Abstract

Hypertext theory and public sector Service Design share a common concern – the structured movement of people through complex information spaces – but have developed largely in parallel, with different vocabularies, methods, and blind spots. This paper brings the two fields into conversation. We argue that Service Design's human-centred methods and practitioner tradition stand to gain from Hypertext's formal vocabulary of links, trails, transclusion, and structure, and that the domain of civic services urgently needs Hypertext's theoretical constructs: Citizens have no choice but to engage with government services and the stakes are rights, resources, and dignity. The design of a link structure may determine whether a citizen can access healthcare, assert a legal right, or navigate bereavement without unnecessary hardship. The stakes only increase with the emergence of platform government and life-event taxonomies. We compare the fields across subject, scope and method, and identify several sites of productive encounter. Spatial hypertexts offer a more expressive alternative to linear journey maps and service blueprints. Structural computing provides primitives for modelling seams, shards of identity, and conditionality in civic access. The theory of trails supplies a framework for citizen agency and recourse. We close by arguing that Nelson's question of who owns the link becomes, at civic scale, a question about state accountability to citizens. We sketch a research agenda for civic hypertext along formal, empirical, tool-building, and critical axes.

1 Introduction

Early hypertext research was deeply concerned with governments. Bush [15] starts from the information needs of the allied war effort, and Engelbart's augmented team envisioned lavish resources (personal workstations!) provided to an elite team that might well be a war cabinet or a ministry [22, 54], or a new Manhattan Project [37]. Some of the early research funding came from the CIA [30] and the US Department of Defense [1, 6]. Screenshots in early papers often reflect the needs of intelligence or policy analysts [36, Figures 1-3].

Over time, government and hypertext lost interest in each other or, more accurately, government came to regard hypertext as a tool for infotainment, mass surveillance and control [61]. We propose to renew the relationship, not by refining the experience of rulers but rather by improving the provision of government services [65]. Though digital government is (at present) almost universally motivated by considerations of cost, it may be possible to provide better government services that are more transparent, more respectful, and less intrusive than services designed with older approaches [62].

2 Service Design

2.1 Origins and Tools

Service Design emerged from 1980s management and marketing studies. It seeks to manage service quality and to develop new services based on user need [69]. Service Design has evolved into a multidisciplinary approach concerned with the orchestration of interactions across complex sociotechnical systems.

Foundational texts define service design as holistic, involving the coordination of multiple touchpoints over time [70, 71]. This reframes design from interface production to structuring relational processes where user experience (UX) unfolds across channels, institutions, and moments of interaction [24]. Rather than design a single tool with which the citizen will interact, Service Design is open to a multiplicity of tools which might be linked in complex ways, both implicit and explicit, and might encompass phone calls or personal meetings as well as online transactions.

Akin to the front-end and back-end of services delivering hypertext across the Internet, Service Design uses the metaphor of front and backstage to delineate what is visible to the user (e.g. web pages, salespeople, call centre staff) and hidden layers and mechanisms: infrastructure, tools and processes that come into play during the user journey (e.g. inventory software, the HR department, regulatory policies). Service Design represents user experience with journey maps, showing the sequence of steps a user takes as they engage with a service [40]. Service blueprints describe hidden backstage processes and tools that come into play during the user journey [12]. Finally, system maps represent networks of stakeholders or ecosystems [57].

Work has connected Service Design with systems thinking and organisational transformation [64], especially with respect to frontstage / backstage and service ecologies. Kimbell [43] emphasises Service Design's focus on organisations, competencies and outcomes through routine, rules, and regulations. In effect, interactions are modelled over time as a multi-layered graph of interactions and dependencies, including structures that are hidden behind visible nodes.

For the Hypertext community, these models resonate with graph-based representations of linked structures, extending them temporally and institutionally. The analogy to formal models of software is also evident [25]. Interactions are not just navigational choices between nodes, but trajectories shaped by organisational logic and system constraints.

2.2 Service Design in the Public Sector

Expectations of service in the public sector raise the stakes for information architecture. In the private sector, a poor user experience might lead a customer to leave, but public services are often compulsory: You can't shop around for another department of motor transport, or apply elsewhere for your disability benefit. The design of these information structures is not concerned only with efficiency or satisfaction, but also with rights, access to resources, justice, and dignity.

Service Design becomes more significant as governments seek to reform service delivery in the context of digital transformation. The UK's Government Digital Service (GDS) is sometimes portrayed as the “gold standard” public digital agency [42]. A key practitioner account of the GDS's evolution describes the application of internet-era practices and business models [33], framing digital transformation as cultural, not just a technology upgrade.

Practice-based frameworks, such as those developed by the GDS and articulated in Good Services [21] and Platformland [65], conceptualise public services as platforms composed of reusable components and shared infrastructures. This “platform government” perspective further shifts focus from individual service encounters to the underlying systems that enable them, including policy, law, and legacy infrastructure. A key contribution from Platformland is the proposal to orient public service platforms around the concept of “life events” such as birth, job loss, and marriage.

