Forms As Web Components Step By Step Pdf
Online forms should be a key component of all corporate intranets, as they deliver clear productivity benefits and cost savings. Few organisations, however, have taken the next steps beyond simply publishing forms in PDF format. This article discusses some of the reasons why online forms have not been more widely deployed. An incremental approach is then outlined for implementing online forms. This is designed to minimise the cost and effort required at each step, while maximising the benefits delivered.
Adobe Interactive Forms Tutorials. Step-by-Step Tutorials. Steps for creating a Web Dynpro Component for Adobe. Sending Adobe forms as “PDF” attachment.
Benefits of online forms More than just a repository for static content, the corporate intranet should be a ‘place for doing things’. Online forms offer the simplest and most effective way of adding interactivity to an intranet.
These online forms can provide a strong incentive for staff to visit the intranet, as they capture common (or important) business tasks and activities. Online forms also deliver clear time savings for both staff filling in the forms, and the ‘back-office’ staff processing them. This leads to measurable productivity gains and cost savings. This is in addition to the dollars saved by eliminating the printing of paper forms. Online forms also offer the possibility of improvements in overall business processes, via integrating different IT systems, or providing new mechanisms for completing activities. Online forms are an effective way of making the intranet into a ‘place for doing things’ Barriers to adoption It is surprising how few organisations have implemented online forms on their intranets.
Most have instead created PDF versions of their existing forms, and have placed them on the site. Staff have to print these off, fill them in by hand, and submit them via internal mail. This is only a very small benefit beyond the original paper forms, and indeed many staff continue to use the paper equivalents. The question is: why haven’t more organisations implemented online forms?
It may be that many intranet managers are daunted by the complexity of implementing a ‘true’ online forms solution. At their most powerful, online forms can encompass validation, pre-filling of details, security and workflow. Faced by these complexities, perhaps intranet managers decide not to implement forms at all, due to resource and budget limits. It may also be that implementing a technical solution such as online forms falls within the responsibility of the IT department, out of the direct control of the intranet team. This can introduce internal political or resource considerations. Beyond this, there are few clear barriers to prevent implementing online forms. Technically, they are simple to develop, and if an incremental approach is taken (as outlined below), there is no reason not to be reaping the benefits of online forms in a short period of time.
At the end of the day, it may just be inertia and a lack of available time that prevents intranet teams from moving beyond the simple re-publishing of PDF forms on the intranet. Taking an incremental approach Online forms are best implemented incrementally, with simple capabilities delivered first, then further features added over time. The goal of this approach is to allow online forms to be implemented in a way that minimises the technical complexity and cost, while delivering benefits at each point. This article outlines a staged approach to implementing online forms:. step 1: simple online forms. step 2: pre-filling and more.
step 3: simple workflow. step 4: full workflow and integration Alternatively, implementing a content management system (CMS) may allow a number of these steps to be skipped. This is explored later in the article. Of course, organisations need to tailor this general approach, based on the unique environment and capabilities. Don’t be afraid to experiment, and to adapt the ideas in this article as required. Start with simple forms, created by hand if necessary Step 1: Simple HTML forms The first step is to implement simple HTML forms.
These can easily be developed using Frontpage, Dreamweaver, or created by hand in HTML. These simple forms allow users to enter their details into a web page, and submit it to the intranet. Behind the scenes, there are dozens of freeware server-side scripts that take the form data, and generate a straightforward e-mail to a specified address. This capability is provided as standard by most web servers, or can be downloaded off any of the common scripting sites on the web.
A range of common field types can be implemented, such as text fields, drop-down lists, radio buttons and check-boxes. Most of the form scripts also support checking for required fields. On the face of it, these simple (even simplistic) forms offer few benefits over the PDF forms currently on the site. Certainly behind the scenes, all that is generated is an e-mail to replace the paper form. No real automation or management capabilities have been added, and the form is processed by the back-office staff as usual. That being said, considerable benefits have been delivered.
