partnered

with schools to recruit instructors and students to review site before they go "live."

f. One person reviews all e-mail messages that contain feedback on website; use automated

sorters by key words to batch the type of feedback received.

H-8
MALITZ:

Before website, customers were very specialized. Most were data file users. After they created their

website, their customer based increased tremendously. Now the culture is different and NCES is dealing with questions from the general public.

a. NCES uses a developmental server but is planning to implement a Point-to-Point Tunnel

Protocol (PPTP) so the developmental server is behind the firewall and no longer open to everyone. Only web publishers and contractors will have access to server.

b. Malitz never reviews content; that is done by individual program staff.

c. NCES conducts customer surveys of users to develop and refine sites.

d. Malitz does database development and tests multiple browsers. NCES is UNLY-based; rest of ED is Windows-based.

5. Has your agency developed policies or guidelines including format standards to ensure technical

consistency in the development of web products that are intended for public dissemination? What are the most frequently used file formats and why? Can you identify any formats you plan to use in the

future?

WALLACE:

Formats most frequently used are SGML, PDF, HTML, and Postscript, respectively. They will add

XML soon. They train authors to use SGML. SGML is "intelligent" data that can automatically

generate other formats. Most agencies do not use SGML because it is harder to author in. Wallace's agency uses it because it is much more robust, and it is easy to change a document format

to match customer needs (e.g., tax law information for consumer and for lawyers).

MALITZ:

NCES uses PDF, then HTML (optional). They rarely put entire publication in HTML.

6. Are there limitations or specific designations of software tools that may be used to develop and

implement web pages or sites? What standards are applied to configuration control and arrangement

of web-based applications? Do you have a direct role in determining these standards, or are they

developed at an agency or departmental level?

WALLACE:

Their focus is knowledge-based, not web application. Her department sets the standards. They use C++ and Perl.

H-9
MALITZ:

AH publications are in PDF; all else in HTML. They use SQL databases to support the web. Malitz

has a direct role in determining standards.

7. Are there general security standards applied to the availability or distribution of web-based

information? What is your role in determining or implementing these standards? Which software

products do you use to implement these standards?

WALLACE:

The IRS uses an automated redacting scheme; with one keystroke, they can create a public and

specialized version of the same document. They apply all security standards from the Government,

including SSA, Treasury, etc. They cannot reveal security software.

MALITZ:

Only a few people who use developmental server have access; all must be registered users. NCES

uses PPTP encryption for the developmental server.

8. Has your agency discussed the concept of permanent public accessibility to electronic Government

information products intended for public dissemination? How is your agency addressing the concerns of librarians, GPO, and others for ensuring permanent public accessibility for electronic Government

information products?

WALLACE:

All tax forms, instructions, publications etc., are available for 5-6 years online. The core knowledge

repository maintains material for 14 years, but they do not keep every application back that far. IRS can fill e-mail requests for information or forms from earlier years. In addition, they provide

GOLD CARD SERVICES for librarians. Librarians have their own page, track orders, and talk

"live" with one another. IRS gives their orders priority.

MALITZ:

The issue of permanent public accessibility is currently under discussion.

9. What consideration are you giving to creating a metadata record for your information resources or services on the web? (e.g., GILS, MARC or specific agency locators)?

WALLACE:

GILS records are a subset of the 86 variables that go into the core knowledge repository.

H-10
MALITZ:

The Dept. of Education has an agency locator with total search capability. They also participate in FedStats, White House Briefing Room, etc.

10. Linda, we know you have collected data on the comparative costs of delivering services to customers

via different delivery mechanisms such as mail, e-mail, Fax on Demand, kiosks, Internet, telephone,

walk-in, CD-ROM, etc. What have you learned about the costs of delivering services to customers

using these different systems?

WALLACE:

Breakdown of comparative costs follows:

a. It costs IRS $3 per call for the public to call into their toll-free number and for IRS to fill the

request. The cost to IRS for the public to use the Internet to access and use forms is 1 cent, a

difference of 300 to 1.

b. The costs to create forms on Internet have gone down, but the cost to fill phone requests

remains the same.

c. It costs IRS $2.50 to make and distribute to public libraries each CD-ROM containing 5 years

of tax forms, instructions, and publications. This is less than it takes for IRS to respond to one

telephone call. The D*S also sends tax CD-ROMs to the depository libraries. They can mount

them on their PCs or allow customers to check them out.

d. They found that kiosks are very expensive; ATMs are cost-effective

Final Commentsfrom Wallace

The answer to public accessibility is not the Internet; it is multimedia. Delivery mechanisms must

meet the individual needs of the customers; no one size fits all.

H-ll
Interview Questions for Preservation Specialists:

Evelyn Frangakis and Abby Smith

(November 10, 1998)

1. How long have you been in your current positions? Please describe your current job responsibilities

and duties. What portion of the following skills, experience, and knowledge do you use to perform

your job: technical, administrative, analytical, and other?

\

2. What are the key problems associated with digital preservation?

3. What key policy, organizational, economic and other non-technical issues need to be addressed or solved to facilitate digital preservation?

4. What technological strategies or models have various organizations such as the Association of

Research Libraries, the Digital Library Federation, National Archives, etc., identified to address these

problems? Evelyn, one of the NCLIS staff mentioned that NAL has established a structure or framework that addresses this problem. Could you please talk more about that? If you have any

handouts you can fax to us, that would also be helpful. Abby, can you describe some of CILR's

recent efforts to address the issue of digital preservation, including the survey by Jeff Rothenberg of

the RAND Corporation?