Surveys of e-government practice have tended to focus on low-threshold issues — accessibility, engagement, trust, responsiveness, dialogue, and quality of information [72] — rather than on the structure of the services themselves. Scholl's 2020 review treats direct citizen access to public data as the settled achievement of digital government's first phase [66].

2.3 Service Design in the ACM and Academia

Early research on digital governance explored the affordances that new media and new technologies offer government, anticipating benefits from error reduction to reduced corruption and facilitation of democratic will [52, Appendix A]. Research in Digital Government typically involves the design and evaluation of e-government systems [23] and often decomposes services into attributes [28]. Work at ACM DIS explores citizen agency in public digital design after launch [17] and design for and with the “digital citizen” [44]. Recent work at CHI examines participatory policy design [45] and public digital service redesign inertia [16]. Overall, work engages with the politics and ethics of public digital services. Very little work addresses the structural and theoretical vocabulary of service design itself: journey mapping, touchpoints, front/backstage, blueprinting, and life events.

3 Hypertext as a Gateway

Conventional views of hypertext focus on navigation through a space of pages or lexias connected by links [34, 47]. Navigation is prominent even in alternative formulations, such as locative [56] or spatial hypertext [2]. Hypertext, as conventionally conceived, offers powerful ways to represent and conceptualize service design. The familiar navigational model of nodes and directed links [34] can readily represent constraints imposed on services (e.g. the ways that laws constrain the delivery of benefits) as well as constraints that services themselves impose (e.g. you might need to possess both a passport and a ticket to board a flight). Fresh understandings of the complexity of narrative [14, 29], often associated with postmodernism and illuminated by hypertextual experimentation [47], echo recent understandings that services are not simply prescribed courses of performance. At minimum, the actors in a service existed before the service interaction began and each inevitably brings a bundle of expectation, anxieties, beliefs (potentially false) and prejudices to a service interaction.

Public services are frequently cast in terms of assisting people who face a sudden or urgent need. Aneurin Bevan, for example, wrote that “No society can legitimately call itself civilised if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.” [11] At times, the service must provide for situations in which a specific actor cannot perform tasks that designers expected. The fellow who has just suffered a broken ankle should not be required to fill in complex forms before receiving treatment. A vital concern of service design thus stems directly from Engelbart's augmentation agenda [22] and seeks to provide prosthetic support for people who might find themselves needing it [18].

A speculative approach to hypermedia, structural computing [60], resonates with service design in interesting ways. All hypertext research inclines to structuralism or at least to a concern with form, but structural computing attempts to centre structure as its atomic construct. This maps in an entirely natural way to a core problem in Service Design. In principle, a server prefers to process requests that naturally suit its internal data model; if it administers a table of names and addresses of registered voters, delivering a table row is its natural bent. In practice, however, this might deliver too much information: if we want to confirm that an individual is registered to vote, we do not want and should not have access to their traffic tickets [65]. If we are adjudicating a disputed parking ticket, we do not want and should not have access to the citizen's political affiliation. Structural computing suggests that servers provide data slices that might be larger than individual table rows but narrower as well. Linkage specifies not only source and destination, but also the shape of the data that can flow across this connection.

4 Where Hypertext and Service Design Meet

Drawing on previous approaches to disciplinary comparison [39], this section discusses the parallels between Hypertext and Service Design in terms of subject, scope, and methods.

4.1 Subject

Both disciplines focus on the movement of a person through linked information, naming this navigation or traversal in Hypertext, and a journey in Service Design. These are not the same thing, and it is notable that navigation is a reader-centred act of meaning-making, while a journey is an experience to be optimised across institutional touchpoints.

Similarly, Hypertext's link and Service Design's touchpoint are approached in very different ways. A link in hypertext theory has weight and implies a relationship, authorial intention, a trail. A touchpoint in Service Design is phenomenological: a moment of experience, friction, or affect. Nelson argued for “free and knowing navigation”; Pope makes the Nelsonian argument that digital government services should be imagined not as a set of webpages but as a platform through which one navigates life events [65].

Service Design's distinction between frontstage and backstage distinguishes architecture from presentation in a way hypertext theory has not (pace [4]). Backstage links, through aggregation, transclusion, computed links, and other navigational infrastructure, negotiate between and connect among different agencies and organizations. Each participant controls distinct data, and ideally no retained data are stored redundantly. A user sees only a form that, for their convenience, has been filled out with their name, address, birth date, and Tax ID number; this saves time and typing, and most users will not know or care what inter-agency queries were required to accomplish this. Frontstage links—links the reader perceives and chooses to traverse—offer a productive critical lens, since hypertext theory has generally theorized links from the author/system perspective rather than the experiential surface. They present a virtual model of the current transaction, and might show both progress through an application and alternative routes through the system.