Firstly, the implementation of these initial online forms positions the intranet as a business tool, rather than just a source of information. While behind the scenes the technology may be primitive, the online forms still make it much easier for end-users to provide information and complete tasks. The overall quality of information is enhanced, for a number of reasons:. double-entry of form data is reduced (or eliminated). mandatory fields can be enforced by the online forms. usage of out-dated forms (in PDF or paper format) is reduced (or eliminated) For all these reasons, even this simple forms solution can enhance the effectiveness of the intranet, regardless of the lack of behind-the-scenes infrastructure.
Start with the most commonly used (and technically simple) forms, and work outwards from there. That way, the benefits will be maximised from the outset, thereby providing greater support for further forms development. Pre-fill form details to save time and eliminate errors Step 2: Pre-filling and more Beyond simple forms, a useful next step can be to ‘pre-fill’ as many of the details in the form as possible. For example, when a user opens the form, their name, e-mail address, etc are already entered on the form. This type of automation both saves time, and further reduces the potential for errors.
It is also a nice demonstration of how the intranet provides a better way to fill in forms than the paper originals. There are two main ways of implementing this feature. The first is to have the form save a ‘cookie’ onto the user’s computer. This information is then recalled when the user next goes to fill in a form, thereby pre-filling common fields. A second, and better way is to have staff login to the intranet as a whole. Once the user is logged in, the form can then access the user name, and use this to look up required information from the user database. The advantage of this second approach is that it ‘authenticates’ who has filled in the form.
This eliminates much (or all) of the need to have staff sign paper copies of forms, as the secure login to the intranet has ensured that only the specified user has submitted the form. This security also make it possible to use forms to enter (or update) more sensitive information. For example, staff might be given ‘self-service’ capability to update some of their HR details (such as their phone number, or physical location). Beyond this, a range of other improvements can be made to the forms, such as expanding the range of field types. For example, a calendar control might allow staff to easily select which date they wish to apply for leave on. Even simple workflow can save considerable staff time Step 3: Simple workflow With online forms in place and being used by staff, improvements can be made behind-the-scenes to how the form data is managed.
A starting point is to implement a simple ‘workflow’ for forms. In other words, a limited number of review, approval and action steps are built into the handing of the information that is entered by staff.
For example, a leave application could automatically be sent to the staff member’s manager. This would appear as a message in the manager’s e-mail in-box, giving them the option to either approve or deny the leave application. If the leave application is approved, it is then forwarded to the relevant HR staff member to process the application itself. At this initial step, the workflow should be kept very simple, and may be best implemented via some custom-developed extensions to the existing forms code. As in previous steps, the goal is to focus on the most common or most important forms, to ensure that the full benefits of the additional effort will be felt.
Even a very simple workflow implementation can save considerable time and help greatly in coordinating and communicating between staff. On the front-end, more complex forms can be explored, including multi-page forms, and those requiring ‘form logic’ (where certain questions are only activated based on the answer to earlier questions). These more complex forms allow a greater range of business activities to be captured and automated on the intranet. Whole business processes can be automated on the intranet Step 4: Full workflow and integration Beyond simple workflow, a more complete workflow solution can be put in place. These start to capture all of the steps involved in processing a form, from initial submission of form information through to updating all systems, and notifying relevant staff.
For example, a training application form could request approval from a manager, before passing the request to the training coordinator, updating the training database, and automatically sending out the required ‘training package’ to the applicant. There are a number of ways to implement this enhanced workflow capability:. additional custom-development of the forms code.
use of the workflow capabilities of a content management or document management system. integration with an ‘enterprise workflow’ solution, specifically designed to provide workflow capabilities that span applications and platforms The required integration with back-office systems and databases may require additional development, or be provided as part of one of the solutions outlined above. Regardless of the technical approach taken, this step sees an increasing amount of ‘business process automation’, where whole business activities are managed on the intranet. Organisations with an emphasis on repeatable business processes (such as banks) can see massive savings and improvements at this step. Much more ‘interactive’ systems can also be implemented at this point. For example, a room booking system could query which rooms are currently available, and then provide an interface for selecting between these.