5. What do we know about specific file formats or mediums that might facilitate digital preservation

such as SGML, CD-ROM, etc.?

6. Are there any important preservation issues that we have not addressed in the above-listed questions?

If so, please discuss them.

7. Could you please refer us to any important articles on this topic that have been published in the last year?

H-12
Summary of Notes from Conference Call with Two Preservation Specialists:

Evelyn Frangakis (NAL) and

Abby Smith (Council on Library and Information Resources)

1 . How long have you been in your current position? Please describe your current job responsibilities

and duties. What portion of the following skills, experience, and knowledge do you use to perform

your job: technical, administrative, analytical, and other?

ABBY SMITH (CLIR)

• Been with CLIR since Sept. 1997 as director of programs.

• Provide program coordination among the four areas: economics of information, leadership in libraries and archives, digital libraries, preservation and access.

• Her primary program responsibility is in preservation and access in libraries, traditional and

digital.

• 10 staff members; 6 professionals, 4 admin, support staff.

• Spends 75 percent of time on policy-related issues and the remaining 25 percent of time spent on administrative functions ( i.e., coordinating publications program)

EVELYN FRANGAKIS (NAL)

• Been in current position since January 1997. She is NAL's first preservation officer.

• Duties: plan, direct, and implement agency-wide programs for ensuring permanent and future

accessibility of the foremost national collection of materials in agriculture.

• Coordinates activities with other national efforts, such as the U.S. Agricultural Information

Network (USAIN). Established in 1988, USAIN provides a forum for discussion of agricultural

issues, takes a leadership role in the formation of a national information policy as related to agriculture, makes recommendations to the National Agricultural Library on agricultural

information matters, and promotes cooperation and communication among its members. NAL

participates in implementing USAIN's preservation plan for print materials,/! National

Preservation Programfor Agricultural Literature. The USAIN Preservation Steering Committee, on which Frangakis serves, oversees this national cooperative plan. Under the auspices of

Cornell University, the USAIN plan has received two NEH grants to microfilm core national

and state agricultural literature. To date, 15 states are participating in these grants. Other

components of the national plan and program include determining what are the important

archival and manuscript collections of agricultural materials and what approaches can be used

for their preservation.

• NAL efforts include developing their own preservation program that includes a traditional

preservation program and digital efforts.

• Digital efforts are two-pronged: conversion of brittle paper materials into digital products by

working with best available guidelines to implement good preservation practices (this digital

H-13
material will be available on the web); develop a program to preserve USDA digital materials

(i.e., materials that are born digitally).

• Helps develop preservation policies and analyze other policies that come to NAL or USDA that

affect preservation of the collection.

• Time spent on different types of work at different times. Duties fairly split among policy,

technical, administrative, analytical areas.

\

• Staff consists of two assistants at present. However, NAL leverages its preservation resources by establishing cooperative inter-institutional agreements and contributing funds to sister

institutions in order to further develop the USAIN preservation program (e.g., cooperative

agreements with Cornell University to establish copyright clearance for core historical

literature, developing NEH grant proposals).

2. What is the distinction between digital preservation and permanent public accessibility of electronic

records (as it relates to, for example, the Federal Depository Library Program)? How long is "longterm" preservation vs. "permanent public accessibility?"

FRANGAKIS

• Some background from the USDA perspective: The USDA Digital Publications Preservation

Steering Committee was established this past summer to oversee the implementation of the

plan, A Framework for the Preservation of and Permanent Public Access to USDA Digital

Publications. This group met for the first time in October 1998. There was a discussion of

definitions in order to place into context the universe of material covered by theFramework.

Publication was defined as "a data or information product prepared by the USDA in digital

form intended to be disseminated to the public." The Framework defines preservation as "the

act of permanently maintaining and making available data or information, with all original

content intact."

• Other experts, such as Don Waters of the Digital Library Federation, talk about preserving

integrity and ensuring persistence of digital information. The Commission's SGML report talks

about preservation goals such as enhancing the long-term preservation of and access to information of enduring value for as long into the future as possible.

• THE CPA Digital Archiving Task Force was charged to investigate the means of ensuring

"continued access indefinitely into the future of records stored in digital electronic form."

• Concept of preservation in traditional preservation world examines the concept of permanence,

but in the print world the concept of permanence relates to chemical inertness and mechanical

durability. These concepts do not translate easily into a digital world. In the digital world, we

are no longer dependent on original copies (i.e., original copies do not have the same meaning.).

• Within NAL, they use digital preservation fairly loosely to speak about both digital efforts: conversion of brittle materials and USDA digital publication preservation efforts. Not sure

professionals in the library and preservation community have a common understanding of what

it means, even though it is important to come to a common understanding. GPO defines

permanent access as "Government information products within the scope of the Federal

H-14
Depository Library Program that remain available for continuous no-fee public access through

the program." The 1996 GPO report to Congress, Study to Identify Measures Necessaryfor a

Successful Transition to a More Electronic Federal Depository Library Program, states that

"'preservation' means that official records of the Federal Government, including Government

information products made available through the FDLP, which have been determined to have

sufficient historical or other value to warrant being held and maintained in trust for future

generations of Americans, are retained by the National Archives and Records Administration

(NARA)."