4.2 Scope

Hypertext focuses on networked information, be it web-based or otherwise. Its scope encompasses interaction from individual readings of a text to emergent behaviour at scale. A simplified view of the Hypertext community sees it comprised of engineers and literati [35] with corresponding shifts in scope between them.

Service Design, by contrast, is agnostic about information's scale: its UX-derived tooling addresses individual interactions while its ’zoomed out’ tools — blueprints, system maps — address aggregate behaviour. One might propose a naïve parallel in which each community divides along the same individual/emergent axis (1), but this is too simplistic. The e-literature tradition concerns aesthetic and interpretive experience as readers construct meaning from non-sequential narrative, and assumes a sovereign reader who chooses to engage. The citizen navigating disability benefits or bereavement services is doing something practical and potentially urgent, and has no such choice.

Figure 1: Scope of Hypertext and Service Design - scale of human phenomena vs. kind of service and text

Yet, even the theory of literary hypertext might inform service design. Much as we have learned that stories are not simple progressions from beginning to end [29], our trajectory through a service and, ultimately, what the service signifies to us, may be complex [31]. The citizen may have no choice but to engage with the bereavement services portal, but we now understand that the way they interpret what they see there—the way meaning inheres in the service experience—is determined by the experience they bring with them, not only on what appears on the screen [7]. Experiences do not unfold chronologically; an experience with bereavement services necessarily involves past and future. Any attempt to plan the future will likely lead to consideration of past memory and present contingency [29]. A citizen filing an application for benefits is bound to have a general sense of whether the interaction is going well: can they sense the approaching conclusion, or does the site keep trying to address them in Norwegian Bokmål [51]? Indeed, Platformland motivates service design with reference to the political and aesthetic rejection of the Means Man and intrusive means testing [62].

4.3 Methodology

Service Design relies on qualitative methods (interviews, focus groups), with occasional use of quantitative methods (analytics data, surveys) for design and evaluation. Hypertext tends to privilege formal and theoretical methods such as structural modelling, system design, and close reading of link semantics (Figure 2). Empirical work in hypertext skews towards computational analysis of large corpora rather than the study of individual human experience; where user behaviour is studied, it has more often been measured than interpreted.

It is no great leap to consider that structural computing offers an approach for modelling the structural topology of services, with prospects for greater nuance.

Figure 2: Scope of Hypertext and Service Design - human scale vs methodological stance

5 Hypertextuality, Design, and Criticism

Service Design attempts to tackle complex, multidimensional spaces unsupported by the theory-rich inclinations of spatial hypertext, structural computing, and the politics of the link [32]. Platformland implicitly asks for something like meaningful links between life-events and institutional responses — a connection that Nelson's transclusion and trails were meant to enable. Hypertext has thus far neither studied nor modelled the framing, constraints and needs of different service organisations that may only be connected by the user's traversal.

5.1 Civic Spatial Hypertext

Spatial hypertext foregrounds the role of implicit structure, where relationships are expressed through proximity, alignment, and visual grouping as well as through formal links. Spatial hypertext systems often organise information: what if we use them to model, analyse and design interactive systems?

While journey maps and service blueprints model a service as a linear sequence, a spatial hypertext could capture a multiplicity of possible interactions, the clustering of related capabilities, and the co-presence of frontstage and backstage elements within a single navigable structure.

We might adopt some straightforward representational decisions: nodes show moments of interaction; proximity suggests functional relatedness; clusters indicate service subdomains or capabilities; overlaps emphasize shared infrastructure (e.g. identity, payment, verification); structure reflects semantic relationships and procedural, organisational, and infrastructural dependencies; layered visibility distinguishes frontstage and backstage elements; semi-transparent trajectories delineate the paths that users construct, with thicker trails marking more common pathways.

Such an approach enables co-representation of user-facing interactions and underlying systems within a single structure.

Public services combine navigation, interaction, and institutional complexity. As hypertext research continues to move from static document collections to dynamic, socio-technical systems, services offer a compelling domain for hypertext, providing service design with more expressive and analytically useful modelling tools.

5.2 Transclusion at the Seams

More ambitiously, we note a core Service Design challenge highlighted by Platformland: "Designing the seams" involves providing the appropriate amount of organisational context to a user crossing organisational boundaries in their service journey.

When seams between services are too strong, services are partially or completely disconnected. Users have to re-orient themselves, track multiple threads, and perhaps take duplicate steps: How many times have you given your government your address?1 When seams are too weak, users don't know which organisation they are interacting with: they don't know where their data is, or who is accountable.2

Pope's model of “data as infrastructure” stands to benefit from Nelson's transclusion (content that is stored in one place but appears in many). This relates to "seams", discernible joins between services that citizens experience as bureaucratic friction. Service designers have methods for seams; hypertext has a theory of why they exist and how they might be dissolved.