These types of highly interactive forms start to blur the lines between ‘form’ and ‘application’, and are reliant on a high degree of integration with back-end systems and databases. Implementing a CMS can short-cut many of the steps Alternative: using a CMS One very effective way of short-cutting the steps outlined above is to implement a content management system (CMS). Many CMS products have built-in online forms capabilities. Better yet, a good CMS will offer point-and-click interfaces for building new forms that require no technical knowledge or skills. Mature forms support within a CMS will often also include:. wide variety of field types. field validation.
option to store the form data in a database, or have it e-mailed. multi-page forms. forms logic. secure forms. simple integration with the site design and structure By including online forms support as part of the CMS requirements, it generally becomes possible to obtain this capability ‘for free’. With online forms support included as part of the standard CMS price, all the benefits of forms can be obtained with little (if any) outlay in terms of cost or time.
Of course, CMS capabilities regarding online forms vary greatly, ranging from little (or no) support ‘out of the box’, to extensive and mature support. The amount of technical knowledge and development required will also vary considerably.
For this reason, if online forms are an important consideration for the intranet, they should be listed as such in the CMS requirements. As a ‘key selection criteria’, they should then be carefully assessed throughout the selection process. Lotus Notes No discussion of online forms would be complete without at least a brief mention of Lotus Notes. This has always been a very strong platform for delivering online forms, with workflow capabilities and business system integration. There have, however, been a number of common problems, including the usability of the published forms and the integration with web-based (or other non-Notes) systems.
Organisations with a strategic investment in Lotus Notes should use this platform for delivering online forms. For organisations with a mix of platforms (including a web-based intranet), care should be taken not to generate a fragmented and confusing solution. A clear decision should be made either to focus on Notes, or to shift across to an entirely web environment. (With the shifting of the marketplace, there will be increasing pressure to migrate away from Notes, to a web-focused platform.) Implement ‘single sign-on’ wherever possible Further suggestions Beyond the steps outlined earlier in the article, the following are a number of other suggestions and tips:. Ensure ‘single sign-on’ across all intranet systems. Ideally, staff should have to login only once, regardless of which systems, sites or online forms they are using. If this is not technically possible in the short term, endeavour to ensure that the same user name and password can be used across all systems.
Usability test all online forms, to ensure they can be easily used by staff throughout the organisation. Link together forms and associated information. For example, leave policies and procedures should be tightly cross-linked with the leave form itself. Failure to do so is one of the greatest sources of confusion on many intranets. Name the forms according to their function, instead of using acronyms and jargon. All too often, online forms systems are listed according to the name of the project that created them (eg ‘OSS’, etc). Instead, use simple names such as ‘leave form’, ‘travel application’, ‘expense claim’, etc.
Provide multiple mechanisms for finding a given form. As the number of forms grows, it can be increasingly difficult to find a form if effective navigation hasn’t been implemented. Ensure forms appear in search results. Searching for ‘leave form’, should list the form itself towards the front of the list, and not just all the pages that use the words ‘leave form’. In general, a focus should be maintained on providing clear, simple and easy-to-use mechanisms for staff to find and complete online forms. Conclusion There are a number of simple ways to implement online forms on an intranet.
These should be explored, to move the intranet beyond just a collection of web pages and PDF documents. By taking a step-by-step approach, initial forms capabilities can be improved over time, to deliver increasingly interactive solutions. In this way, the intranet can be evolved into an effective business tool which delivers clear cost savings and productivity benefits.
Step-by-Step Instructions for Filing a Federalwide Assurance The Federalwide Assurance (FWA) is an assurance of compliance with the U.S. Federal regulations for the protection of human subjects in research.
It is approved by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) for all human subjects research conducted or supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The FWA is also approved by OHRP for federalwide use, which means that other U.S. Federal departments and agencies that have adopted the U.S. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (also know as the Common Rule) may rely upon the FWA for the research they conduct or support. An FWA is the only type of assurance currently accepted and approved by OHRP.
