Grading Whitehouse.gov

The Washington Post's Jose Antonio Vargas is doing "a monthly feature that invites five thinkers across the online political and cultural spectrum to grade President Obama's WhiteHouse.gov."  Vargas was kind enough to include me in his panel, along with Craig Newmark (Craigslist), Andrew Rasiej (Personal Democracy Forum), Ellen Miller (Sunlight Foundation) and David Weinberger (Harvard Berkman Center). The first column went up yesterday.  Read the whole thing to see the grades it was given.  

However, in the interests of transparency and because there were a number of important points I wanted to make, I will post the questions from Vargas and my complete answers. (and note that Whitehouse.gov has continued to evolve since I first wrote these comments)

1) In your own words, how would you define transparency? Accessiblity? Engagement?

Transparency: For many politicians, transparency simply means disclosing (a) what they are legally obligated to disclose, and (b) any additional facts that help the politician.   That is important, but it isn't really transparency.   Transparency is about disclosing the process and details.  Authentic transparency is about disclosing that information immediately and automatically, without having to be asked, regardless of whether it helps or hurts the political office.

Accessibility:  Accessibility is simply the degree to which Whitehouse.gov is understandable and navigable.  It is important for users to be able to figure out how to get where and what they want, but it is also important for users to be able to understand what Whitehouse.gov is trying to communicate.  It is both, "Can I find what I want?" and "Do I understand what they want me to do?"

Engagement: Engagement is the difference between brochure-ware (a website that simply talks at you) and community (a website that also listens and involves you in the product).  Engagement at Whitehouse.gov is about bilateral responsiveness between the Obama administration and the community of users, but also about communication within the community of users.   Most importantly, engagement is not simply about giving people a chance to speak and vote, but giving them a chance to choose.

2) In your mind, what's the mission of WhiteHouse.gov?

The mission of Whitehouse.gov should be three-fold:

• Whitehouse.gov should provide citizens with a window into the process and product of government.
• Whitehouse.gov should provide the Obama administration with a platform to communicate thoroughly and quickly.  Rather than simply providing an archive of old news, Whitehouse.gov should be used to respond to and make news.
• Whitehouse.gov should give the public a chance to participate in the process of government and interact with the Obama administration in ways previously only available to a very few people.

3) As it stands, what grade would you give the site?

If I were to grade the site on what it could be, I would give it a D.  It is clean and clear, but impersonal.  The blog is more of a White House PR Feed than what we generally think of as a blog.  Opportunities for interaction are virtually non-existent.  So far, the water looks promising, but you can't swim there.  Yet.

But on the progress they have made so far, I give them a solid B.  There are things they could do better, but I have faith that the brilliant team they have working on the site have their heads and hearts in the right place.  I hope their good intentions and good ideas can overcome the practical problems they will encounter.