A tool like Tinderbox could track service design artefacts as semantically linked objects, letting a single file about a service ecosystem support designers iterating on prior work, cataloguing and refining seams, and seeing the big picture. Its notes are simultaneously text, data frames carrying whatever formal metadata are desirable, and computational objects that act upon themselves and their neighbours; it already offers timelines and overlays [75, pp. 219-230]. Given existing tooling and knowledge of patterns of hypertext [8], what else might we build to support different temporal constraints, institutional overlaps, and levels of granularity?

6 User Trails and Agency

Bush's trails, in original conception [15] and in later realisation [27], suggest that the paths citizens take through services should be recordable, revisable, and shareable. Service design platforms have largely failed to implement this principle, and if paths fade and things go awry, the citizen may have no recourse against the bureaucracy [38, 41]. If the path is owned exclusively by the bureaucracy, the path itself (or its forgery) becomes a tool of surveillance and a vector of oppression [50]. For example, in the British Post Office scandal, officials falsely accused postmasters of fraud in order to cover up software errors [55, 73].

Hypertext's long concern with reader agency offers a vocabulary for thinking about citizen participation in service design [53]. Vitally, citizens not only need to have agency; they need to experience their agency, appreciate the limits of what they can do, and be able to learn, when barriers appear, how to negotiate seams and boundaries. In this connection, it is highly desirable to allow radically nonlinear paths through the experience: if a problem arises, say, in establishing a detail of a medical diagnosis, the citizen might still be able to make progress on other aspects of a claim and the sequence of operations ought to be based on their needs rather than what a bureau expected.

Not only should citizens be able to pursue alternative paths, but they should be able to discover those paths, even if they happen to be pursuing an unusual or unexpected trajectory [26, 63]. A search field may not suffice. The citizen may not know what tasks are needed, and it is the responsibility of the service to make the path forward evident.

7 Structural Computing, Shards of Identity and Seams

Web services inherited the Web, not hypertext. Nürnberg and Atzenbeck critique the impoverishment of hypertext as it is implemented in the web [3] [59]. This is further diluted by layers of platforms, APIs and intermediated services that privilege integration, metrics and control over the simplicity, openness and direct linking that originally defined hypertext. In particular, service designers need links not just as pointers, but as structural claims about relations between nodes.

Conventional Service Design tools — journey maps, service blueprints, system maps — are static diagrams that show links between nodes. They do not express the links’ semantics, the grammar by which they are composed, or conditionality. We can illustrate this with Pope's “shards of identity”, an approach to selective disclosure. If I need to establish that I am eligible for a service that is intended for adults, instead of sharing my date of birth I share that I am indeed within the requisite age range.

To do this, the link needs to carry semantics:

this navigational step requires a credential of type X with predicate Y, and the credentials should not persist beyond this transaction.

A standard hyperlink cannot convey this kind of information. We can, however, model a shard of identity as a structural relationship between citizen, credential authority, and service. It has an assertion, scope, validity conditions, and a disclosure boundary. Service Design lacks a mechanism for conveying this nuance, which is the kind of rich structural abstraction that structural computing argues the web's primitive link model cannot express.

Wardley Mapping, a service design approach to understanding complicated value chains in a business ecosystem [74], is ripe for this kind of interpretation and modelling. A Wardley Map is structurally a directed graph whose edges simultaneously express dependency, visibility, and evolutionary stage: it offers richer link semantics than the web's anchor-to-resource model. This kind of modelling of public service components calls for the type of semantically expressive link structure that Nürnberg and Atzenbeck advocate for [59].

Nelson's transclusion was partly motivated by a concern about what travels with content when it moves. In transclusion the content's context, provenance and ownership remain attached. Pope's shards of identity address the inverse problem: what should not travel with a citizen through a journey. Both are about semantics of connection, the meaning of a link, what it does and does not carry.

This plays into the citizen's relationship with the state: who owns the citizen's identity information? Is the state's knowledge deliberately fragmented and scoped? If ever there were a design choice with political consequence, this is it.

Each siloed department has its own data model, identity scheme, and navigation logic. Their political and budgetary interests, moreover, often depend on defending their data from rival organisations.

Shards of identity address one dimension of this, proposing an intentionally minimal standard for credential exchange. Structural computing could be more ambitious, proposing not just standards for the exchange of credentials, but standards for expressing the structural relationships between services: What it means for one service to be a prerequisite of another, what it means for a life event to contain a set of service relationships, what it means for a navigation path to be valid or invalid given a citizen's current state.

At the lowest layer of this framework, existing standards such as the W3C's Verifiable Credentials, OpenID Connect, and the BC Wallet address the issue of credentials, but the structural issue around the layers above asserting credentials (navigation paths, service relationships, life events) remain unaddressed. Structural computing might just offer a formal approach that can meaningfully address this gap.

Adaptive Hypermedia's user and adaptation models [20] [76] show what it would take to make link structure responsive to the person traversing it, although that personalisation sits in direct tension with the minimised system knowledge that shards of identity are designed to enforce.