• At NAL, the mission of its preservation program is "to preserve and ensure access to the

intellectual content and physical composition of agricultural works of national and

international importance indefinitely into the future." No timeframe is mentioned because no one at this time can say how long into the future information will be needed.

SMITH

• There is no standard accepted method of ensuring long-term access to digital information. She

described preservation goals as permanent or persistent or perhaps more accurate to say that one of the primary goals of preservation is to set up systems that "sustain predictable levels of

loss."

• Difference between preservation in a digital world and in an analog world is that in a digital

world, information is completely independent from the medium on which it is carried. In an

analog world, people try to preserve the media in which information is recorded. No analogy in the digital world. No concept of preserving the artifact as an artifact that has its own level of

information.

• Problem in digital preservation is that there is no way to ensure that digitally stored

information can move from one software-hardware configuration onto another through

generations. Two problems:

(1) Problem of instability of media in which information is stored (don't know how long CDs or

other media will last)

(2) More serious issue from CLIR point of view is that software/hardware configurations on which information is stored become obsolete so quickly that even when you migrate

information from one system to another, much of the information is lost (data and

functionality).

• CLIR tries not to talk about "digital preservation" but they cannot avoid it.

• Other countries may view preservation differently. England interested in American concept of

digital archiving -preserving the integrity of data; that is, information is original and authentic

and it can be proved that data have not been changed. According to Smith, scientists say that

we will solve the problem of authentication, but hasn't been solved thus far.

H-15
Permanent Public Accessibility Issues (FRANGAKIS)

• Federal agencies relying on FDLP to serve an "archiving" function for retrospective materials.

• Question of how to preserve digital information indefinitely into the future has not been

answered. CLIR and NAL are discussing strategies by opening up dialogue and promoting

research in this area.

• Digital Archiving Task Force Report discussed ensuring the integrity and long-term availability

of digital information through migration. Information on CD-ROM and other media is in a format that may or may not be readable into the future due to hardware/software obsolescence.

Even if media could be preserved, no guarantee that it would be accessible and functional

indefinitely into the future. No answers anytime soon.

3. What are the key problems associated with digital preservation?

SMITH

• Additional problems: fragility of media and platform dependence issue

(1) Two additional issues: difficulty of understanding what we can and cannot do under

current copyright law. Latest iteration of copyright law clarifies copyrighting for

preservation purposes, but still unclear for access purposes. Library of Congress is currently studying this. Copyright law may not have any implications for Government

information but many vendors create derivatives of Government information and copyright

it. Government should never be in the position of depending upon the private sector to preserve some of this information.

(2) Any transmission link is as strong as the weakest link. The weak link in the transmission of

electronic information is not technology; it's human beings. Human infrastructure is not in place yet that would ensure permanent access. FRANGAKIS

• Agrees that human error is far more prevalent than technology error. Key problems in digital

preservation are infrastructure, technology, and media. Humans need to learn to live, exist,

and operate in a digital world. It's still very new to us as compared to the print world.

4. What key policy, organizational, economic, and other non-technical issues need to be addressed or solved to facilitate digital preservation?

SMITH

• Digital Archiving Task Force Report met with consensus in the community. CLIR has been

lobbying people to pay attention to these issues. No single community has stepped forward and

said this is our problem and we are going to work on solving the problem. Therefore, one of

difficulties is that organizations that collect, preserve, and disseminate information, as opposed

to create information, find themselves in this digital world in which the preservation of that

H-16
information must be thought about at the creation stage, not after the fact. Need to forge

partnerships with the computer science industry, publications industry, scholarly and scientific

publishing communities to address some of these issues.

• One of perhaps intractable core infrastructure problems is the issue of creating a failsafe

archives mechanism for materials that disappear from the web. What happens when

information is created and the people who created it do not have responsibility for preserving

it? Who is going to authorize a failsafe archive that is going to take and preserve that

information for the public good? This would be the equivalent of libraries, but so far, it doesn't

exist and no one has expressed interest in creating it at the Governmental level.

• CLIR's role in above: Not in a position to do much more than alert people about the problems.

NAL and literature that agriculture creates are one of few examples where this failsafe archive

might work because NAL is a national library dedicated to one type of literature. Not the case with other literatures except for medicine (NLM). CLBR is looking for partners like ARL to address this issue, but has not made much progress. CLIR has been fairly effective in talking to National Science Foundation (NSF) in getting their second round of digital library initiatives

grants to address the issue of preservation as a distinct issue. No luck with archiving part.

FRANGAKIS

Refer to the report Framework for the Preservation of and Permanent Public Access to USDA

Digital Publications by Paul Uhlir, November 1997 (listed in bibliography).

• Three areas of issues:

(1) management structure and organizational relationships within and outside USDA,

(2) funding of program on a permanent basis (keeping in mind the need to minimize costs of

access and retrieval to information users), and

(3) identification of legislative or administrative actions or policies required to implement a

digital publications preservation program.

Sub-Issues: Needs and Considerations for USDA

• Inventory and life cycle management: a comprehensive inventory of all departmental digital

information products and how they are being managed needs to be conducted. A system for

tracking the creation of each new USDA digital information product that is intended for public

distribution needs to be recommended.

