RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: question regarding printed PDF documents

However, the situation is that in many cases one cannot just shop around.
If the service for example is access to your ability to vote?
if the company is extremely pervasive, paypal, Amazon, google's removing 
basic html?
If you live where there  are only a few banks?
such is, speaking personally, exactly why I feel inclusion is more than 
how you build your site. its how you train your team, and how you insure 
direct  access between you and all of your customer base, regardless of 
how their body works.
To be sure, access is a right, not a feature, no child born of women should 
ever have to choose between  their ability to do business with you, and 
what their body requires.

  Kare



On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, narellegatti@gmail.com wrote:

> As a person with a disability having someone tell me that I need to get someone to read the document to me and help me to sign it is a sure way to have me find another business to provide the same service.
>
> Regards
> Narelle Gatti
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net>
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2024 7:50 AM
> To: Jerra Strong <jerra.strong@unlv.edu>
> Cc: Deborah Dinzes <Deborah.Dinzes@becu.org>; WAI Interest Group discussion list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: question regarding printed PDF documents
>
> Speaking personally?
> The key word here is *requiring.*
> No matter which way the form is done.
> requiring that the form be done digitally has accessibility barriers.
> Requiring  that the form be physically printed has them too.
> Again speaking personally, the difference between legal risk and reasonable is  how much the organization comes to the table with sold efforts to communicate and accommodate.
> The far too common," don't you have someone to help you?" as a basis for policy should rightfully land an organization in legal trouble.
> Just my thoughts,
> Karen
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024, Jerra Strong wrote:
>
>> I'm still interested while reading through the replies if there is
>> consensus that a form which cannot be digitally filled out or signed (i.e.
>> requiring printing of the form) is a legal compliance risk or issue
>> due to accessibility concerns. (It's obviously a usability concern in my mind).
>> Has anybody come across this?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 3:41 PM Deborah Dinzes
>> <Deborah.Dinzes@becu.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you for the clarification.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was referring to the option within Adobe Acrobat forms to add a
>>> Signature field. This is what is being suggesting by the
>>> Accessibility team. To use that field, a signer has to pre-register
>>> with Adobe, which is a confusing process. Then, if there is a
>>> signature field added to the form, they can “sign” the form
>>> digitally. It’s not an option for us because our Legal department
>>> won’t accept it.  As a financial institution, we require a
>>> verifiable signature – one we can compare to the signature on file, or one that is validated via DocuSign’s validation process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have been adding all our forms to DocuSign to make our forms
>>> accessible to more people – not just people with disabilities, but
>>> also people who find it difficult to come in to a branch office.
>>> Print forms clearly don’t work for some people.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue was that someone on the Accessibility team, which works
>>> with our website dev team, was insisting that our PDF forms are out
>>> of compliance because there’s no field on the signature line, thus
>>> necessitating that the signer print the form. As our PDF ADA SME, it
>>> was my view that we had an ADA-compliant solution for members via our
>>> eSign option. I didn’t think WCAG applied to print documents, but
>>> I’m not the expert on that so I wanted to confirm with this group.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's really helpful to take all these scenarios and concerns in to
>>> the meeting with Accessibility, Legal and Compliance, so we can all
>>> be better informed when making a decision.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks very much!
>>>
>>> Deborah
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: Description: BECU logo]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Deborah Dinzes*
>>>
>>> *Sr Technical Writer, Knowledge Management*
>>>
>>> Offsite |  *m* (425) 443-9524
>>>
>>> *Please consider the environment before printing this email. *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Guy Hickling <guy.hickling@gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 16, 2024 2:49 PM
>>> *To:* WAI Interest Group discussion list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: question regarding printed PDF documents
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't often get email from guy.hickling@gmail.com. Learn why this
>>> is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
>>> EXTERNAL MESSAGE!
>>>
>>> *Caution:** This message originated outside of BECU. Please do not
>>> open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious source.
>>> Report suspicious emails by clicking on the Report Email button.*
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Deborah, by my option (1), I meant the simple process of printing out
>>> the form, then signing the paper form by hand - the method I
>>> understand your organisation currently uses. Usually after the user
>>> has completed the fields on screen first (though hand completion is
>>> also valid but more prone to error later).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I wasn't clear when you said "We have the options of adding a
>>> signature field – I believe users have to set up a signature to use
>>> it. I found that process confusing, and Legal won’t accept it." Do
>>> you mean that you allow users to use both methods (digital signing or
>>> printing the form), but only accept the latter? That seems very strange.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So to repeat, all methods, whether digital signing or signing a
>>> signature by hand, all present problems for some disabled people (and
>>> also for others due to their equipment or their circumstances). They
>>> are all inaccessible to some people.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Take your current method of printing off the form before signing.
>>> That is obviously no good for blind people. It has two issues particularly:
>>>
>>> a) printers frequently give problems; they can print a blank page due
>>> to the ink running out, or they corrupt the text for whatever reason,
>>> or print out of position due to wrong printer settings so that much
>>> of the text (including some of the data the user might have entered)
>>> is missing off the edge of the paper. And it can also happen that
>>> some other document was stored in the print queue and gets printed
>>> off first, so the user signs a wrong document entirely. A blind
>>> person has no way of knowing if any of those happen, and may not have
>>> a sighted person available to tell them. And b), a blind person
>>> cannot see where to sign. The solution you mention of allowing the
>>> signature to be anywhere on the page solves (b), but doesn't solve
>>> (a). I imagine a blind person would probably prefer a WCAG compliant digital signing, though I've never asked anyone about that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But replacing that manual method by digital signing also fails for
>>> some people as I explained. Offering the user a choice of all the
>>> options is the best way to be accessible to almost everyone.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Jerra Strong
>> Web Accessibility Specialist
>> UNLV|Web & Digital Strategy
>> Jerra.Strong@unlv.edu
>> *Pronouns: He/Him/His*
>>
>
>
> --
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
> www.avg.com
>
>