Introducing the Webmasters

users. The common denominator in the examples above is that they all have to fulfil (to the best of their abilities) the quality criteria and technical standards obligated by their central governments, although the business purpose and aim of the websites is very different, as seen in terms of the information and services provided.

In terms of website quality, it can be argued that design, navigation structure and content organisation are key issues of success. In this regard, one example is the initiative undertaken by the central government in Norway by developing “LOS-struktur”. The aim has been to strive for a more equal layout and design of websites in the public sector, by providing guidelines in order to increase the usability and retrieval of information. Moreover, for instance Norway promotes private agencies that specialise in designing public websites, by using uniform templates and design solutions that meet the quality criteria obligated by the central government. Therefore, we often notice that many websites in the public sector appear to be similar in terms of presentation, design and technical platform, with the main intention being that users can easily locate what they are looking for, besides being able to perform various tasks on the websites.

perspective. The interpretation of the role of webmasters is fragmentary and segmented. In some organisations, the webmasters appear to exert a distinct and unique influence on the quality of websites, while in other organisations their influence is ambiguous, and in yet some other cases, the webmasters’ influence on websites seems to be almost absent. Within organisations too, it is observed that various resources devoted to website quality are readily available - such as the number of employees dedicated to working on the website, technical assistance that is available beyond the webmaster’s personal knowledge and money spent on development and quality improvements. For instance, municipalities with almost the same population can have different numbers of webmasters (responsible for the website) and priorities in relation to investments in website quality. The same applies to attention devoted in regards to aims and strategies for online information and services.

Moreover, the webmasters operate under various titles, such as Information Consultant, Service Consultant, and Web Manager. The multiplicity of titles raises several questions with reference to the role of webmasters in organisations, for instance, tasks they are expected to perform at work, to what extent and how webmasters influence the quality of a website, and their background and experience. To draw a parallel with a similar occupation: Usability experts contribute to the development of successful systems and specifically emphasise the users’ needs and requirements during creation of a system (for example, a website). The principal aim is that the website works for the users (Rohn et al., 2002). To a certain extent, the definition of a webmaster carries many of the same responsibilities, although webmasters do not necessarily have identical expertise in terms of website usability and evaluation. However, the primary goal of the webmasters is to facilitate for positive user experiences. They can achieve this first

and foremost, by being in a close dialogue with users in order to understand their needs and requirements. They must also focus on quality aspects that are important to the users, by prioritising resources pertaining to website development and quality improvements. In turn, the users can provide valuable insights on how successfully the organisation is projected on the Web and offer unique inputs on future investments and prioritising resources.

In an attempt to draw a picture of a typical webmaster, this study reports on the background information from the online survey conducted among webmasters from public sector organisations in Norway and Denmark. Regarding the method of distribution with respect to gender, age, education, experience, etc., the aim was to identify characteristics that distinguish webmasters in public sector organisations. In this study, the findings show that most webmasters were employed in their current position, for five or more years. Therefore, it could be safely assumed that they possessed a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of their organisation and were therefore expected to possess skilled insight into various services and information offered to website users. The majority of webmasters were in the 36-55 age group, and there were very few or no webmasters, who were younger than 25 or older than 65 years.

It was observed that in the public sector in Scandinavia, employees in general were employed by the same organisation for long periods, with many employees changing positions within the same organisation. Furthermore, the webmasters were relatively evenly distributed in relation to gender (male/female), despite the fact that in both countries there was a slight preponderance of women holding this position. In addition to gender and age, we also ascertained that webmasters were relatively well-educated. In Norway, the findings revealed the following figures:

No higher education, 16 people; Professional certification/training, 30; Bachelor’s

degree or equivalent, 168; Master’s degree, equivalent or higher, 76. However in Denmark, the figures were enumerated thus: No higher education, 6; Professional certification/training, 25; Bachelor’s degree or equivalent, 48; Master’s degree, equivalent or higher, 150.

In general, the webmasters in Denmark possessed a higher educational level than webmasters in Norway. On the subject of the type of education among the webmasters, 171 of the webmasters in Norway had degrees related to Information and Communication, and 72 webmasters had degrees in IT and Web Technology.

The corresponding results in Denmark showed that 172 webmasters had degrees in Information and Communication and 82 webmasters had degrees in IT and Web Technology. A few of the webmasters were educated in both these fields. These overall findings revealed that webmasters in public sector organisations had knowledge, with regard to technical issues as well as design features, and presentation of information. However, generally webmasters were not expected to display in-depth knowledge of these areas, but rather a diverse work experience that enabled them to implement and accomplish the tasks they were in charge of within the organisation, whilst also contributing to and facilitating high quality interactions. Although such issues were dependent on many different concerns and required a different nature of knowledge, we can assume that webmasters were mainly in charge of daily quality improvements that were perceived more as temporary solutions or a quick-fix job, rather than expensive time-consuming projects that demanded abundant resources. Though webmasters in many organisations contributed in this regard, most webmasters were not expected to be in charge of accepting sole responsibility for changes and improvements made to the website.

Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2012 among webmasters in Norway investigated the criteria they considered vital with regard to success on the Web.

The principle on top of the list was that users should complete tasks, quickly and effortlessly, when visiting the website and thus reach their aims. At the bottom of their list was the criterion that all user tasks were equally important and should therefore be prioritised equally, and that website quality changes and improvements should be decentralised, so that each department in an organisation would be able to determine its own website content (Rundberg, 2013).