8 The Politics of the Link

Pope's vision of “platform as substrate” and "life event as organising principle" argues for effacing departmental silos and envisions rebuilding digital government around events that matter to citizens rather than institutional structure. This is information architecture at civic scale. Nelson talked about who owns links [58]. We propose two further questions: Who benefits from links? And who is accountable?

When a government builds its digital platform around life events, someone has to define those events. Pope lists starting a business, having a child, moving house, becoming unemployed, leaving prison, and managing the affairs of someone who has died. This taxonomy has implications for citizens: the choice of life events determine what the system can see and act on. For example, if "becoming homeless" is a life event, one might expect a set of coherent aligned services. If it is not, the needs of unhoused populations might be distributed across departments providing housing benefits, mental health services, and support for rough sleeping or substance use. The second scenario heaps significantly more friction and invisibility upon the affected citizens and their service providers.

In other words, enumerating life events may decide, whether with intent or not, what experiences are worthy of official recognition. Who controls the life event taxonomy and service connections? These are profoundly political questions whose answers have implications for what the state can do to and for citizens, and what citizens can know about and claim from the state.

Hypertext research and practice have deep roots regarding who controls links and how link structures affect navigation, not least what the person traversing them is able to access [8, 9, 15, 48]. This is ripe territory for the application of hypertext theory to service design practice.

Although it does not couch it in these terms, Platformland asks how to implement hypertext at civic scale. Differences of scale lead to methodological consequences: hypertext's formal models were never designed to describe a citizen's interaction with fifteen government departments as they apply for disability benefit. But what if they did? Of particular interest is that, in Platformland, nodes are independent computational entities that may need to negotiate with each other in complex ways. When these negotiations break down, moreover, we must anticipate further rounds of negotiation, ideally without alarming the citizen.

Consider an applicant for bereavement services: the system contacts several agencies to disambiguate names, obtain identifiers, and verify dates of birth and citizenship, filling in much of the form on the applicant's behalf. Such negotiation ought to be transparent and seamless. Where it throws an exception, whether an unpaid parking ticket or a security flag arising from the deceased's military service, it should be resolved without alarming the applicant with fresh bureaucratic tasks.

Again, the vision of Platformland has a productive tension: a state proactively anticipating citizen needs and reaching out to meet them, and a state whose knowledge of citizens is deliberately minimised and carefully scoped by selective disclosure. Insufficient attention has been paid to Kleinberg's discovery that data minimisation may be insufficient; identity may often be deduced from extrinsic clues such as a person's anonymised social network [5]. Design alone cannot resolve this tension: indeed, this is a political question about state reach. What travels across a link, what links may (or must) be traversed, and who controls link structure? Hypertext Theory may be equipped to articulate and address these questions on behalf of Service Design.

9 Discussion and Conclusions

Hypertext rhetoric has often been concerned with helping readers select the most appropriate links [13, 46, 49], but we must remember that links are always multivalent [10]. They mean more than one thing. In order to know what lies at the end of a link, we need to go there; partial information may help, but we can never be sure it is enough. In designing services, moreover, we cannot always assure immediate satisfaction; among the necessary links might be some that a citizen might be reluctant to follow [67].

A synthetic framework of civic hypertext might envision links that support relationships between documents, concepts, and services. Trails would act as a reading history and a life history. Transclusion becomes not just a publishing mechanism but a means of selectively dissolving institutional seams.

Platformland is a practitioner's intuition toward this, and hypertext theory offers a formal vocabulary to make it rigorous. In return, Service Design's focus on human experience offers tooling for the hypertext community: Hypertext research is sparse when it comes to thick, qualitative human-centred investigation of what it is like to navigate. This is especially true in the long term; we know too little about navigating through a hypertext novel or textbook, but we know almost nothing about navigation on a scale of months or years. Civic hypertext, which must support people asserting their rights to services, assuredly needs these practices.

We have argued that hypertext theory and public sector service design share a common concern that neither discipline has fully articulated on its own: the structured movement of people through complex, institutionally-bounded information spaces in which the stakes — rights, resources, and dignity — are high.

We have shown that the conceptual vocabulary each field has developed independently maps onto the other in productive and sometimes surprising ways. Navigation and journey, link and touchpoint, transclusion and seam, trail and audit record: these are not synonyms, but their differences are generative. Where Service Design has powerful human-centred methods and a practitioner tradition oriented to real institutional change, it lacks the formal representational vocabulary to model the semantics of connection, the conditionality of access, and the politics of link structure. Where Hypertext theory has that vocabulary — in structural computing, spatial hypertext, and the theory of trails and transclusion — it has seldom directed it at systems that serve citizens who have no choice but to engage.