It is required whenever an Institution becomes engaged in human subjects research conducted or supported by any U.S. Federal department or agency that has adopted the Common Rule, unless the research is otherwise exempt from the requirements of the Common Rule or a U.S. Federal department or agency conducting or supporting the research determines that the research shall be conducted under a separate assurance. For guidance on the meaning of “engaged” see OHRP’s guidance.
Each institution must complete and submit its FWA(s) (new submissions, updates, and renewals) using the electronic submission system available through the OHRP Web site at, unless it lacks the ability to do so electronically. If an institution believes it lacks the ability to submit its FWA electronically, it must contact OHRP by telephone or email (see ) and explain why it is unable to submit its FWA electronically.
Christine Lakin
Any institution that is unable to submit its FWA electronically after consultation with OHRP must send its FWA information in writing to OHRP by fax at (240) 453-8202, by email as a pdf scanned document, or mail it to the Office for Human Research Protections, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852. The FWA Signatory Official must be authorized to represent and commit the entire institution and all of its components to a legally-binding agreement. An Institution’s first step for submitting its FWA application should be to read and understand the. TOP OF FORM - 'New Filing' versus 'Update or Renewal' Indicate by an x whether this is either: 1) a “New Filing”, or 2) an “Update or Renewal” of an already existing FWA. Your FWA form is a “New Filing” if this is your institution’s initial filing for an FWA. If your institution already has an approved FWA, the form should be appropriately marked as an “Update or Renewal” and include your institution’s FWA number.
(See the instructions for updating or renewing an FWA on the OHRP website at ITEM #1 - Institution Filing Assurance. Type the legal name of the institution that is providing the Assurance and city, state or province, and/or country where the institution is located.
ITEM #2 - Institutional Components Type the names of all components over which the Institution has legal authority that operate under a different name that will be covered by this FWA. For each component listed, type the city and state or country where the component is located. Components are generally defined as parts of your institution that may be viewed as separate organizations, but remain part of the legal entity or institution. For example, ABC University can list its XYZ University Hospital, KLM School of Public Health, and EFG Institute for International Studies as components.
ITEM #3 - Statement of Principles Indicate by an x the statement of ethical principles that govern your institution in the discharge of its responsibilities for protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects of research conducted at or sponsored by the institution. If selecting“Other” submit a copy to OHRP with this Assurance. ITEM #4 – Applicability. This assurance applies whenever your institution becomes engaged in human subjects research conducted or supported by any U.S.
Federal department or agency that has adopted the U.S. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (known as the Common Rule), unless the research is otherwise exempt from the requirements of the Common Rule or a U.S.
Pemrograman Bahasa Assembly (Assembler): Menulis Nama dan Kata Dalam Bahasa Assembly // Robby Fajri Maulana // On-20 Sep 2014 Pada artikel sebelumnya, telah diberitahukan tutorial cara mencetak karakter menggunakan Bahasa Assembly, tapi hanya satu karakter saja yang bisa dicetak dan tidak bisa lebih. Dalam pembelajaran kali ini kami akan mengpresentasikan kepada Anda cara pembuatan program bahasa assembly yang. Berbagai macam aplikasi bahasa. Aplikasi bahasa indonesia. Dalam program bahasa assembly terdapat 2 jenis yang kita tulis dalam. Tetapi di sini hanya akan menjelaskan beberapa perintah yang dipakai dalam aplikasi. Bahasa Assembly adalah bahasa pemrograman tingkat rendah. Dalam pemrograman komputer dikenal dua jenis tingkatan bahasa, jenis yang pertama adalah bahasa pemrograman tingkat tinggi (high level language) dan jenis yang kedua adalah bahasa pemrograman tingkat rendah (low level language).
Federal department or agency conducting or supporting the research determines that the research shall be conducted under a separate assurance. Optional for U.S. Institutions: (does not apply to Non-U.S.
Institutions) This section provides each U.S. Institution the option of voluntarily electing to apply either the Common Rule or the Common Rule and subparts B, C, D, and E of the HHS regulations at 45 CFR part 46 to all of its non-exempt human subjects research regardless of source of support, except for research that is covered by a separate assurance issues by another U.S. Federal department or agency that has adopted the Common Rule. ITEM #5 - Assurance of Compliance with the Terms. This Institution assures that whenever it engages in research to which this Assurance applies, it will comply with the (contained in a separate document on the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) website).
