E-mail List Archives
Thread: Form accessibility comparison
Number of posts in this thread: 3 (In chronological order)
From: Jan Heck
Date: Fri, Oct 21 2011 7:27PM
Subject: Form accessibility comparison
No previous message | Next message →
I'm doing some volunteer work for my old college. It seems most of the forms
they've added to the site since I retired are PDF forms, such as:
> http://www.coastline.edu/files/VerificationOfEnrollmentForm(Web).pdf (can be
> filled in online, but not submitted online)
> Or
> http://www.coastline.edu/files/Statement%20of%20Residence%208-06.pdf
> (apparently just to be printed out and filled in by hand)
The kinds of forms I created way back when are HTML forms like this one:
> http://www.coastline.edu/departments/international/forms/ss_intlstu_transfer_i
> ntent.htm (can be filled in online, but not submitted online)
One department has asked me to make sure that their forms are accessible.
Can somebody with a screenreader give me a quick comparison of the relative
accessibility of the two types of PDF forms listed above versus the HTML
form? It would be much appreciated. I no longer have access to all my tools
since retiring and I am a little rusty. ;-)
Thanks very much,
Jan Heck
From: deborah.kaplan
Date: Fri, Oct 21 2011 7:36PM
Subject: Re: Form accessibility comparison
← Previous message | Next message →
Jan,
From a mobility impairment (voice user) perspective, a good HTML form is reams better than print+fill, or PDF form that can't be submitted online. I'd always rather do HTML.
-deborah
From: Ted
Date: Sun, Oct 23 2011 10:39AM
Subject: Re: Form accessibility comparison
← Previous message | No next message
Hi Jan
Firstly, the PDF that is designed just to be printed and filled out by hand
will be completely inaccessible to many people: a blind person, for
example, wouldn't be able to use it.
As far as the other two forms are concerned, screen reader-wise, the HTML
form (as things currently stand) is generally more accessible than the
tagged PDF form, apart from the former's non-fillable signature and date
fields. Some of the fields in the PDF are incorrectly marked up and so are
not currently identifiable using a screen reader. This problem is easily
fixed but, as is, makes the form unusable.
However, even if you fix these problems, both need workarounds and/or
design changes to make them fully accessible to people using older screen
readers - ie, JAWS 9 or earlier, or other (dare I say it - less
sophisticated) screen readers. This is because of the "forms mode" problem
of such screen readers. In my experience, fixing screen reader forms mode
problems is often (but not always) significantly easier in PDF forms than it
is in HTML forms (so don't write off the PDF!).
Testing with ZoomText (screen magnifier/reader) I would say that, although
both were usable, the HTML form comes out better for several reasons. One
reason is the layout: as you tab through, the path through the HTML form
doesn't zigzag around as much as it does in the PDF form (the landscape
layout of the PDF doesn't help in this respect). Such zigzagging can make a
form quite difficult to use, even at moderate levels of magnification.
Another reason is that the text of the HTML version is much clearer.
ZoomText uses a technology called xFont to smooth magnified fonts, but this
doesn't (yet?) work in PDFs - a pity as it makes a big difference.
Using speech recognition software I had no major problems completing either
form. However, a small point perhaps, but avoiding field names that are also
common commands, such as "Check", would help wherever possible (saying
"check" in order to check a checkbox causes focus to go instead to the field
labelled "Check").
I hope this helps.
Ted Page
www.pws-ltd.com