The convergence is not merely theoretical. The emergence of platform government, selective disclosure, life-event taxonomies, and proactive state outreach makes the question of who controls link structure a matter of civic consequence. Nelson's question — who owns the link? — becomes, at civic scale, a question about the accountability of the state to its citizens, and about what the state may know, infer, and act upon. Hypertext theory is better equipped to articulate this question than it may have recognised, and Service Design needs a framework that can hold it.

We propose that this encounter constitutes the beginning of a research agenda for civic hypertext that can be pursued along several axes:

formal modelling of service structures using structural computing primitives;\

empirical, qualitative investigation of citizen navigation in high-stakes services3;\

development and evaluation of hypertext tooling for service design practice, assessed against service design's own normative criteria (be agnostic of organisational structure, explain why a decision has been made, have no dead ends [21]) alongside classic usability heuristics [68]; and\

sustained critical attention to the political consequences of structural choices in civic platforms.\

This paper's limitations are real: the argument is theoretical and the provocations require empirical validation in real institutional contexts. Future work should engage with the rich datasets now available from digital government platforms, develop the worked examples only sketched here, and bring the methods of hypertext research — formal, computational, and critical — to bear on services that matter to people's lives.

Acknowledgments

Research for this paper was supported in part by access to the collections of the Harvard University Libraries. We thank Nate King for his thoughtful review of an early draft. One of the authors thanks the University of Southampton for the honor of a visiting fellowship.

Notes

1Conway's Law may come into play: The structure of a system – or service – tends to mirrors the structure of the organisation(s) that designed it. [19]

2For example, critics have observed that the UK websites for courts and tribunals are found in the GOV.UK domain, although they are not part of the government as Britons understand the term, but rather part of this state.

3A healthy foundation of data underlies Service Design in its evaluations of services at scale (for example on https://www.data.gov.uk/ and https://github.com/alphagov). These datasets represent under-studied tools for the study of information architecture validation and navigational behaviour at large.

Source

ACM full-text HTML

ACM Digital Library

Imported from ACM’s structured HTML source. ACM Reference Format: Silas Hooper and Mark Bernstein. 2026. The Link and the Journey: Hypertext at Civic Scale. In 37th ACM Conference on Hypertext (HT '26), September 14--18, 2026, London, United Kingdom. ACM, New York, NY, USA 8 Pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3800935.3830859

References

[1] Robert Akscyn, Donald McCracken, and Elise Yoder. 1987. KMS: A Distributed Hypermedia Systems for Managing Knowledge in Organizations. In KMS: A Distributed Hypermedia Systems for Managing Knowledge in Organizations. ACM, Chapel Hill, NC.

[2] Mark W. R. Anderson and David E. Millard. 2023. Seven Hypertexts. In Proceedings of the 34th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. ACM, Rome, Italy, 42.

[3] Claus Atzenbeck and Peter J Nürnberg. 2019. Hypertext as method. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. ACM, New York, 29–38.

[4] Claus Atzenbeck, Daniel Roßner, and Manolis Tzagarakis. 2018. Mother: An Integrated Approach to Hypertext Domains. In Proceedings of the 29th on Hypertext and Social Media (Baltimore, MD, USA). 145–149.

[5] Lars Backstrom, Cynthia Dwork, and Jon Kleinberg. 2011. Wherefore Art Thou R3579X?: Anonymized Social Networks, Hidden Patterns, and Structural Steganography. Commun. ACM 54, 12 (2011), 133–141.

[6] Thierry. Bardini. 2000. Bootstrapping : Douglas Engelbart, coevolution, and the origins of personal computing. Stanford University Press, Stanford, Calif.

[7] Barthes, Roland. 1977. The Death of the Author. In Signs and images : writings on art, cinema, and photography. Fontana, London, 142–148.

[8] Mark Bernstein. 1998. Patterns of hypertext. In Proceedings of the ninth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia: links, objects, time and space—structure in hypermedia systems: links, objects, time and space—structure in hypermedia systems. ACM, New York, 21–29.

[9] Mark Bernstein. 2009. On hypertext narrative. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia. 5–14.

[10] Mark Bernstein and Stacey Mason. 2019. Links: Exercises In Style. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on Hypertext And Social Media.

[11] Bevan, Aneurin. 1952. In place of fear. Simon and Schuster, New York. 213 pages.

[12] Mary Jo Bitner, Amy L Ostrom, and Felicia N Morgan. 2008. Service blueprinting: a practical technique for service innovation. California management review 50, 3 (2008), 66–94.

[13] R.A. Botafogo and B. Shneiderman. 1991. Identifying Aggregates in Hypertext Structures. Hypertext’91 (1991), 63–74.

[14] Samuel Brooker. 2021. Proposing, disposing, proving: Barthes, intentionalism, and hypertext literary fiction. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 27, 1-2 (2021), 6–28.

[15] V. Bush. 1945. As we may think. Atlantic Monthly 176, 1 (1945), 101–108.

