Governments at all levels have invested heavily in digital transformation, creating online systems for services that once required in-person visits, paper forms, or telephone calls. These e-government systems promise efficiency, accessibility, and convenience—enabling citizens to access services anytime, anywhere. Yet many e-government implementations fail to deliver on these promises. Design flaws create frustration, exclude vulnerable users, and sometimes prevent people from accessing services they need. Understanding common design failures in e-government systems matters for improving digital service delivery and ensuring technology serves citizens rather than burdening them.
Common Design Failures
Complexity and Friction
Many government systems are unnecessarily complex, requiring users to navigate confusing interfaces, understand bureaucratic terminology, and complete multi-step processes that could be simplified. What should be straightforward tasks—renewing a license, checking a benefit status, filing a simple form—become frustrating ordeals. Complexity that may seem acceptable to designers who understand the underlying processes confuses ordinary users who just want to complete a task.
Friction accumulates across interactions. Creating accounts, verifying identity, navigating between systems, re-entering information, and dealing with errors all add burden. Users give up, fail to complete processes, or make errors that create downstream problems. The efficiency promised by digitization disappears when systems are hard to use.
Inaccessibility
E-government systems often fail accessibility standards, excluding people with disabilities. Websites may not work with screen readers used by blind users. Forms may lack keyboard navigation for those who cannot use a mouse. Visual designs may have insufficient contrast for low-vision users. Complexity may overwhelm users with cognitive disabilities. Legal requirements for accessibility exist but are often not met, and enforcement is inadequate.
Accessibility failures are not just inconveniences but rights violations. When government services move online but online services are inaccessible, people with disabilities effectively lose access to services they need.
Mobile-Unfriendly Design
Many Canadians, particularly those with lower incomes, access the internet primarily through mobile devices rather than desktop computers. Yet e-government systems are often designed for desktop use and work poorly on phones—small screens, difficult navigation, forms that do not adapt, and file uploads that assume desktop functionality. When mobile users cannot effectively access services, a digital divide becomes an access barrier.
Assumption of Continuous Connectivity
E-government systems typically assume stable internet connections—users can complete forms in one session, uploads work reliably, and pages load quickly. But many Canadians, particularly in rural and remote areas, have slow, unreliable, or expensive connectivity. Systems that time out, lose data when connections drop, or require large file transfers exclude those with inadequate internet access.
Inadequate Error Handling
When something goes wrong in e-government systems, users often receive cryptic error messages, lose their work, or have no clear path to resolution. Good error handling explains problems in plain language, helps users correct issues, saves their progress, and provides alternative options. Poor error handling creates dead ends that prevent task completion and generate support calls that erode any efficiency gains from digitization.
Authentication Burdens
Identity verification—ensuring that users are who they claim to be—presents design challenges. Some systems impose burdensome authentication requirements that deter legitimate users. Others create separate accounts across departments, requiring users to maintain multiple identities. Password requirements may be so complex that users forget credentials. Two-factor authentication may assume smartphone ownership. Balancing security with usability is difficult but essential.
Who Suffers from Design Flaws
Older Adults
Older Canadians may have less experience with digital systems, less comfort navigating unfamiliar interfaces, and age-related challenges with vision, dexterity, or cognition. Systems designed by younger technologists may not consider how older adults actually use technology. When e-government assumes digital fluency, older adults may be unable to access services their age cohort particularly needs.
People with Disabilities
Beyond formal accessibility failures, design choices may create barriers for people with various disabilities. Cognitively demanding interfaces exclude those with intellectual or learning disabilities. Time-limited sessions disadvantage those who work more slowly. Complex navigation challenges those with attention difficulties. Visual-heavy designs exclude blind and low-vision users.
Low-Income Canadians
Those with fewer resources may have outdated devices, limited data plans, mobile-only access, and less time to struggle with complex systems. They may also have more interactions with government services, making cumulative burdens greater. Design flaws disproportionately affect those already disadvantaged.
Newcomers and Non-Native Speakers
Government systems are typically designed for native English or French speakers familiar with Canadian bureaucratic conventions. Newcomers may face language barriers, unfamiliar terminology, and processes that assume knowledge they do not have. Machine translation may be inadequate. Cultural assumptions embedded in design may not transfer across backgrounds.
Rural and Remote Communities
Limited connectivity, fewer in-person alternatives, and distance from support resources mean that rural and remote Canadians are both more dependent on digital services and more affected when those services work poorly.
Why Design Flaws Occur
Technology-Centered Rather Than User-Centered Design
Many e-government systems are designed around technical requirements or administrative processes rather than user needs. Procurement focuses on functionality rather than usability. Development proceeds without adequate user research or testing. The result is systems that work technically but fail users practically.
Procurement and Vendor Dynamics
Government technology procurement often favours large vendors with established relationships rather than those who might deliver better user experiences. Contracts may inadequately specify usability requirements. Once systems are built, they become difficult to modify even when problems become apparent. Vendor lock-in reduces flexibility for improvement.
Siloed Development
Different government departments develop their own systems, creating inconsistent experiences across services. Users must learn different interfaces, maintain separate accounts, and navigate different processes depending on which service they need. Integration across departments is technically and organizationally challenging, leaving users to bridge gaps between systems.
Inadequate Testing
Systems may be tested for technical functionality but not for usability with real users. Testing may occur with staff who understand the underlying processes rather than typical citizens. Accessibility testing may be inadequate or absent. Beta testing with broad user populations may not happen before launch.
Maintenance and Evolution Challenges
Once launched, systems may receive inadequate ongoing investment. Problems identified after launch may not be fixed. Technology evolves but systems do not keep pace. The initial design becomes permanent even when it fails users. Continuous improvement requires ongoing resources that may not be allocated.
Better Approaches
User-Centered Design
User-centered design places user needs at the center of development. This means understanding who will use the system, observing how they currently accomplish tasks, testing designs with real users, and iterating based on feedback. User research is not optional but essential. Design decisions are validated through testing rather than assumed correct.
Design Standards and Guidelines
Clear standards for government digital services—like those developed by the UK Government Digital Service or the Canadian Digital Service—establish expectations for usability, accessibility, and user experience. Standards create consistency across services and provide benchmarks against which systems can be evaluated.
Agile and Iterative Development
Rather than building complete systems before launch, agile approaches release usable versions early, gather feedback, and improve incrementally. This allows problems to be identified and fixed before they affect all users. Iteration enables learning and adaptation that traditional waterfall development does not.
Accessibility by Design
Accessibility should be built into systems from the beginning rather than retrofitted after development. This means including people with disabilities in design and testing, following established accessibility standards, and treating accessibility as a core requirement rather than an add-on.
Multi-Channel Service Delivery
Digital should be one channel among several, not the only option. Maintaining phone, in-person, and paper channels ensures that those who cannot use digital services still have access. This adds cost but is essential for equity. Digital-first need not mean digital-only.
Plain Language
Government communications are often dense with jargon, legalese, and bureaucratic terminology that ordinary citizens struggle to understand. Writing in plain language—clear, concise, and understandable—is essential for effective digital services. This requires deliberate effort and often conflicts with legal and administrative habits.
Questions for Further Discussion
- How can government procurement processes be reformed to prioritize usability alongside functionality in e-government systems?
- What accountability mechanisms would ensure that accessibility standards are actually met in government digital services?
- How should governments balance efficiency gains from digital services with the costs of maintaining non-digital alternatives for those who need them?
- What role should user research and testing play in government technology development, and how should it be resourced?
- How can fragmented government digital services be integrated to provide coherent experiences across departments and services?