• You have to be very careful with the wording of these boxes because as they are they could cause great confusion:
o First box: “I have no data” is a contradiction in terms: no-one has no data. Maybe “I have no datasets”, but then you need a definition of a dataset as a structured set of information that is machine-readable (such a definition could go into the text above). The text below (please calm down the tone) should rather emphasize more than one dataset, something like “transform you wealth of data into useable datasets”. When referring to the Converter, you need to say what it converts to, namely it takes a dataset and converts it to a “live” file that can be directly accessed by an application. We would be happy to work with you to clarify this presentation. Same goes for the intro text above the Converter screen when one clicks on the button.
o Second box “My data is not on-line” can be very misleading, since many cities (particularly the smaller cities we’re interested in) have, say, pdfs or Excels published in some corner of their website and as far as they’re concerned their data is on line (and technically it is). To date we have used the term “live” to refer to a dataset that is both on line and also directly accessible by an app or the AGT (rather than on line but you have to download it). The main purpose of what the user will do on the page to which this links is to list a dataset in the Citadel Index, which is what allows that dataset to be accessed by an app or the AGT. What you have to mainly underline here (this was the question for Leeds) is the advantage of registering a dataset with the Citadel index even if you have a live dataset on your city’s web service. This is one of the essential issues for Citadel, so the presentation of the arguments needs to be clear and convincing with simple language. The question of actually publishing (from the user’s perspective) or hosting (from the service provider’s perspective) a dataset is a secondary issue, though essential for our most un-technological targets. Here your text needs some adjustment: it’s not a national or local “catalogue”, you can use the term “hub” or “portal” or “service”. Then, we offer a 30 day “hosting” (not “upload”) service. So you can start using the Citadel “platform” (word missing). All of this should have a brief explanation on the button and then a more precise description on the landing page of the button. This includes the “Why upload my dataset?” part which apart from being the wrong question doesn’t really provide the best answers. The reasons for using the Citadel platform are hopefully clear to all partners, but at the worst we can help on this front.
o “I want to test my data”. What you are testing is a dataset. The text on the button is an error (same as the upload button). What the text needs to say here is what can be tested and against what. What can be tested is a JSON file (if you don’t have that then you need to go back to the Converter), and you’re testing it against the possibility of being smoothly accessed by a Citadel compliant app or the AGT. This can be better explained on the landing page for this item, which needs to be re-written anyway “Congratulations…” makes no sense (there is no evidence of what the user has done before coming to this page). You use the term “upload” in the same way as referring to registering with the index, and you are testing against more than the App Generator, you are testing to be compatible with what we hope to be a wide ecosystem of Apps as well. The term “validate” you use on the button is perhaps better than “test”, though a bit technical; just decide and be consistent.
o Questions section to the left: the language could be a little more sober and precise - we need to demonstrate a thorough understanding of Open Data and its implications. In particular the statement in the third one “Created by local governments for local governments” is simply not true. This section should perhaps at least acknowledge that the tools have been co-designed with pilot cities, developers and citizens using the Living Lab methodology and over one year of testing and evaluation.
• You have to be very careful with the wording of these boxes because as they are they could cause great confusion: o First box: “I have no data” is a contradiction in terms: no-one has no data. Maybe “I have no datasets”, but then you need a definition of a dataset as a structured set of information that is machine-readable (such a definition could go into the text above). The text below (please calm down the tone) should rather emphasize more than one dataset, something like “transform you wealth of data into useable datasets”. When referring to the Converter, you need to say what it converts to, namely it takes a dataset and converts it to a “live” file that can be directly accessed by an application. We would be happy to work with you to clarify this presentation. Same goes for the intro text above the Converter screen when one clicks on the button. o Second box “My data is not on-line” can be very misleading, since many cities (particularly the smaller cities we’re interested in) have, say, pdfs or Excels published in some corner of their website and as far as they’re concerned their data is on line (and technically it is). To date we have used the term “live” to refer to a dataset that is both on line and also directly accessible by an app or the AGT (rather than on line but you have to download it). The main purpose of what the user will do on the page to which this links is to list a dataset in the Citadel Index, which is what allows that dataset to be accessed by an app or the AGT. What you have to mainly underline here (this was the question for Leeds) is the advantage of registering a dataset with the Citadel index even if you have a live dataset on your city’s web service. This is one of the essential issues for Citadel, so the presentation of the arguments needs to be clear and convincing with simple language. The question of actually publishing (from the user’s perspective) or hosting (from the service provider’s perspective) a dataset is a secondary issue, though essential for our most un-technological targets. Here your text needs some adjustment: it’s not a national or local “catalogue”, you can use the term “hub” or “portal” or “service”. Then, we offer a 30 day “hosting” (not “upload”) service. So you can start using the Citadel “platform” (word missing). All of this should have a brief explanation on the button and then a more precise description on the landing page of the button. This includes the “Why upload my dataset?” part which apart from being the wrong question doesn’t really provide the best answers. The reasons for using the Citadel platform are hopefully clear to all partners, but at the worst we can help on this front. o “I want to test my data”. What you are testing is a dataset. The text on the button is an error (same as the upload button). What the text needs to say here is what can be tested and against what. What can be tested is a JSON file (if you don’t have that then you need to go back to the Converter), and you’re testing it against the possibility of being smoothly accessed by a Citadel compliant app or the AGT. This can be better explained on the landing page for this item, which needs to be re-written anyway “Congratulations…” makes no sense (there is no evidence of what the user has done before coming to this page). You use the term “upload” in the same way as referring to registering with the index, and you are testing against more than the App Generator, you are testing to be compatible with what we hope to be a wide ecosystem of Apps as well. The term “validate” you use on the button is perhaps better than “test”, though a bit technical; just decide and be consistent. o Questions section to the left: the language could be a little more sober and precise - we need to demonstrate a thorough understanding of Open Data and its implications. In particular the statement in the third one “Created by local governments for local governments” is simply not true. This section should perhaps at least acknowledge that the tools have been co-designed with pilot cities, developers and citizens using the Living Lab methodology and over one year of testing and evaluation.