[16] Barbara N. Carreras and Valeria Borsotti. 2025. How Can We Change the System? Understanding and Addressing Redesign Inertia in Digital Public Services. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 263, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713225

[17] Camilla Christensen, Jörn Christiansson, and Joanna Saad-Sulonen. 2024. "B̎ut will they listen?L̎earnings from a design after design experiment in civics". In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Copenhagen, Denmark) (DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2173–2182. https://doi.org/10.1145/3643834.3661541

[18] Andy Clark and David J. Chalmers. 1998. The Extended Mind. Analysis 58, 1 (1998), 7–19.

[19] Melvin E Conway. 1968. How do committees invent. Datamation 14, 4 (1968), 28–31.

[20] Paul De Bra, Geert-Jan Houben, and Hongjing Wu. 1999. AHAM: a Dexter-based reference model for adaptive hypermedia. In Proceedings of the tenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and hypermedia: returning to our diverse roots: returning to our diverse roots. 147–156.

[21] Lou Downe. 2020. Good Services: How to design services that work. Bis Publishers.

[22] Douglas C. Engelbart. 1962. Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. Technical Report. Stanford Research Institute. https://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html

[23] Jane Fedorowicz and Martin A Dias. 2010. A decade of design in digital government research. Government Information Quarterly 27, 1 (2010), 1–8.

[24] Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. All look same? A comparison of experience design and service design. interactions 17, 5 (2010), 60–62.

[25] Martin Fowler. 2003. UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

[26] G.W. Furnas. 1997. Effective View Navigation. In CHI’97 (Atlanta, GA). 367–374.

[27] Richard Furuta, Frank M. Shipman III, Catherine C. Marshall, D. Brenner, and H-w. Hsieh. 1997. Hypertext Paths and the World-Wide Web: Experiences with Walden's Paths. In Proc. of Hypertext’97 (Southampton, UK). ACM, New York, 167–176.

[28] Yingying Gao and Marijn Janssen. 2022. The open data canvas–Analyzing value creation from open data. Digital Government: Research and Practice 3, 1 (2022), 1–15.

[29] Gerard Genette. 1983. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

[30] Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan. 2023. Code: from information theory to French theory. Duke University Press, Durham.

[31] Ross Gordon. 2020. Airlines, Mayonnaise, and Justice: Reflections on the Theory and Practice of Legal Design and Technology. Design Issues 36, 3 (2020), 31–42.

[32] Diane Greco. 1996. Hypertext with Consequences: Recovering a Politics of Hypertext. In Hypertext with Consequences: Recovering a Politics of Hypertext. Washington, DC, 85–92.

[33] Andrew Greenway, Ben Terrett, and Mike Bracken. 2021. Digital transformation at scale: Why the strategy is delivery. Do Sustainability.

[34] Frank Halasz and M. Schwartz. 1994. The Dexter Hypertext Reference Model. Commun. ACM 37, 2 (1994), 30–39.

[35] Frank G Halasz. 1991. " Seven Issues": Revisited, Hypertext’91 Closing Plenary. In Proc. Third ACM Conference on Hypertext (Hypertext’91).

[36] Frank G. Halasz, Thomas P. Moran, and Randall H. Trigg. 1987. NoteCards in a Nutshell. In CHI+GI Proceedings. ACM, New York, 45–52.

[37] István Hargittai. 2006. The Martians of Science: five physicists who changed the twentieth century. Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York. xxiv, 313 p., [32] p. of plates pages.

[38] Joseph. Heller. 1961. Catch-22, a novel. Simon and Schuster, New York. 443 pages.

[39] Silas Hooper and Alan Dix. 2012. Web science and human-computer interaction: when disciplines collide. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference. ACM, New York, 128–136.

[40] Tharon Howard. 2014. Journey mapping: A brief overview. Communication Design Quarterly Review 2, 3 (2014), 10–13.

[41] Kafka, Franz. 1954. The castle. Knopf, New York. xvi, 481 pages.

[42] Rainer Kattel and Ville Takala. 2023. The case of the UK's government digital service: the professionalisation of a paradigmatic public digital agency. Digital Government: Research and Practice 4, 4 (2023), 1–15.

[43] Lucy Kimbell, Jeanette Blomberg, et al. 2017. The object of service design. Designing for service: Key issues and new directions 27 (2017), 20–34.

[44] David Kirk, Suzan Boztepe, Jörn Christiansson, Amalia De Götzen, Nils Ehrenberg, Erik Grönvall, Shaun Lawson, Per Linde, Joanna Saad-Sulonen, and Vasilis Vlachokyriakos. 2024. Designing for and with the ‘Digital Citizen’. In Companion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark) (DIS ’24 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 467–469. https://doi.org/10.1145/3656156.3658383

[45] Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Quan Ze Chen, Amy X. Zhang, Jane Hsieh, Haiyi Zhu, and Kenneth Holstein. 2025. PolicyCraft: Supporting Collaborative and Participatory Policy Design through Case-Grounded Deliberation. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 805, 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713865

[46] George P. Landow. 1987. Relationally Encoded Links and the Rhetoric of Hypertext. In Relationally Encoded Links and the Rhetoric of Hypertext. Association for Computing Machinery, Chapel Hill, 331–344.

