- From: Chaals Nevile <chaals@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 22:29:15 +0000
- To: Deborah Dinzes <Deborah.Dinzes@becu.org>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hello, WCAG deals with Web Content, not paper, so an accurate but unhelpful answer is "no, WCAG doesn't talk about signing things on paper". I think a more accurate and helpful answer is "yes, you need to do something here to provide an accessible service". If the Docusign process is accessible, then you have provided an accessible way to sign the online document. If it isn't, then I think you have failed to make the same functionality available, and so fail WCAG. The answer is not to remove the Docusign option to make things bad for everyone, because the functionality is still only available to those who can print and sign. For people with significant visual impairment, printing a document and physically signing it is not a readily accessible process. You are presumably aware that, just as people have long used a rubber stamp of their signature, there are people who will just paste an image of a signature into the space, and email it to you. Again, that's likely to be a process with accessibility challenges. In the case of my personal banking, I log in, and I have both a "private" key (a phrase I choose, where the system asks for a random subset of the elements, say the 4th, 7th, etc.), and a second-factor which can for example use an application on my phone (similar to the 3D-secure process for paying by credit card), an SMS, or some other verification that it was me who signed in and wants to authorise e.g. a large transfer to another account. I have other accounts online that allow me to incur an obligation in similar ways. The flexibility of this system makes it easier to remove accessibility barriers or provide alternate accessible pathways for those who want them. Importantly, the bank doesn't ask me why I want a particular method, it just makes a range of them available, which can also mitigate potential privacy issues. For things that don't imply a formal commitment, the process is simpler, because a signature isn't meaningful. Perhaps you should talk to the legal people at the Credit Union and ask them what they actually do in practice in other cases and whether those would stand up to legal scrutiny, and then think about how to implement something to provide the necessary options. cheers Chaals On Monday, January 15, 2024 22:37:35 (+01:00), Deborah Dinzes wrote: > Hello, > > We have a question regarding printing PDF documents. We currently publish PDF forms, which people can download and fill out electronically. They then have to print the form, sign it, and send it to us (or fax it or scan and email it). They have the option of completing the form electronically in DocuSign, electronically signing the document, and submitting it electronically. > > It's been asserted that printing the form and signing it makes it inherently inaccessible to some users. Our credit union requires us to meet the WCAG 2.0 standard for our website, and as our PDFs are published there, we are making sure they are also WCAG - compliant. Is there anything in WCAG that states that printing and signing a PDF document is a violation of WCAG or ADA requirements? > > The signature area on the PDF is currently blank - no form field, just a box to sign in - because we cannot accept digital PDF signatures as they are not verified. We currently add expansion text to the "Signature" label that reads out loud: "Borrower's Signature. Please print, sign, and submit this form by email, fax, or mail." This contact information is provided on the form. > > Thank you for your advice. > > Deborah Dinzes > > > <https://becu.org/> > > Deborah Dinzes > Sr Technical Writer, Knowledge Management > Offsite | > Our vision<https://becu1.sharepoint.com/sites/km/SitePages/_KM-at-BECU.aspx> is a BECU community empowered with the information they need, when they need it. > > > Please consider the environment before printing this email. > > > > NOTICE: This communication and any attachments may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender indicating that fact and delete the copy you received without printing, copying, re-transmitting, disseminating, or otherwise using the information. Thank you. > > > -- Chaals Nevile Using Fastmail - it's worth it
Received on Monday, 15 January 2024 22:29:26 UTC