CLF for the Internet - E-Mail![,](/web/20060117055455im_/http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/cioscripts/images/line450x1.gif)
All GoC Web sites must provide
users with a means of contacting institutions / individuals via electronic mail
options.
Rationale
While GoC Web sites are an excellent
means of providing information to the Canadians at their convenience, it is important
that individuals also be given the opportunity to contact a specific institution, operational
area or individual when they need additional information or support. Electronic mail is
an effective alternative to personal contact via the telephone or in-person visits, but it
has inherent challenges.
Interpretation
The e-mail address supplied as a link from the 'Contact' button on the common menu bar
is one means users have to contact the institutional Web site. Another means would be a
feedback form provided under the 'Help' button located on the same common menu bar.
When personal information is being collected, users must be informed of their rights
and responsibilities and the obligations of the institution regarding its protection.
Although e-forms generally represent a separate page on Web sites, they are subject to the
same CLF standards regarding the
FIP identification of the institution,
official languages and accessibility requirements.
Forms are another means of providing users with a means of contact.
To best serve the public, forms should include fields for the user's name, E‑mail
address and mailing address, as well as a field where they can input comments, questions,
or requests for information. As well, users should be given the opportunity to indicate
their preferred method of receiving a response.
The use of mailto tools has become a widely used convention on the Web and is an
excellent means of enabling end-users to make quick comments about specific Web pages or
topics. These tools offer a number of benefits in that users do not have to input their
personal information because the message header automatically includes their addressing
information, a date stamp and various other pertinent information. They can also easily be
tailored to include the URL of the
originating Web page in the subject line.
Mailto tools also have several disadvantages. Firstly, the client's browser must
be configured to send E-mail (most systems are configured in this manner), and because all
text is free-text input, it cannot be validated. The tool lacks an automatic
confirmation
or acknowledgement function, meaning there is no way to inform users that their
correspondence has been received. To facilitate universal accessibility, the Internet
address that MAILTO responses will be delivered to should be made visible for users who
can not utilize this function. Although this will open up that address to
SPAM, the risk is unavoidable.
HTML forms are not, in and of
themselves, inaccessible. What the programmer / page author does with them determines
the accessibility of the end product.
- Elements of an inaccessible form:
- Complex visual layout and placement of controls and fields
- Badly explained requirements
- Field / control labels separated from and not clearly associated with their
controls
- Client-side scripting to perform entry validation or completion
- No alternative method of posting information provided (e.g. no e-mail contact
provided, no phone number to call for help, etc.)
- Elements of an accessible form:
- Simple (e.g. single column) layout of controls and entry fields
- Clear (meaningful) explanations or labels associated with fields and controls
- Appropriate use of HTML markup specifically intended to enhance accessibility
(e.g. LABEL, OPTGROUP, etc.)
- Server-side verification and validation of data entry
- Provision of alternate methods of contact/submission
The oldest assistive technologies can handle well designed HTML forms. The trick is to get page
designers to keep them simple and on the server-side.
|