• Technical requirements: identification of acceptable document formats and media, and related

standards, for long-term retention; development of processes for transferring all digital

publications from old storage media to new media; establishment of one or more separate backup facilities for all digital publications; review and establishment of system security protocols;

review and establishment of system interoperability requirements; and identification and

review of other permanent digital preservation and access initiatives.

• User access and retrieval: provide equitable access and retrieval services to all potential users; minimize technical, regulatory, and cost barriers to access and retrieval; assure the integrity of

H-17
the information that is made publicly available; make the information as easy to find and use as

possible, with directories and documentation (metadata), consistent with the Government

Information Locator System, while protecting confidential or proprietary information; and

establish a means for users to provide feedback and a mechanism for responding to user feedback.

• Status: Moving ahead with implementation. USDA CIO accepted the report, and under her

guidance NAL established a national steering committee made up of representatives from

USDA and from agribusiness, research library community, USAEN, Federal partners, etc.

• Group will meet on a quarterly basis for first 2 years.

• Will establish test groups to explore issues such as inventory and life cycle management,

technical requirements, and user access and retrieval, as well as funding issues.

• Hoping to get funding for a pilot project and then take entire framework and test it on an agency within USDA to see how manageable Framework will be for full-scale implementation.

5. What technological strategies or models have various organizations such as the Association of

Research Libraries, the Digital Library Federation, National Archives, etc., identified to address these

problems? Evelyn, one of the NCLIS staff mentioned that NAL has established a structure or framework that addresses this problem. Could you please talk more about that? If you have any

handouts you can fax to us, that would also be helpful. Abby, can you describe some of CILR's

recent efforts to address the issue of digital preservation, including the survey by Jeff Rothenberg of

the RAND Corporation?

SMITH

Three CLIR initiatives:

• Commissioned report by Jeff Rothenberg from RAND Corporation on emulation. [Emulation is the process of imitating one system with another so both accept the same data, execute the same

programs, and achieve the same results.] Report complete and may be published by January

1999. Since report is highly controversial, CILR will partner with National Research Council

to convene a group of computer scientists to engage Rothenberg on issues of emulation to stimulate research. Report describes the weaknesses of migration and the strengths of

emulation and sets up a research agenda to develop emulation.

• Commissioned an analysis of migrating file formats to do a risk assessment associated with

those file formats during migration. Study commissioned from Cornell using data from the

Mann Library (agricultural library) and will use numeric file formats and databases and text formats. Report will be finished by September 1999 and will include analysis and a template

that others can use for doing a risk assessment of migration of those file formats. Purpose: to stimulate further research.

H-18
• Identified a computer scientist at Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU), John Ockerbloom, who

has developed a system of file conversion; type of migration that converts web-based materials

to different file formats, called TOM (Typed Object Model).

(www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/spok/www/defense/index.html). He developed this as part of

his thesis. Working with CMU to see if they can bring his concepts into fuller application to do an assessment about its scalability.

• Log on to publications on CLIR site, which summarize Rothenberg report. Water's report

addresses definition of digital preservation.

6. What do we know about specific file formats or mediums that might facilitate digital preservation

such as SGML, CD-ROM, etc.?

SMITH

Nothing to say about this

FRANGAKIS

• For conversion efforts from paper to digital images, SGML serves as an important descriptive

markup tool. Thinks it will be valuable to them. CD-ROM serves specific functions in NAL's

Preservation Program but right now has a limited life expectancy. NAL is looking for things

that are non-proprietary, platform independent, things that will allow user full access to the

content of digital products. They know that media will continue to change.

7. Are there any important preservation issues that we have not addressed in the above-listed questions?

If so, please discuss them.

No.

8. Could you please refer us to any important articles on this topic that have been published in the last year?

1. Margaret Hedstrom at the University of Michigan School of Information believes that there is a

reliable way of preserving, with predictable levels of loss, migration of digital information,

through ASCII. It happens now. She is a leading authority in the field.

2. Check ARL's website.

3. Coalition of Networked Information - Dedicated to computer use in education.www.cni.org

4. White paper on access authorization. Developing infrastructure for digital libraries.

5. www.RLG.org/preserv - (includes information onHedstrom's research).

6. Reference Model for Open Archival Information Systems:

http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/nost/isoas/ref_model.html

White Book, issue #4, Sept. 1998- preservation of digital information; technical

recommendation for use in developing consensus on what's required of any archive to provide

permanent preservation. Hoping to turn this into an ISO standard, but now just in draft form.

H-19
Interview Questions for Information Resources Specialist:

John Bertot

(November 18, 1998)

1 . What are the primary obstacles to successful information resources management (IRM) practices in the Federal Government, in priority order? What changes should occur to eliminate or alleviate the

barriers?

2. In your article on the impact of Federal IRM on agency missions, you mention the reinvention of

IRM to be the key link between agency information and agency performance. Can you describe a small and a large Federal agency that currently meet this goal in spite of the lack of a concentrated,

coordinated Federal IRM policy? Why are they more effective than other agencies?

3. We have found in our interviews with Federal agency personnel that many agencies have not come to terms with two important issues: information life-cycle management, and the concept of permanent

public availability of electronic Government information. What are some of the larger policy issues

that have prevented agencies from addressing these important issues?

