[Irl-dean] AAA Claim?

[Barry McMullin]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Matthew Ovington wrote:

> Many government bodies use PDF for forms. The forms are intended for
> download only, have to be filled in by hand and posted with a signature
> (original copy required). Because the form is only acceptable by
> administrators in its printed format, using PDF here would be
> acceptable. A HTML alternative to the form (which can't be submitted
> electronically) but looks the same *might* be OK but it would not print
> out consistently, and would be likely to cause confusion for the user
> (many people would just hit print, and not know how to control print
> settings, plus you'd need to use fixed sizing to try and control the
> visual presentation of the form for printing) and for the scheme
> administrators.

This is a completely fair question!

My own approach would be this:

- First and foremost, critically review the supposed "business
  need" for a hardcopy signature.  In many many cases this
  actually doesn't exist - it is just a superstition ("we've
  always required a signature; we're not quite sure why any more,
  but something terrible *might* happen if we stop, so I couldn't
  possibly take responsibility for changing the system now - and
  certainly not just to take account of the infinitesimal number
  of people with disabilities that might want it ...").  Point
  out that people (with and without disabilities) can now carry
  out a fairly complete range of electronic banking transactions
  without presenting a hardcopy signature; as well as more
  mundane things like ordering theatre tickets, buying groceries,
  and booking hotels, flights, trains etc. Is *your* business
  requirement really so much more demanding?

- But if that doesn't fly, then I would (personally) fall back on
  a (properly accessible) HTML form to capture the data; have
  that submitted (and validated, as appropriate) to the server;
  and then have the server return a "printable" version for the
  user to sign and post.  In general, this "printable" version
  should still be in accessible html (so that the user can easily
  satisfy themselves of what is in it before printing and
  signing). Yes, there will be some variation in the printed
  format - but that is actually a *feature* not a *bug*!  For
  example, a user who requires magnification is *entitled* to
  print a "large print" version, that they can actually easily
  read before signing, rather than whatever default "print size" the
  service provider happens to prefer.

- Note that this system will still almost always work better than
  a pure paper form *for the provider themselves*.  They have
  captured (and validated) the data electronically, and will not
  have to rekey it when the hardcopy arrives.  As long as they
  include a unique "reference code" in the version that is to be
  printed and signed, that is relatively early and prominent in
  the hardcopy, then it really won't matter that the specific
  print format will vary significantly from one submission to
  another - they are not going to do anything with it anyway,
  other than file it (probably never to be retrieved).  All the
  person processing it needs to do is to locate the "reference
  code", and check that it has been signed.  (In fact, the
  "printable" version could - with appropriate safeguards - be
  reduced to just the reference code and a signature block
  alone.)

- Finally, suppose that a provider insists that, despite the
  obvious disadvantages to them, they do not want to capture the
  form data electronically, but want to rekey it from submitted,
  signed, hardcopy, forms; and that further, these hardcopy forms
  *must* be in a completely standard and predictable print layout
  (which HTML printing has difficulty doing - and deliberately
  so!).  If the provider is absolutely insistent about this, then
  I would resort to a ("tagged" - i.e. "accessible") PDF form
  (that can still be completely electronically, before printing).
  But I certainly would not dignify this by pretending that it
  met the spirit (whetever about the letter) of WCAG conformance;
  and I would also be unable to restrain myself from wondering
  alound what this approach says about employment equality in
  that provider?  Many people with a variety of disabilities will
  be quite gratuitously, and silently, discriminated against for
  employment in jobs that involve dealing directly with these
  submitted hardcopy forms. So I would have to be seriously
  skeptical of the genuine committment of such a provider to
  non-discrimination...

Rant over,

- Barry.