The first Digital Service Standard was created by the UK’s Government in the early 2010s. The aim was to improve the relationship between people and government with easier access to digital services. The original 26 criteria were reduced to 18 to make them more manageable and then to 14. The criteria were mandatory. If any service did not meet them, it would not be hosted on government websites.
Australia’s Digital Transformation Office (DTO) released its own criteria based on those of the UK in 2015. The DTO later became the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) and gradually it was ignored.
![A laptop computer is open halfway and the screen is illuminated with bright florescent colours with a purple hue.](https://i0.wp.com/universaldesignaustralia.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/laptop-5673901_640.jpg?resize=640%2C428&ssl=1)
The DTA recently released a brand new DSS 2.0 which became mandatory in July 2024. It covers staff-facing services and citizen-facing services with 10 criteria. But the wording has turned a bit fuzzy for a standard.
Standards list things you must do such as, apply certain dimensions. Or things that must be true when tested, such as a bridge being capable of taking a certain weight. The bridge example leaves it open to the designers to be inventive and creative in meeting that criteria.
The new Standard DSS 2.0 has fuzzy criteria such as “understand” and “identify”. Understand, identify and act are not a testable criteria.
But what’s the real problem?
The DSS Standard has a lot of sensible ideas, albeit untestable, but the real problem is that there are several other digital standards that must be applied. The Digital Access Standard, the Digital Inclusion Standard, and the Digital Performance Standard. They each add another 5 criteria, many of which are untestable.
And why does it matter?
Designers might think they are meeting the criteria of “considering diverse user needs”. But how will they know they are? It’s easy to assume and guess diverse user needs.
“In disability, there’s nobody more dangerous than a person with good intentions and no know-how.” Standards have a lot of power so the outcomes must be measurable and achievable.
Standards give users a sense of security with specific and achievable outcomes. If a standard is vague, confusing, and untestable it loses its authority.
![Front cover of the Australian Government's Digital Service Standard](https://i0.wp.com/universaldesignaustralia.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Digital-Services-Standard-front-cover.png?resize=334%2C480&ssl=1)
Zoe Rose’s article in The Mandarin is titled, New standards for government digital service are cause for concern. Or download the PDF of the article.
The Australian Government’s Digital Service Standard v2.0 is devised to support agencies to deliver simple and seamless digital services.