4. In our site visits to Federal depository libraries in the D.C. metropolitan area, we are keenly aware

that the problems and issues faced by FDLs here are different than they might be for FDLs located in more isolated, rural areas. Based on your survey of public libraries connected to the Internet, what

are some of the key concerns or problems faced by users who want to access electronic Government

information who live in small, isolated communities with limited resources?

5. Based on your experience in working with Federal Government agencies that are analyzing their web

usage, what are the key questions they want to answer and how are they using the data? Are they

analyzing the websites for technical or content-related purposes? What techniques, other than log

file analysis, are being used? What agency units or departments (e.g., IT, program areas, CIO) are involved in the process?

H-20
Interview Questions for Information Resources Specialist:

Charles McClure

(November 24, 1998)

1. What is the current status of IRM policy since your 1994 article, "Federal Information Resources

Management: New Challenges for the Nineties?" Specifically, has OMB or another appropriate

agency begun addressing the issue of developing a broad vision that reflects the evolving role of IRM

within the Government with general guidelines and standards for all Federal agencies to better manage the life cycles of information? If so, how?

2. We have found in our interviews with Federal agency personnel that many agencies have not dealt with two important issues: information life-cycle management, and permanent public accessibility of

electronic Government information. What are some of the larger planning, policy, and organizational

issues that are preventing agencies from addressing these important problems?

3. Could you talk a little more about the design-based assessment for evaluating Government websites

that you described in the 1997 Proceedings of the 60th ASIS annual meeting? What were the

technical and policy problems in the design-based assessment? What specific policy issues did you

assess?

4. What is the status of electronic record management (ERM) guidance for Federal agencies since the

1998 conference? Is there another conference planned next year? What specific guidance are the

NARA Working Group and other agencies planning?

5. What would you say are the top three Federal IRM challenges in the next decade?

H-21
Summary of Notes

Interview with

John Bertot, Associate Professor, SUNY/Albany

1. What are the primary obstacles to successful IRM practices in the Federal Government, in priority

order? What changes should occur to eliminate or alleviate the barriers?

V

• IRM is not on the radar for top-level agency managers and it will never be raised up to the

point of where it matters.

• IRM has been lost in the transition to the CIO. CIO is the next iteration of IRM. There has

been 20 years worth of talking and it has never seemed to make it out of the administrative

trenches of the agencies. Typically, IRM has been a low-level position located within the

printing, reprographic, or records management units of agencies. IRM is not viewed as

strategic or long-range function.

2. In your article on the impact of Federal IRM on agency missions, you mention the reinvention of

IRM to be the key link between agency information and agency performance. Can you describe a small and a large Federal agency that currently meets this goal in spite of the lack of a concentrated,

coordinated Federal IRM policy? Why are they more effective than other agencies?

The article is based on Bertot's dissertation.

The purpose of the survey was to get an internal assessment on what IRM is trying to do, and to get an external assessment of what IRM is doing. Bertot tried to compare the two in relation to strategic planning.

Generally, those agencies that understood IRM tended to be the smaller agencies. There is a scale

factor, and much more attention was given to IRM in the smaller to mid-sized agencies. FDIC and

the Peace Corps were doing some interesting things.

Other factors relating to size:

Small to medium-sized agencies have fewer programs and staff; with fewer administrative

layers, there are fewer communication and organizational barriers.

o One can more easily work collaboratively in a small organization.

• Top administrators are not as removed from day-to-day operations and can ideally

participate more in implementing new initiatives because they have a vested interest in the

projects' working.

• There is less oversight from OMB and Congress for smaller agencies. The smaller agencies

tend to have less mandated legislation that can interrupt work, so they tend to have higher

motivation to finish projects.

H-22
• Larger agencies tend to have the greater expertise. Smaller agencies may have better levels of management, but they do not always have the experts.

Models

• As far as larger agencies were concerned, Treasury was moving along. However, many have

a central agency component that is not very powerful, althoughsubagencies might be very

powerful. For example, Treasury has IRS and the FBI, and they are pretty powerful players.

• Another agency that has done a great deal of work with IRM is EPA. EPA, along with AID,

are strange models. They have large data shops, but they are all contractors. The model that

is adopted for information and information technology management makes a difference.

Whether IRM is in-house or out-sou reed has a real impact on how it is implemented inside

the agency, and the choice of contractor really matters. Another aspect that makes EPA

unique is that a large portion of their system management function occurs in North Carolina.

3. We have found in our interviews with Federal agency personnel that many agencies have not come to terms with two important issues: information life cycle management, and the concept of permanent

public availability of electronic Government information. What are some of the larger policy issues that have prevented agencies from addressing these important issues?

• The biggest barrier to successful implementation of IRM is that agencies do not view

information as a resource. There is little or no understanding of the concept of information as a life cycle; it's not linear.

• IRM policy initiatives and legislation do not fully address the life cycle of information. It is mentioned in some of the policies developed within the last 20 years, but not adequately

addressed. Most policy initiatives focus on the technology side of the issue, probably because

it is tangible.

• The web has created problems that have not been handled. Many agencies believe that if it is up on the web, it has been published. Along with the pressure over Title 44 Reform, there is no discussion of preservation and public accessibility. Should we move to an electronic FDL

program? What does that mean and how will that work?

• GPO is under attack for being deficient in distributing Government information to the

public. One reason is because GPO (centralized print environment) is so slow, and the

technology allows distribution to be handled more efficiently (decentralized, electronic

environment). Agencies are under the gun to cut costs, so by putting information on their

websites and contracting printing jobs with outside sources, they don't have to go through

GPO.

