[Irl-dean] AAA Claim?

[Eamon Costello]

>> accepting electronic submission
>> ROS [a] runaway success [story]

I tried to deregister for a tax credit through ROS and was told to put it
writing.



-----Original Message-----
From: irl-dean-admin at list.eeng.dcu.ie
[mailto:irl-dean-admin at list.eeng.dcu.ie] On Behalf Of Matthew Ovington
Sent: 21 February 2007 11:13
To: irl-dean at list.eeng.dcu.ie
Subject: Re: [Irl-dean] AAA Claim?

In fairness, I think the more progressive government agencies have taken 
the approach of accepting electronic submission, and the benefits are 
obvious...but it's far from ubiquitous right now.

Motor Tax and ROS are two runaway success stories in terms of 
eGovernment (though not ROS in terms of its accessibility), and even 
motor tax has the tax rate card in *pdf*...(just so I can stay tenuously 
on-topic)

Interestingly, an Irish local authority carried out a survey of online 
renewal of motor tax and found that approximately  1 in 10 preferred 
offline methods for various reasons (distrust, security, no credit card, 
liked face to face contact, liked convenience of postal service) etc.

can't please everyone!

Barry McMullin wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Irl-dean mailing list
> Irl-dean at list.eeng.dcu.ie
> http://list.eeng.dcu.ie/mailman/listinfo/irl-dean
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Best regards

Matthew

_____________________________________________________
Open Interface Ltd
Morrison Chambers, 32 Nassau Street, Dublin 2
phone: +353 1 6722050        fax: +353 1 6339719
http://www.openinterface.ie


This email may contain information which is confidential and/or 
privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the 
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, 
be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the 
contents is prohibited. If you have received this electronic 
transmission in error, please notify the sender by telephone or return 
email and delete the material from your computer.


_______________________________________________
Irl-dean mailing list
Irl-dean at list.eeng.dcu.ie
http://list.eeng.dcu.ie/mailman/listinfo/irl-dean