CLF for the Internet - E-Mail

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.

4.1 Best Practices

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.