• Going electronic does offer potential. The back end means, however, that anyone with access

is a vehicle for getting Government information. Putting information up on the web does cut

costs, but we have not figured out a systematic way of distributing Government information

to the public, making sure it is preserved for posterity and provided to the public on a longterm basis.

H-23
4. In our site visits to Federal Depository Libraries in the D.C. metropolitan area, we are keenly aware

that the problems and issues faced by FDLs here are different than they might be for FDLs located in more isolated, rural areas. Based on your survey of public libraries connected to the Internet, what

are some of the key concerns or problems faced by users who want to access electronic Government

information who live in small, isolated communities with limited resources?

Recently Bertot conducted some research in rural Pennsylvania to study public libraries. Public

libraries in rural communicates face large problems with access and technology.

• These areas are composed of populations that tend not to have computers in the home, so they rely totally on the library for Internet access.

• The public libraries tend to only have one station in these rural areas.

• Computers are slow; libraries have 56 K modems, but they do not necessarily have access to a 56 K Internet provider.

• Patrons can only reserve computers in half-hour time slots.

• Libraries may or may not have access to print equipment.

• Staff training is minimal due to cost and little access to computers. (Models like GPO Access

have been useful, but patrons and librarians still need one site for access to all Government

agencies rather than many individual websites. Most agencies have more than one site.)

• Staff are competing with patrons for access because there are only one or two computers.

• Libraries cannot always pay for printing services. Some are passing the cost to the user, but

they are trying to avoid that approach (e.g., first 5 pages are free and then it is 10 cents per

page).

5. Based on your experience in working with Federal Government agencies that are analyzing their web

usage, what are the key questions they want to answer and how are they using the data? Are they

analyzing the websites for technical or content-related purposes? What techniques, other than log fde

analysis, are being used? What agency units or departments (e.g., IT, program areas, CIO) are involved in the process?

Bertot has not seen agencies doing very much with their web statistics. Part of the reason is that they do not want to make the information public. For example, one agency had a request

for all of their agency log file records. They panicked and rejected the request on the

condition of privacy. If one can access the log, one can get IP addresses, and they were afraid

that someone would use this information as a reverse directory mailer.

A second reason is that sometimes it is difficult to get the statistics if a different

administrative unit within the agency is managing the website. They won't necessarily turn

them over to the unit that needs the statistics because it crosses administrative barriers.

H-24
A third reason relates to records management of log files. Should we "schedule" log files for

NARA? NARA doesn't want this to happen either. They would then have to schedule the

information for retention. However, this raises the question of whether the logs are public

information.

It was not until recently that there was a demand to look at web statistics as a management

and strategic decision-making tool. Managers are still learning how to use them. Right now,

these statistics are used primarily by network and system administrators.

Bertot wonders how many agencies are doing web analysis and evaluation given Circular

130-A, which cautions agencies not to do so if it creates a paperwork burden for them.

H-25
Summary of Notes

Interview with Charles McClure,

Distinguished Professor, School of Information Studies, Syracuse University

1. What is the current status of IRM policy since your 1994 article, "Federal Information Resources

Management: New Challenges for the Nineties"? Specifically, has OMB or another appropriate

agency begun addressing the issue of developing a broad vision that reflects the evolving role of IRM

within the Government with general guidelines and standards for all Federal agencies to better manage the life cycles of information? If so, how?

IRM policy came and went and no one noticed:

GSA is mounting its CIO university effort to provide education and training to CIOs.

• IRM in Government policy is now whole world to CIO.

• Many agencies do not now know what to do with IRM.

• ITMRA (Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996)—McClure thought this

policy would strengthen ERM, but in reality, it took responsibility away from existing IRM

people and gave it to CIO; it gave more attention to technology management.

• A few agencies don't know what to do with IRM staff since CIO is on board; in other

agencies there is conflict between IRM and CIO functions.

• Eighty-two percent of technology efforts in agencies are currently focused on Y2K efforts.

2. We have found in our interviews with Federal agency personnel that many agencies have not dealt with two important issues: information life cycle management, and permanent public accessibility of

electronic Government information. What are some of the larger planning, policy, and organizational

issues that are preventing agencies from addressing these important problems?

• There is no staff or time to devote to standards and interoperability.

• Even if agencies had staff and time, staff need to upgrade skills and knowledge.

• Information life cycle and permanent public accessibility are not priorities for agencies; they

don't seem to understand the issues.

• For example, GPO Reform Bill is dead in the water; no one in Congress cared about it.

• No one is concerned about long-term accessibility.

H-26
3. Could you talk a little more about the design-based assessment for evaluating Government websites

that you described in the 1997 Proceedings of the 60th ASIS annual meeting? What were the

technical and policy problems in the design-based assessment? What specific policy issues did you

assess?

They are now using more advanced website methodology (i.e., a 4-legged approach):

• User-based: Usability testing; simulates user searching that is videotaped. With fairly

sophisticated graduate students, they use scripted search analysis with a range of criteria.

System and design staff are showing videotapes to so they can see the problems with

searching information on specific sites. Agencies have used different audiences to do testing

based on objectives and purpose of sites.