[47] George P. Landow. 1992. Hypertext : the convergence of contemporary critical theory and technology. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 242 pages.

[48] George P Landow. 2006. Hypertext 3.0: Critical theory and new media in an era of globalization. JHU Press.

[49] Richard A. Lanham. 1993. The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

[50] Ira. Levin. 1970. This perfect day; a novel. Random House, New York. 309 pages.

[51] Menand Louis. 2003. The End Matter. The New Yorker (2003).

[52] Giulia Maragno, Luca Gastaldi, and Mariano Corso. 2021. e-Government for Public Values creation: a systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (Omaha, NE, USA). 386–397.

[53] Stacey Mason. 2013. On Games and Links: Extending the Vocabulary of Agency and Immersion in Interactive Narrative. In Interactive Storytelling, H. Koenitz, T.I. Sezen, G. Ferri, M. Haahr, D. Sezen, and G. Çatak (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, 25–34.

[54] Eden Medina. 2011. Cybernetic revolutionaries : technology and politics in Allende's Chile. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. xiv, 326 pages.

[55] Doug Meil. 2024. The U.K. Post Office Scandal: Software Malpractice at Scale. BLOG@CACM, Communications of the ACM. https://cacm.acm.org/blogcacm/the-u-k-post-office-scandal-software-malpractice-at-scale/ Accessed: 2026-04-17.

[56] David E. Millard, Charlie Hargood, Michael O. Jewell, and Mark J. Weal. 2013. Canyons, Deltas and Plains: Towards a Unified Sculptural Model of Location-based Hypertext Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. In Canyons, Deltas and Plains: Towards a Unified Sculptural Model of Location-based Hypertext Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. ACM, Paris, France New York, NY, USA, 109–118.

[57] Nicola Morelli and Christian Tollestrup. 2007. New representation techniques for designing in a systemic perspective. Nordes 2 (2007).

[58] T. Nelson. 1982. Literary Machines. Mindscape Press, 1987.

[59] Peter Nürnberg and Claus Atzenbeck. 2025. It Really is Structure, all the Way Down. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 36th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. ACM, New York, 21–24.

[60] P.J. Nürnberg, J.J. Leggett, and E.R. Schneider. 1997. As We Should Have Thought. In Proc. of Hypertext’97 (Southampton, UK). 98–101.

[61] Kieron O'Hara and Wendy Hall. 2021. Four internets: data, geopolitics, and the governance of cyberspace. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, United States of America.

[62] George Orwell. 1937. The road to Wigan Pier. V. Gollancz ltd., London. viii, 264 pages.

[63] Peter Pirolli and Stuart K. Card. 1999. Information Foraging. Psychological Review 106, 4 (1999), 643–675.

[64] Andy Polaine, Lavrans Løvlie, and Ben Reason. 2013. Service design: From insight to implementation. Rosenfeld media.

[65] Richard Pope. 2024. Platformland: An Anatomy of Next-Generation Public Services. London Publishing, London.

[66] Hans J. Scholl. 2020. Digital Government: Looking Back and Ahead on a Fascinating Domain of Research and Practice. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract. 1, 1 (2020), Article 7.

[67] Frank Shipman (Ed.). 2000. More Than Legible: On Links that Readers Don't Want to Follow. ACM, San Antonio, Texas.

[68] Ben Shneiderman. 1987. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

[69] Lynn Shostack. 1982. How to design a service. The European Journal of Marketing 16, 1 (1982), 49–63.

[70] Marc Stickdorn, Markus Edgar Hormess, Adam Lawrence, and Jakob Schneider. 2018. This is service design doing. " O'Reilly Media, Inc.".

[71] Marc Stickdorn and Jakob Schneider. 2012. This is service design thinking: Basics, tools, cases. John Wiley & Sons.

[72] Silas Formunyuy Verkijika and Lizette De Wet. 2018. Quality assessment of e‐government websites in Sub‐Saharan Africa: A public values perspective. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 84, 2 (2018), 17.

[73] Nick Wallis. 2021. The great Post Office scandal: the fight to expose a multimillion pound scandal which put innocent people in jail. Bath Publishing Limited, Bath.

[74] Simon Wardley and Ben Mosior. 2022. Wardley Maps. Independently published. Originally published as a series on Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/wardleymaps.

[75] Colin Ware. 2019. Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington, MA. 560 pages.

[76] Hongjing Wu, GJPM Houben, and PME De Bra. 2000. Supporting user adaptation in adaptive hypermedia applications. In Proceedings Conferentie Informatiewetenschap 2000 (De Doelen, Utrecht, 5 april 2000). Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 88–98.