Concept of Emergency site if crisis strikes

Keeping the media, employees, the public and other stakeholders informed during a crisis can be the toughest challenge that communicators face. One way to keep all parties informed is through a dark site, an emergency site that launches the minute a crisis hits. Filled with the latest information about a crisis, a dark site is an effective way to reduce press calls and control rumors. But it only works, of course, if the site’s set up before crisis strikes.

Warfield’s team brainstormed all possible disasters (environmental and business) and possible audiences to determine what to put on the dark site. But they soon realized it was “a challenge to get approved language for different emergencies. Many didn’t exist, others were just hard to find.”

Take, for example, an ammonia plant leak. In parallel to creating the dark site, Warfield was working with Bayer’s local HES (health, environment, safety) group on an ammonia leak drill. The group had all the data and information on what to do in the event of an ammonia plant leak, plus background information on ammonia, but the information was not all in one place.

“We had chemical data sheets, siren and Berkeley Fire Department response levels, what information the employees need to know depending on the level of the leak, and when and what to notify our neighbors of—all in different manuals,” Warfield explains. “There were no comprehensive write-up or response documents.”

Similarly, Bayer took part in the City of Berkeley’s planning process for a pandemic plan. “When it came to who the responsible group within Bayer would be, and ultimately who we would need to coordinate regarding messaging, there was internal politics regarding which department should take on the responsibility,” she says.

Tip: Don’t underestimate the time it will take for company executives and community groups to agree on who’s responsible for what information on the dark site.

What’s on the site?

Speed is crucial when crisis strikes; creating pre-filled templates containing approved language is key to handling a crisis successfully.

Warfield has pages built and ready to go live with minimal editing in the event of an emergency. “We have our pandemic content, ammonia leak and shelter information in place, plus content and templates created for letters from the leadership.”

Other content includes leadership statements, facts and figures, as well as contact pages. “Right now, we are focusing on natural and business emergency content for employees, neighbors and press,” adds Warfield.

Additionally, Warfield is taking advantage of free social media tools like YouTube and Flickr to post images of buildings and b-roll of facilities.

Looking back, the biggest surprise, says Warfield, wasn’t in the technological or business hurdles, but in the one place they felt most confident. “While all our plans look good on paper, we would have had to do a lot of legwork doing research on basic background information and getting text through review in the middle of the crisis, when our attention should be elsewhere,” she says.

What’s a placeholder site?

There is a Web site that inhabits the twilight zone between a regular site and a full-blown dark site but is still dedicated solely to crisis management. The placeholder is always active and holds general emergency information or resources.

Some examples: Berkeley and the University of California.

Source: Internal Communication | Ragan.com

75% of Local web design companies ignore disabled people

Simpleweb a Bristol(UK) based web design and development specialist, recently discovered that over 75% of local web design companies have websites that are not accessible to the visually impaired or people with disabilities.

Mark Panay, MD of Simpleweb Ltd, revealed how he and colleagues tested hundreds of websites from web design companies offering website solutions that should be accessible to people with disabilities, but the majority of the time were found to be severely lacking.

“Out of the 200 websites that we checked we found that more than 75% didn’t validate with W3C compliance (correctly made websites), with approximately the same percentage again not passing any of the current web based accessibility tests. We find this very disheartening for the current wave of websites being built for small businesses and their potential users.”

Accessibility has now become an intrinsic part of building a website. While accessibility as defined by the RNIB and UK government has become a standard requirement for public sector websites; the private sector, especially small to medium sized businesses, are being left in the dark by website design companies that are not practicing what they preach. The web designers and agencies used in the test were picked out at random from local web design directories in the South West of England, with many having beautifully designed pages but with no thought for the visually impaired or handicapped.

The UK’s Disability Discrimination Act 1995 states that it is the duty of a company providing services to the public to make reasonable changes to “practice, policy or procedure” if a service is unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of. The findings from Simpleweb show that the majority of web companies essentially violate this act with their own website, which in turn puts businesses getting online for the first time in a precarious position.