• Log analysis: Using in-house scripts beyond WebTrends and Log Tracker that allow them to do cross-file analysis with access vs. error and browser files. Perl scripts allow them to dump

selected variables in log files into SASS or SPSS. Commercial products do not do cross-log

analysis well.

• Policy analysis: Internal policies (who's in charge) and external policies (e.g., Freedom of

Information Act, public access, privacy issues, etc.).

• Management assessment: How is agency department organized for web maintenance and

evaluation? Information is gathered through interviews and focus groups with managers.

4. What is the status of electronic records management (ERM) guidance for Federal agencies since the

1998 conference? Is there another conference planned next year? What specific guidance are the

NARA Working Group and other agencies planning?

• Update: McClure and Tim Spreche are working on a new project, PARS- Public Access

Rating System. The purpose of this project is to create a core set of performance measures and indicators (now being developed for four Government agencies) with public access

criteria to help agencies rate their websites. Agencies will be able to determine the degree to which the site is publicly accessible. It's difficult to sell ERM by itself, so they are taking a

public access approach.

• National Archives hasn't done much. Court ruling delayed 6-8 months.

5. What would you say are the top three Federal IRM challenges in the next decade?

• IT management policy development is on hold due to Y2K. No one currently knows how

good or bad preparation is for this.

• How best to integrate and coordinate IT and IT management. Agencies do not have a good

handle on this yet.

H-27
• Issues of interoperability and standards that cut across all agencies. Need to be able to access Government information horizontally rather than vertically. (For example, for public access

sites; GILS, gov.doc 1, and one more; no way public can access specific information from one

point of entry. GILS does not work the way it was originally conceived.)

• Lack of money for training and education. ERM graduate students' degrees are useful for

about 1-2 years. After that, their skills are 50 percent out of date. Government agencies have

well meaning people who don't have the knowledge and skills to implement policies. For

example, agencies say they don't need to send copies of all products to GPO because they are on their website. Then you ask them will it be there in 6 months and they have given no thought to this issue.

H-28
Appendix I

Sample Agency Meeting Agenda

Electronic Government Information Products Assessment

i-l

Sample Agency Meeting Agenda

Electronic Government Information Products Assessment

Meeting with Health and Human Services Agency

Representatives and Product Respondents

Tuesday, September 15, 1998

9:15 a.m.

9: 1 5 Introductions Westat, NCLIS, and HHS Personnel

9:25 Background and Purpose of the Meeting Westat and NCLIS

9:30 General Questions and Answers Westat, NCLIS, HHS Personnel

• Sections A and B on the Questionnaire

10:00 Q and A to Sections C and D NCLIS, Westat, HHS Personnel

• Review Data Collection Procedures

10:30 Break

10:45 Agency Discussion Questions Westat and HHS Personnel

(Discussion questions posted on NCLIS web site)

1 1 :45 Adjournment

1-3
1-4
Appendix J

Task 16

Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products

Statement of Work

J-1

Section J: Background and Objectives

Background

An "Assessment of Electronic Government Information Products" (hereinafter referred to as the

"Assessment") is a research study being conducted through an interagency agreement between

the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the U. S. National Commission on

Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS) on behalf of the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office (GPO), pursuant to an Interagency Agreement between NCLIS and

GPO, approved by the Joint Committee on Printing (JCP).

Information gathered from this assessment is to be used by the Superintendent of Documents to

facilitate improved public access to Federal Government information made available to Federal

depository libraries and the general public through the Federal Depository Library Program

(FDLP). The assessment will

(1) identify medium and format standards that are the most appropriate for permanent public

access;

(2) assess the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of various alternative medium and format

standards; and

(3) identify public and private medium and format standards that are, or could be used for

products throughout their entire information life cycle, not just at the dissemination or permanent public access phase.

Objectives

The contractor shall undertake research and data collection from Federal agencies in all three

Branches, as well as solicit the opinions of selected knowledgeable experts. The contractor shall

also complete an analysis of the data and opinions for the purpose of interpreting their general

meaning and significance, including identifying broad emerging trends and patterns, and

documenting findings, conclusions and recommendations in a deliverable final report.

More specifically, for a cross-section of Government information products, the goals are to: (1)

determine in which format(s) and medium(s) such products are now produced, using which

standard(s) if any (whether promulgated by official standards-setting bodies such as ISO, NISO,

ANSI or FIPS, or voluntarily adopted through common agency practice, such as the use of file formats such as PDF or TIFF, or Microsoft Word or dBase); and (2) assess agency future plans

for new or changed products, including the medium(s) and format(s) in which they will be

disseminated for permanent public access.

The Superintendent of Documents will use the results of this work effort to continue to plan and

implement the transition to a more electronic FDLP. The 5 major specific objectives are:

J-3
> First, with respect to electronic publishing practices and plans of Federal agencies (including

ways in which the FDLP can best accommodate them), the objective is to provide an analysis

of current practices as well as future plans for creating, disseminating, and providing

permanent public accessibility to electronic information products, and to identify the

standards for software, and electronic mediums and formats that are or will be used

throughout the product's information life cycle, from creation to archiving, but especially by

the time of the permanent public accessibility phase;

> Second, with respect to cost effectiveness of various dissemination mediums and formats that

are, or could be, utilized, the objective is to gather information on standards (whether

mandated or consensual) that will assist the FDLP in making near-term decisions regarding

the cost-effectiveness of alternative mediums and formats for all FDLP participants. This

information should also assist participants in long-term planning for permanent public

accessibility, and the collection and analysis of overall information life-cycle costs;

