Common Look and Feel for the Internet
E-Mail Section
Overview
Most government e-mail software now includes an "AutoSignature" function,
which automatically attaches user-defined text to the bottom of every outgoing e-mail.
Institutions that do not have the AutoSignature function in their e-mail software
should develop other means of including appropriate identification information in all
electronic correspondence. In situations in which e-mail is sent not by a specific
individual, but rather by a service or program office (i.e. Webmaster@canada.gc.ca),
full institutional contact information should still be made available.
Electronic mail is fast becoming a preferred communication tool for busy Canadians.
By standardizing the look and feel (content and format) of electronic forms on all
GoC Web sites, this initiative will
make it easier for individuals using electronic media to make contact with public
servants from any institution.
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.
All outgoing e-mail messages sent by GoC
employees must include the sender's name, institution, telephone and fax numbers with area code and
extension numbers, postal and e-mail addresses. Where an e-mail address serves a program or service
rather than an individual, contact information must include the institutional name, postal and e-mail
address, telephone and fax numbers.
Rationale
With the increased use of electronic mail as a communication tool for delivering
GoC information, it is important to identify
the source of the information at both institutional and individual levels. Public servants
who provide information via e-mail can not make assumptions regarding the end-use of
information. E-mail recipients may respond immediately, store the message indefinitely,
forward it to other recipients, import it to other documents or print a hard copy record.
Thus, all e-mail messages must contain enough information to identify the individual and the
institution s/he represents, as well as sufficient contact information to facilitate further
communication via various methods (i.e. telephone, fax, post, etc.).
Interpretation
Outgoing e-mail to which a signature block must be attached includes all correspondence
being sent to institutional clients outside of the department. For example, these clients
may be Canadian or international citizens or businesses, other levels of government -
provincial, municipal, territorial, international, volunteer organizations or personnel
in other federal government departments.
December 2002
- It is important to remember to include the institution's applied title found
at
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/Pubs_pol/sipubs/TB_FIP/titlesoffedorg1_e.asp in both
official languages in the signature block of every employee. This applies to the
signature block of employees whether they are providing information and services in
a region designated bilingual or unilingual. For an example of a signature block, please
refer to CLF Signature Blocks.
- The inclusion of "Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada" is recommended for
the signature blocks of all institutions for the following reasons:
- It ensures the Government of Canada is identified where official graphic identifiers
are not present or visible
- It ensures the Government of Canada is identified in cases where institutions do
not have an approved applied title
- It supports TB minister's decisions on ensuring the primacy of the identity of the
Government of Canada
- It ensures that international audiences correctly identify an institution as part
of the Government of Canada
- A Teletype number (TTY) for the institution of the sender should also be included
with the telephone and fax numbers as part of your signature block.
Example:
John Doe
613-123-4567 | facsimile / télécopieur 613-123-4567 | TTY/ATS 613-123-4567
doe.john@hc-sc.gc.ca
Health Canada | 123 Green St. Ottawa ON K2P 1B2
Santé Canada | 123 rue Green Ottawa ON K2P 1B2
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
July 2000
A good practice would be to include a signature block when e-mail is being sent
within the department when the e-mail being sent has direct impact on the management
of government and the various activities it carries out. For example, if the content
of the e-mail is required by the institution to control, support or document the delivery
of programs, to carry out operations, to make decisions, or to account for activities
of government, then a signature block should be attached.
All outgoing e-mail messages by GoC
employees must demonstrate a consistent application of the "Canada"
wordmark and institutional signature.
Rationale
The Federal Identity Program applies to all GoC corporate identity applications, such as
institutional letterhead, business cards, complimentary cards, note paper, etc., and e-mail
is no exception. With the evolution of graphic, windows-based e-mail software, the
incorporation of the visual identifiers of the GoC is now possible. E-mail must be treated
in the same manner as traditional business stationery applications to ensure proper identification through the institutional
signature and the "Canada" wordmark.
June 2003
The Executive Summary of the
e-mail assessment, completed by the CLF E‑mail Working Group, highlights the results of
the assessment and their recommendations.