There are over nine million disabled people in the UK, two million of which have sight related problems, with an estimated £50 billion worth of disposable income. With just a basic understanding of the current web standards from online agencies, every new website could offer a decent experience for all visitors, the economic benefits alone should encourage any website designer or agency to learn the new skills necessary.

Source: Simpleweb

US States slam Google, Firefox as no match for Microsoft

In a brief submitted to federal court, state antitrust regulators dismissed companies such as Google and Mozilla and technologies such as AJAX and software as a service as piddling players that pose no threat to Microsoft’s monopoly in the operating system and browser markets.

Ten states and the District of Columbia made the unusual claim to try to show that the operating system and browser spaces had changed much more slowly than expected in 2002, when state regulators and the Department of Justice brokered a deal with Microsoft in a long-running antitrust case against the company. The lack of change, they said, means that potential competitors need more time – and judicial protection – if they are to develop into real rivals to Microsoft.

“The relevant markets – those for Intel-compatible PC operating systems and web browsers – have not experienced the rapid development that the court had anticipated they might when it limited the initial term of the Final Judgments to five years,” the states argued in a 16 November filing to US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. “This is a ‘changed circumstance’ that has an important bearing on whether the Final Judgments have had sufficient time to achieve the pro-competitive benefits that the court expected they would – and that the public itself is entitled to receive.”

Led by California and New York, the states have asked Kollar-Kotelly to extend her monitoring of Microsoft’s business practices for another five years, until November 2012. In a series of legal filings since August, Microsoft and the DOJ have argued that an extension is unwarranted while the states have pressed for the longer oversight.

In their most recent brief, the states countered Microsoft’s contention that web-based companies – Google, Salesforce.com, Yahoo, eBay and others – and new web-centric technologies constitute what Microsoft dubbed a “competitive alternative to Windows.”

Not even close, said the states. “While these companies’ products provide some functionality for users, they still depend upon a PC operating system and browser – the two spaces where Microsoft dominates – and thus they are not yet able to reduce the applications barrier to entry.”

A pair of experts that the states hired to write rebuttals to Microsoft’s position were even more damning. For all the talk about “OS agnostic” applications, Web. 2.0, Google’s dominance in search and Firefox’s inroads against Internet Explorer, the collective cannot compete with Microsoft where it counts, said Ronald Alepin and John Kwoka in separate reports filed along with the states’ brief.

“The ‘Internet Platform’ does not even exist, much less constitute for the foreseeable future a practical or viable alternative to the desktop platform,” said Alepin, a technical adviser at law firm Morrison & Foerster, and a frequent expert witness for parties facing Microsoft in court. “Firefox has yet to reach a level of penetration and use that Microsoft’s own internal measures indicate is necessary for survival and for the all-important ability to influence developer choices,” Alepin added later in his rebuttal. “With a market share of less than 20 per cent, Firefox does not have the influence to promote the adoption of alternatives to standards or extensions advanced by Microsoft.”

He even badmouthed Apple, which has been lauded for its hardware market share gains and the design of its operating systems, as too weak to capitalize on its successes, and ultimately no threat to Microsoft. “In spite of the advantages of arguably superior products and missteps by Microsoft, Apple has been unable to raise its share of the worldwide installed base of PCs, hovering near 3 per cent,” Alepin said.

Kwoka, a professor of economics at Northeastern University, was even blunter in his assessment of Microsoft’s rivals. “I analysed the economic evidence and concluded that there was no indication in the relevant market that these technologies have yet had a restorative effect on competition,” he stated flatly.

“Competition in the market for Intel-based PC operating systems has not been restored by the five-year term of the Final Judgement,” he concluded.

Under the temporary extension agreed to late last month, Kollar-Kotelly has until the end of January to decide whether to extend the settlement’s oversight terms.

Source: Computerworld (US online)