> Third, with respect to the practical utility of various electronic mediums and formats to depository libraries and the public, the objective is to identify preferred standards used in

various mediums and formats that depository libraries will need to support;

> Fourth, with respect to utilizing standards employed in mediums and formats that can be used

throughout all stages of the information life cycle (including creation, composition, computer

terminal display, encryption, secure digital signature with non-repudiation and secure transmission capabilities), electronic dissemination, but especially permanent public

accessibility , the objective is to assess standards for basic security services in order to provide for secure and reliable transmission and document interchange; and

> Fifth, with respect to standards that are being developed and used in the private sector, the

objective is to identify existing and planned standards for the purpose of determining what

the FDLP must do to accommodate their adoption by the agency in terms of

hardware/software requirements, staff and user education and training, and budgetary

impacts.

For the purposes of this survey an agency Web site is considered an electronic information

service, and one or more products may reside on the service. Web sites, per se, are not

considered individual Government information products.

J-4
Section II: Subtasks

The contractor will be provided background materials to assist in conducting the required work,

including a suggested data collection instrument, examples of completed forms, selection criteria

for finalizing the list of agencies and products to be surveyed, and additional materials (see

Appendix C). Working with representatives of NCLIS and GPO, the contractor shall undertake

the following specific activities and complete them by the scheduled dates shown below. A

detailed explanation of each activity appears in Appendix C:

Activity No. Activity Title

1 Prepare a Plan of Action

2 Develop a Data Collection Plan identifying preliminary agency and product

selections, and a schedule of interviews, focus group meetings and site visits,

using Appendix B as a guide

3 Conduct interviews, focus group meetings and site visits; revise preliminary

agency and product selections if necessary

4 Pre-test the Data Collection Instrument (Appendix A); make changes if necessary

5 Create a Baseline Inventory Products Data Base ready to populate with actual

data

6 Collect the data from Federal agencies, experts, and literature references

7 Prepare tabulations and summaries based on the populated data base and

analysis

8 Recollect and retabulate if/as necessary

9 Prepare a draft Report documenting findings, conclusions and

recommendations, and provide oral briefings on request; obtain feedback from

Government

10 Prepare a final Report and submit to the Government

J-5
Section III. Deliverables And Key Events Schedule

Deliverables, in terms of their delivery in weeks after award, are shown below. For each of the

deliverables, the contractor shall provide six copies to the COTR. [This is the original schedule

and does not reflect the changes that were later negotiated between NCLIS and Westat.]

^A/ppl<r<i VV LvlvO /Aftpr \ 1 1^1 /AwarH iWulU

Government-contractor planning meeting 1 Plan oi Action approved 2

Approval of prelim, agency/contact list 3

Completion of interviews/meetings/site visits 12

Approval of Data Collection Plan 12

Agency data collection instruments transmitted to agencies 13

Actual data collected 16

First oral briefing 17

Tabulations/summaries completed 17

Recollection and retabulation completed 19

Second oral briefing 19

Draft Report submitted 20

Final oral briefing 22

Final Report submitted 25

J-6
Section IV - Management Reporting Requirements

The contractor shall provide the following reports for the purpose of maintaining a detailed

record of work ordered and funds spent on this task order:

Cost Proposal;

Schedule of Deliverables

Task Order "Log" or menu [monthly];

Monthly Cost Report;

Task Invoices; and

Reimbursement Report [monthly].

Details pertaining to these and ancillary reporting activities follow.

Cost Proposals

The contractor shall provide a cost proposal to accompany the contractor's response to the work

identified. The cost proposal will be reviewed and approved by the COTR and the contracting

officer, who will communicate the approval to the contractor. [Should there be a need to modify

the cost proposal, the COTR and the contracting officer will communicate that instruction to the

contractor's Project Director, who shall submit a revised cost proposal for approval.]

Task Order "Log"

The contractor shall provide a monthly report indicating the tasks ordered by the COTR and the

contracting officer to date and showing the internal (to the contractor) tracking number assigned

to each. The contractor shall insure that this report includes such summary information as: the

contractor staff member assigned as task leader; date(s) associated with the task, including 1)

date assigned to the contractor; 2) date scheduled for completion of the task; and 3) upon

completion, date of invoice(s) for services rendered in support of the task.

Monthly Cost Report

The contractor shall provide a monthly report to the cotr and the contracting officer as specified

under the terms and conditions of the contract and detailed in the proposal. As part of the

monthly report, the contractor shall include a list of deliverables and their anticipated due dates.

Reimbursement Report

The contractor shall provide the COTR and the contracting officer with a status report on

reimbursement activities. The contractor shall insure that the report includes the names of the

consultants and participants and any others who are to be reimbursed for expenses incurred, as applicable and approved by the COTR and the contracting officer. The contractor shall include:

1) the subtask for which the person is subject for reimbursement; 2) the amount subject to reimbursement for each subtask in which the person is a participant; 3) the date each participant

submitted the necessary reimbursement form for each subtask; 4) the date the participant is

J-7
scheduled to be issued reimbursement for each subtask; and 5) cumulative reimbursement totals to date, updated.

Period of Performance

The period of performance for this task is eight months from the date the award is signed.

J-8



V