Institutions Only: (does not apply to U.S. Institutions) This section asks for the procedural standards that each non-U.S institution applies to human subjects research to which the FWA applies. Indicate with an x at least one of the listed procedural standards. If selecting “Other standards(s) for the protection of human subjects recognized by U.S.
Federal departments or agencies which have adopted the Common Rule”, please submit a copy to OHRP. ITEM #6 - Designation of Institutional Review Board(s) This Institution assures that it will rely upon only Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) registered with OHRP to review the research to which this FWA applies. Designate all of your institution’s internal IRBs that review research under this FWA. If your institution has no internal IRBs, designate the external IRB that reviews all of the research to which this FWA applies or, if multiple external IRBs are relied upon, list the external IRB that reviews the largest percentage of research to which this FWA applies. Note: Institutions designating internal IRBs do not need to designate any of the external IRBs upon which it relies. ITEM #7 - Human Protections Administrator (e.g., Human Subjects Administrator or Human Subjects Contact Person) Type the name, degree(s) or suffix, institutional title (e.g., administrative title such as manager or director of a given office), telephone number, email address, and mailing address, of the human protection administrator (i.e., the person who serve as primary point of contact for your institution’s system for protecting human subjects).
The human protection administrator (HPA) should have comprehensive knowledge of all aspects of your institution’s system of protections for human subjects, as well as be familiar with the institution’s commitments under the FWA, and play a key role in ensuring that the institution fulfills its responsibilities under the FWA. ITEM #8 - Signatory Official (i.e., Official Legally Authorized to Represent the Institution) Type the name, degree(s) or suffix, institutional title (e.g., President, CEO, Provost, Vice President, Dean for Research, etc.), institutional title, institution name, telephone and fax numbers, e-mail address, and mailing address of the Signatory Official (i.e., the institutional official legally authorized to represent the institution). The Signatory Official assures that human subjects research to which the FWA applies is conducted in accordance with the terms of assurance. The Signatory Official must electronically sign and date the FWA using the electronic submission system available through the OHRP Web site at, unless your institution lacks the ability to submit its FWA electronically. If your institution believes it lacks the ability to submit its FWA electronically, it must contact OHRP by telephone or email and explain why it is unable to submit its FWA electronically. Generally, the Signatory Official is someone at the level of President, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), or Vice President of a company, or at the level of President, Provost, Chancellor, Vice President, or Dean of an academic institution, unless another official has been specifically delegated with this authority.
ITEM #9 - FWA Approval Leave this item blank. This section is for use by OHRP for approval of the FWA. Notification of Approval of an FWA When an institution submits an FWA electronically, the person submitting the electronic file, the Human Protections Administrator, and the Signatory Official will receive an automatically generated e-mail notifying them of the approval of the FWA and providing them with the FWA number assigned to the institution. This, of course, is dependent upon the electronic file submitted to OHRP providing e-mail addresses as requested.
When an institution submits an FWA in hard copy (paper), it will need to monitor the OHRP website to ensure that the FWA has been approved. Additional Information Once an electronically submitted FWA has been reviewed and approved by OHRP, the person submitting the electronic FWA, the Human Protections Administrator, and the Signatory Official on the FWA will receive an automatically generated e-mail notifying them of the approval of the FWA. The email will also include a copy of the approved FWA. Each Institution must renew its FWA every 5 years, even if no changes have occurred, in order to maintain an active FWA. The Institution must update its FWA within 90 days after changes occur regarding the legal name of the Institution, the Human Protections Administrator, or the Signatory Official. Any electronically submitted FWA renewal or update that is approved by OHRP begins a new 5-year effective period.
Failure to renew or update an FWA appropriately may result in restriction, suspension, or termination of OHRP’s approval of the Institution’s FWA. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Division of Policy and Assurances, OHRP, at (240) 453-6900 or within the U.S., 1-866-447-4777.