For those of us interested in transparent and participatory government, the first large-scale manifestation of the Open Government Initiative is a real step forward. Although there is certainly room for improvement, the ideas may suffer from a lack of diversity, and there may be inherent problems with crowdsourcing government solutions, I feel that the effort is a very positive step in the right direction.

However open government, for it to be honestly characterized as such, needs to open to everyone. This means that the tools and the processes that are used must not be exclusionary. By the mere fact that these are Web-based, the argument can be made that those without adequate internet access are not afforded the same ability to participate. Of particular to concern for myself, having a background in Web management, is how accessible these tools are to individuals with disabilities. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have not tried to conduct an accessibility test on any of the tools being used and there is the possibility that they are fully 508 compliant - but I have my doubts.

Yet even with my wholehearted belief that accessibility is the right thing to do (legal considerations and requirements aside), I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. So the conundrum for me is, if there are legitimate accessibility issues with the tools being used for the open government initiative, what approaches can be taken to deal with these issues? Realistically, I see a multi-pronged attack as the most sensible:

1. Make every effort to put pressure on services and platforms being used by the government to make these tools fully accessible.
2. In cases where there is a choice of tools and none of which is fully accessible, choose the tool that is closest to achieving full accessibility or where the company has a demonstrable record of a commitment to accessibility.
3. Find, and make readily available, alternative mechanisms for participation.

It is this last point that most interests to me. Barring the ability to make everything immediately accessible, are there ways in the interim to improve openness? Are there workarounds, as imperfect as they will certainly be, that can bring these important conversations to a wider and more inclusive audience? Are there ways that we can reach out to get more people involved?

Finally, one option that I did not list is for government to build its own accessible versions of these platforms. However, in most every circumstance, I reject this as an inferior choice. First of all, government should use the leverage it has with these new private-sector partners to push the needle on accessibility. The newly found willingness of the government to engage with social media, social networking and customer feedback platforms should be looked at as a unique opportunity to make accessibility a priority. Second, I am a firm believer in trying to meet people where they are rather than force them to come to you. Developing, at a huge expense, proprietary government versions of these platforms will splinter the target audiences and, in all likelihood, only attract a fraction of the participants as existing platforms.

I hope this is the start of an honest and frank discussion on this issue and I invite everyone to participate.

And, as always, these are my thoughts and my thoughts alone.