« Previous | Contents |
Listen
Footnotes
1. Full details of the evaluation framework and methodology are presented in annexes one and two.
2. For more info see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/1995050.htm
3. Please note: The ODPM has now been replaced by the Department for Communities and Local Government ( DCLG). However at the time of sponsorship these projects were funded by ODPM.
4. A full list of the reference materials used is provided after chapter eight.
5. At the time of writing the consultation final report was with Ministers for approval.
6. A full list is available at the end of this report (page 51)
7. Napier University distributed 1300 questionnaires to Stirling Citizen's Panel and received a total of 626 responses. It is important to note that members of the Panel are more likely to be interested/involved in their local community and therefore may be more likely to have an interest in developments such as the pilot project.
8. Also see chapter three for more details on website accessibility.
9. However, the number of survey respondents means that the results of this survey are limited in scope.
10. Findings from ECOTEC's research with users are presented in chapter seven of this report.
11. See chapter four for a more detailed discussion of message content, discussion and issue resolution on the pilot website.
12. Taken from depth interviews with stakeholders and from: Whyte, A, Macintosh, A, McKay-Hubbard, A and Shell, D (2005), e-Community Council User Requirements Specification, Version 2.2, Napier University
13. Adapted from Whyte, A, Macintosh, A and Shell, D (2006), An e-Democracy Model for Communities, Final Report of the e-Community Council Project, International Teledemocracy Centre, Napier University
14. Population from census figures collated by Stirling and North Lanarkshire Councils.
15. Thornhill and Blairdrummond, one of the pilot communities, did not have any public internet access.
16. There was no mention of authentication in the final report from ITC.
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
18. http://www.e-democracy.org/brighton-hove/
19. For example we would expect the age profile to be slightly younger, and levels of internet usage to be relatively higher in Brighton than in the 6 pilot areas.
20. For more info see http://www.w3c.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html .
21. For more info see http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#tech-associate-labels
22. For more info see http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#tech-meaningful-links
23. The website did not make effective use of deprecated features of W3C technologies. This was possibly the most serious omission. The website used an outmoded DTD (Document Type Definition) (namely HTML 4.01 Transitional), which was neither forward nor backward compatible. DTD is a defined set of rules which code on web pages must adhere to. By declaring this, the pilot website's coder is saying that the code will meet the criteria for code quality that the DTD in question references. In this case, we believe that the coders used a very old and low-level DTD. It was therefore of great concern that the code did not pass validation even in this most forgiving of DTDs. Even if it did validate, this error would still be triggered due to the outmoded nature of the standard utilised. For example, attributes were used that are now outdated and would need to be replaced if the website was re-designed.
24. For more info see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/1995050.htm
25. For more info see http://www.google.com/blogsearch
26. For more info see http://www.technorati.com/
27. For more info see http://www.icerocket.com/
28. Source: http://www.ecommunitycouncil.org.uk/stepps/item.asp?id=227#comments
29. During the project adding or removing users has been the task of the ITC. Since project funding ended, Councillors themselves have not been able to do this and have relied on ITC doing it voluntarily.
30. For more info see http://www.indiana.edu/~urcp/image/gloss.shtml
32. http://www.levencomco.org/Main%20LCC%20pages/LCC%20Welcome.html
33. The respondent requested that the material is anonymised
34. http://tellmeabout.thelocalchannel.co.uk/
35. http://www.wordpress.org
36. http://www.punbb.org/
37. These comments re-iterate comments made by Whyte, A, Macintosh, A and Shell, D (2006), An e-Democracy Model for Communities, Final Report of the e-Community Council Project, International Teledemocracy Centre, Napier University
38. Now the Department for Communities and Local Government
39. See various reports including: Turner, 2004b; O'Malley, 2004; Heyward, 2004; Winchcombe, 2004; Stoves and Thomas, 2004; Turner, 2004a and McIntyre, 2004
40. http://www.e-democracy.gov.uk/voice/
41. UKVO. (2006). UK Villages Online. UK Villages Online, [cited August 16 2006]. http://www.rural.co.uk/
42. http://www.google.com/blogsearch
43. See http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/s/spider.html
44. http://www.technorati.com/
« Previous | Contents |