December 2002
An assessment by the CLF E-mail Working Group of various e-mail software applications
in use across federal institutions has been undertaken. As a result, for those e-mail systems
that cannot display the graphical elements ("Canada" wordmark and the institutional
signature) in an accessible manner (e.g. HTML and alt text), it is important to include
the institution's applied title in both official languages in the signature block of every
employee. This applies to the signature block of employees of bilingual and unilingual
designated regions. For a list of bilingual applied titles, please refer to
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/Pubs_pol/sipubs/TB_FIP/titlesoffedorg1_e.asp. For additional
information on the use of applied titles and the use of the words "Government of Canada"
in signature blocks, please refer to the Best Practice
for CLF Standard 4.2.
July 2000
To ensure consistency in application, this initiative should be managed by mail
and/or systems administrators rather than by individual GoC employees.
It should be noted that technological incompatibility between the sender and the
recipient's e-mail systems might cause the institutional signature and the
"Canada" wordmark to be stripped from e-mail messages.
Institutions must ensure that legitimate electronic correspondence is
acknowledged in a timely manner.
Rationale
Auto-Acknowledgement: Sample 1
Clients must be assured that their correspondence has been received and will be
delivered to the appropriate place and that someone will respond to it. As a professional
courtesy to GoC clients, an automatic
electronic acknowledgement must be sent indicating that their correspondence has been
received. The actual response to the e-mail will be prepared at the discretion of the
institution.
From the client or citizen perspective, uncertainty can arise when sending an e-mail
to a generic, or institutional or group mailbox, such as, for example, Department X@..., or
Division Y@... or Webmaster@... These are used by some departments in the Contact Us or
the Help section of the Web site. There is no individual contact, no person, no name to
whom one might direct a query regarding the status of the question, comment or request.
There can be a question raised in the client's mind - rightly or wrongly - "Will anyone
in this nameless, faceless organization really pay attention to my message?" The
automatic response in this case, at a minimum, indicates that the mail has been received
and that someone will be attending to it. As mentioned, this is done as a courtesy and to
inject a slightly "personal" touch into an automated procedure. It is these
generic mailboxes to which the standard is addressed, and from which automatic responses
must be generated.
In the case where an individual's e-mail address is used, there is no need to
generate an automatic acknowledgement. Why?
From the client perspective, the situation is quite different. Here, there is a real
person whom one can re-contact regarding any queries or status. If the client doesn't
already have the telephone / fax number, it is easily obtainable by having the
individual's name / organization, thereby opening other communications channels. If the
e-mail, in fact, cannot be delivered for some technical reason, the system will so advise.
This situation is clearly much more service-oriented than is the generic case
above. The client does not have same question arise when dealing with someone specific.
The courtesy and the personal touch have already been applied. Someone "real"
will be paying attention, and the client knows exactly who that is.
If the external address is a GoC site,
with a gc.ca e-mail address, then the acknowledgement of receipt and the promise of action
should take place. If it is not a gc.ca site, the handling of e-mail should be left to
the external addressee to deal with as they see fit. We also want to make a clear
distinction between generic or organizational mailboxes and personal ones.
If the individual is out of the office for an extended period, the Out of Office
Auto-Reply should be used.
E-Mail loops best practices
1) Each corporate e-mail account will have two Internet addresses with one set-up as
the default reply e-mail address. When a message is sent to the primary e-mail address
(e.g. webmaster@tbs-sct.gc.ca), the auto-reply will be sent using the reply e-mail
address (e.g. re-webmaster@tbs-sct.gc.ca). The reply e-mail address must have the
auto-reply rule turned off. There is no possibility of a mail loop because any replies
sent back to the corporate e-mail account will be addressed to the reply e-mail address
(re-webmaster@tbs-sct.gc.ca) which does not have an auto-reply rule.
Example of Option 1:
-----Message d'origine-----
From: re-webmaster@tbs-sct.gc.ca
Date: March 1, 2001 2:43 PM
To: webmaster@tbs-sct.gc.ca
Subject: Looping address example
2) Another option is when a message is sent to a corporate e‑mail address (e.g.
webmaster@tbs-sct.gc.ca), the auto-reply should incorporate a blank e‑mail in the
"From" field. This will break the "Looping of auto-replies" because
the system can't reply to the message because the "From" field is left blank.
Example of Option 2:
-----Message d'origine-----
From: THIS IS BLANK
Date: March 1, 2001 2:43 PM
To: webmaster@tbs-sct.gc.ca
Subject: Looping address example
About Option 2. Some mail systems refuse messages that do not have a valid addresses
in the From field. The message would not be delivered and you wouldn't know it. They would
never know you got their message.
|
