Before we jump into forms design and use Adobe software to create forms, let's first look at the forms industry and try to develop an understanding for why electronic forms, and in particular Acrobat forms, are a viable resource for any business.
We know we're probably preaching to the choir. After all, if you purchased this book, you probably know the value of creating electronic forms and collecting form data electronically.
We want to start this chapter with a little foundation to help put things in perspective, in case you need to fight any battles at the office. Although we all understand the value of electronic forms, we know that our opinions are not shared by everyone. Therefore, a little analysis of the forms industry and where we are today with paper versus electronic forms can be useful information.
Over the past four decades, people have commented about the paperless office with some notion that we may eventually experience this phenomenon. What is much more common among office workers is the belief that we are producing more paper in businesses than before the computer revolution. Today, people in the business and government sectors believe we have seen quantum leaps in paper production to sustain office operations.
About a decade ago, we looked at the forms industry and found that according to the U.S. Department of Commerce Census of Manufacturers Report of 1992, American manufacturing of business forms has actually declined as compared to the prior report in 1982. In both domestic production and import/export markets, office forms have declined in total sales and the labor force has decreased by more than 10 percent. The manufacturing, shipping, and related costs of distributing business forms was estimated by the U.S. Department of Commerce at $7.4 billion annually almost 20 years ago.
Where are we today? Well, we still see a decline in the manufacturing of paper forms and the reduction in the workforce related to printing forms. Manifold business forms total production in the U.S. was more than $8 billion as reported by the U.S. Department of Commerce. In 2002, the total was reduced to a little over $6.5 billion. The same holds true for many other types of business forms. The U.S. Census Bureau's Economic Report of 2002 shows that bound business forms reached valued shipment levels of 1.5 billion in 1997 and was reduced to 1.2 billion in 2002.
The figures aren't remarkable when you compare the numbers. However, given the fact that more people are entering business and consumption levels for all products are higher, the numbers are definitely showing a strong decline. Although we don't have statistical evidence to support our claim, our assumption is that electronic file exchanges are growing while paper exchanges are declining in U.S. businesses.
Let us offer but one small example of how analog forms' routing and distribution costs can affect a company's bottom line. Let's look at the computer publishing world. Authors writing books like the one you're reading receive monthly reports on their individual sales figures. Many of these figures are related to royalty payments to be distributed to authors. A given monthly report is generated by an office worker who prints a copy of the report for an author, keeps a copy for an internal file, and routes another copy to the publisher's accounting office.
Costs associated with producing the form are a few cents to print each copy, the cost of a printed envelope, and the cost of a stamp to mail the author's copy. Each report runs about $.64 including printing and mailing. If 5,000 titles are in print from a large publishing firm, the total monthly costs result in $3,200. In a year, the amount would be $38,400. In a decade, the total amount would cost the publisher more than one-third of a million dollars.
As a comparison, let's examine the cost of distributing electronic forms. In the above example, all computer book authors are required to submit manuscript and images via the Internet. Therefore, all authors have access to e-mail. The cost of distributing a PDF form from the publisher, notwithstanding labor costs, is $0.00. That's Zero with a capital Z. Because anyone can obtain the free Adobe Reader software to view a PDF file, no hidden cost is incurred by the recipient of the form.
Let's take another look at a real-world cost analysis. Assume you work in a large corporation with more than 1,000 employees. On any given day, 50 employees are away from the office buildings. Some may be on sick leave, some on vacation, some on business trips, and so on. If every employee needs to complete a request for leave form, then 50 forms a day could conceivably be produced.
Let's assume a form is duplicated at a copy machine, the employee contacts a supervisor, the supervisor signs the form and routes it to accounting, and an accounting clerk enters the data in a computer. Let's further assume it costs a few cents for the photocopy and about 10 minutes for all employee time for routing the form and keying the data.
The costs for copying and labor at a fixed labor rate of $12.00 per hour would be $2.02 per each request. The daily costs would be $101 and an annual cost would be $26,260. For 10 forms related to various company procedures, distribution costs would be over $260,000 per year!
Assuming that you can cut the labor by 70 percent through electronic routing and elimination of a need for keying in data, the $260,000 figure would be reduced to $78,000. The end result is $182,000 in annual savings. That's a savings for only 10 forms in a company of 1,000 employees. Imagine what kinds of savings we might see in the U.S. Federal Government, large educational institutions, and industry-wide enterprises.
Obviously, it is difficult to factor all variables to isolate costs for routing individual forms. But as a broad generalization, we think it is safe to assume that many different forms used in organizations routed through analog means are often much more costly than electronic forms usage, especially if form data input is redundant between workgroups.
