Dan

What Scott is calling paths appear to be services as I know them. Which is neither here nor there really, but does illustrate how fuzzy this is.

And also why so many of my ex-employers have been unable to share their definition of a service when pressed. 😆

Those services could include:

- "check when your bin will be collected"
- "report a missed bin collection"
- "get rid of medical waste"

And so on, and so on.

For example a council provides a "waste service", as Scott points out. But the "waste service" itself doesn't deliver a singular outcome.

There are dozens (maybe even hundreds) of possible outcomes, each of which is delivered by a service under the theme of "waste"?

Scott's examples of services are all nouns - something Lou specifically advocates against. And none of the examples deliver a singular outcome for a user, as per GOV.UK definition.

I would argue that these are not services, but overarching themes encompassing the services themselves?

This is an interesting prism on a valid point, but doesn't seem to align with how either GOV.UK or @loudowne.bsky.social define a service? Which possibly muddies the waters further?

I admit that defining a service is not always simple or straightforward, Lou often acknowledges this.

Herbal in Shoreditch, early 2000s - which Google tells me is long since closed down and abandoned.

Small, tight venue. The setup was phenomenal. Powerful but crisp and clear.

I saw that. Do we think it'll happen?

Is Digital ID the same as GOV.UK One Login? Which is both a cross-service system and a native phone app.

Is it the same as the "GOV.UK ID Check" app? Which itself is neither of the "GOV.UK One Login", "GOV.UK" or "UKVI ID Document Check" apps.

Is it Government Gateway? Is it your NI number? 🤷‍♂️😵‍💫

Not exactly making City work hard for their lead, are we? I swear Arteta is the world's biggest over-thinker and often tries to be too smart for his own good.

I enjoy pointing out to SEO folk that the introduction of the alt attribute (HTML 1.2, June 1993) predates the introduction of the first modern search engine (JumpStation, December 1993).

It was always designed and intended as an accessibility feature.

Wayback Machine has it captured (and barely any different from today) in July 2017. 😲

web.archive.org/web/20170708...

Ha! And if you select one of the bizarrely named 'Xpress Software' LAs at the bottom of the list, you're even told to go and use the 'Register to vote' service.

Register to vote Register to vote to take part in elections in the UK. Includes how to get on the electoral register and how to update your address on the register.

I'm not able to log in to the site so can't verify it's actual purpose or scope. But it seems to be to collect or update electoral roll details?

How is it different from the 'Register to vote' service, which also allows you to do just that? 😵‍💫

www.gov.uk/register-to-...

Student Loans Company. But only just.

Of course, "set fire to everything" is usually my first recommendation on joining a new 'digital transformation' project.

BBC were running a live text page for it, complete with a "where were you when the alert went off" interactive email-in segment. Like it was on a par with Live Aid or London 2012.

This country is unhinged. 😆

Keep digging, if you dare. There's plenty more to make you facepalm. 🤦‍♂️

Which itself is quite the site. 😬 Did a content designer come within 5 miles of this? "Campaign" sites like this shouldn't really be a thing.

Prepare - Prepare Find out how to prepare for an emergency in your area. There are simple and effective steps you can take to be more prepared.

I believe it's actually supposed to redirect to prepare.campaign.gov.uk.

Is gov.uk/prepare supposed to redirect to gov.uk/alerts?

Or Pom Bärs if you're the cultural type.

Quite the thread. Icons aside, the part about date pickers... 😬

One of the most discussed and documented components there is. The research and justification for the current date input pattern is not hard to find. In fact, I believe you published much of it.

"We've created a dedicated web page/site for [X]."

Truly a sentence to instill terror.

I've built/configured CMS platforms with similar. Always proved a hard task to get orgs to adopt such an approach on a large, official scale though

bsky.app/profile/dand...

Bold of you to assume that my organisation has a content strategy. 😬

Bring back more government sites like 'Beefy and Lamby' tbh. 😬

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_poli...

Spinning up standalone sites only leads to fragmentation, inconsistency and degradation of the UX.

MLF advised against this and early GDS spent years cleaning up such a mess. Are we really going full circle?

If there is truly a need for government websites that sit outside of the GOV.UK proposition (and I remain highly sceptical), then it means that the GOV.UK ecosystem is not doing what it needs to do for internal users and stakeholders.

That's what needs fixing.

This is why a strong content model and governance are vital.

What are the *things* your users care about? How do you represent and standardise them? What is a service? What is guidance? Why might you create a website for one and not another?

Without that model, you slide into chaos like this.

The example given (Digitising Social Care) is very fuzzy. I don't believe it needs to be a standalone website. In fact, it's not even clear what the website offers or who it's for.

If it's a service, why isn't it following standard service patterns?