What state sites show hatred towards citizens?

Members of the Pirate Party of Russia and non-partisan Internet activists have completed the first stage of monitoring of state sites. Sites of state bodies are regulated by 8-, which, however, did not include the requirements of mandatory norms that have been established in the network. These requirements, although not mandatory, are perceived by users as disrespect.

I would like to share some results and discuss what criteria should be presented to the sites and how to evaluate them.

The study was conducted in September-October 2011. The subject of the study was the sites of parliaments, governments of the Russian Federation, as well as sites of the President and the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, only 170 sites. The criteria by which the sites were evaluated were objective and easily verifiable, even for the humanities.
')
As it turned out, hatred of citizens is shown by a little more than half of the 31 state sites. This means the presence of materials +18 (yes, there are those!), The publication of materials in graphic formats, which complicates the mechanical processing of this data, the presence of copyright on the site, the lack of site search and other acts of hatred.


Respect for citizens is a set of opportunities that state sites are not obliged to have at all, but which would be very useful for citizens. This is a mobile version of the site, a version for the visually impaired, versions of documents for printing and a subscription to news via e-mail. All 100% respect the citizens of the government of Omsk ( www.omskportal.ru ), the Smolensk region ( admin-smolensk.ru ) and the Krasnoyarsk Territory ( www.krskstate.ru ).

Manufacturability is the presence of an RSS feed, a robots.txt file (because of its absence, data flows to search engines, and it also indicates which pages to search engines must be indexed and in what order), the sitemap in robots.txt, errors in the markup of the main page, errors in the CSS code and even the presence of the favicon.ico icon
In Russia, there is no technological culture of 14 state sites of the Russian Federation.

Feedback - the availability of contact e-mail and feedback form, the ability to comment on the pages of the site. To date, comments are open only at 5 state sites and only for news - the Legislative Assembly of the Krasnodar Territory ( www.kubzsk.ru ), the administration of the Kursk Region ( adm.rkursk.ru ), the parliaments of Volgograd ( volgoduma.ru ), the Novosibirsk ( zsnso.ru ) and Kirov ( www.zsko.ru ) regions.

The evaluation of the “feedback” criterion did not take into account the ease of detecting the contact e-mail and feedback form. For example, you can take the website of the administration of the Chuvash Republic, whose circulation forms are located at the depth of the site at three levels.

Social networks. Of course, many of you may say that this is not the most important thing for state sites, but nevertheless, it is through social networks that we increasingly receive information. And it should be noted that some state sites have already made friends with Internet users, but 67% are not yet integrated into social networks.

Especially strong indignation is caused by the lack of conditions for the use of materials from the site and, all the more, the thoughtless use of copyright ©, which should mean that the exclusive rights to information belong to the authority, although this is unacceptable by law. It should be noted that of all the sites analyzed, only one authority has a clear description of the conditions of use - the Legislative Assembly of St. Petersburg, as well as the sites of the President and the Prime Minister.

We evaluated the websites of parliaments by additional criteria, which do not so much assess the culture of site building, but rather the transparency of parliaments themselves. So, while direct e-democracy has not come, we, as voters, would like to know how our deputies vote for the bills, but, unfortunately, only one parliament in Russia, the Moscow City Duma, reveals this information.

15% of parliaments do not publish any information about the upcoming legislative activity, and 24% of parliaments do not publish any information about how you can get an appointment with a deputy, which electoral district one or another address belongs to. And only 11% of parliaments provide an opportunity to spy on meetings online and in recordings and publish their transcripts.

We also compared the sites of the President and the Prime Minister . I wonder who has the cooler site ?! But the result turned out to be expected - the site is better for the President, and not so much, but only due to greater integration into the social network.

The best sites were: the State Duma of the Russian Federation ( www.duma.gov.ru ), the parliament of the Kirov region ( www.zsko.ru ) and the administration of the Krasnoyarsk Territory ( www.krskstate.ru ).

The worst are the governments of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Ugra ( www.admhmao.ru ), the state assembly of Mordovia ( www.gsrm.ru ) and the administration of the Chuvash Republic ( www.cap.ru ).

You can learn more about the results of the first stage of monitoring at the link.

And with you, dear habrovts, I would like to discuss the standard that is presented to the state site, not the one that is spelled out in the law, but the standard as etiquette, rules of good form. Now this standard is described on the pirate wiki. You can leave your suggestions here in the comments or in the wiki itself by link , editing is available during registration.

Also, if someone wants to join the team or take a direct part in the management of a project to monitor government sites in the future, please note in the comments.