When you analyze the analog form workflow, you see that you can create a form on a computer, print it on a desktop printer (or commercial print shop), mail or fax it to a form recipient who completes the form, signs it, and returns it via fax or mail. The form data are then keyed into a computer.
The electronic workflow cuts out several steps in the workflow and allows you to perform them much more efficiently. You create a form on a computer, send it via e-mail or make it available on a Web server, to be downloaded by the form recipient who keys in the data and clicks a submit button to send the form back to you. The form never touches paper because you have it in electronic form and the form recipient has the same completed form on his/her personal workstation. The cost savings for this workflow should be obvious.
The other cost consideration in electronic forms over analog forms is the tool that produces, views, and/or prints the form. With regard to Adobe Acrobat 9 as a tool, Adobe Systems offers employers a few different solutions. You can purchase Adobe Acrobat Pro (or Acrobat Standard in version 9—for Windows only) and create PDF forms using tools in Acrobat. Additionally, along with an Acrobat 9 Pro or Acrobat 9 Pro Extended installation on Windows, you also get Adobe LiveCycle Designer. Either tool can create electronic forms that can meet your needs, and the purchase price of the software is likely to be earned back within a few months for businesses that produce many forms.
The freely downloadable Adobe Reader software can be installed on any computer system without cost to the end user. Adobe Reader has the capability to view, fill in, and print any PDF form. And since Acrobat 8, users also can save form data and add digital signatures to forms that were created in Adobe Acrobat 8 or above or in Adobe LiveCycle Designer.
The definition of a PDF form varies greatly among many users. The universal common ingredient is that all documents are in fact Portable Document Format (PDF) files. If you explore the World Wide Web and seek out PDF forms, you find documents in one of four categories. Analog forms are sometimes scanned and saved in PDF format as scanned images. These forms are static and intended for the end user to print, complete, and fax back to the forms provider or route them through an organization. The second type of PDF form is a document authored in some application, then converted to PDF file. The appearance of the form is often better than a scanned document, but the means of completion and routing are the same as above. The third and fourth kinds of forms are much more dynamic. An authoring application document is converted to PDF documents and forms content such as field boxes, menus, signature fields, and more are created from within Adobe Acrobat. Or a form is created in Adobe LiveCycle Designer with live form fields and distributed as a PDF form. These latter two forms enable users to electronically fill in and route data.
Of the four types of forms described above, the PDF forms edited in Acrobat or created in Adobe LiveCycle Designer are much more efficient and more purposeful for any organization. Creating smart forms eases the burden of forms completion for users and optimizes electronic data workflows for any company using forms for almost any purpose. It is the creation of these forms that will be the subject of all the following chapters.
Oddly, some companies often print an electronic file to an office printer, scan the printed document back into digital form, and save the file as a PDF document. The PDF document may then be distributed electronically via e-mail, hosted on a network server, or hosted on a Web server.
Among the four kinds of forms described above, the scanned document is the least efficient. If a file already resides on a computer, there is no need to print and scan it. Any file of any type can be converted to a PDF document. If scanned documents are used, as shown in Figure 2.1, the appearance of the form can be much more degraded than the original and the file size will always be much larger.
You may need to scan forms at some point. If a printed form isn't available in digital form, you may want to scan a paper form rather than re-create the form in an authoring program. However, once scanned, you can add form fields in Acrobat to make the form a fillable form.
Note
To learn about adding form fields, see Chapter 5.
From an authoring application, a form is designed and then converted to a PDF document. The form appearance is much better than the scanned form, and the file size is much smaller; however, the end user must print the form and manually fill in the form fields such as the form shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.1. A form printed then scanned on a flatbed scanner features text that is obviously jagged and less attractive than the original authored document.
Redundancy and extra labor costs are evident with static forms. When a user completes an analog form, the data are handwritten on the form or perhaps the Typewriter tool is used in an Acrobat viewer to type text on the form. When the form is received by the form author, the data then must be keyed in a computer by a technician or office worker. If the end user keys the data electronically when filling out a form, the redundancy and extra labor costs are eliminated.
Most PDF forms found on Web sites are static forms. Users are quick to convert authored documents to PDF documents, but often little effort is used to make the forms more efficient. This was the case over a decade ago when people began to use Acrobat extensively to create forms and it still is true today. Many more unpopulated forms exist on the Web than forms populated with fields.
Fillable forms are one step above static forms. We use the term fillable throughout this book to differentiate forms that have no fields for user input versus forms populated with fields. At times we make a reference to PDF forms having some dynamic features. The term dynamic is often used with Adobe LiveCycle Designer forms; dynamic as it relates to LiveCycle Designer forms is defined in Chapter 26.
Fillable forms are forms that contain form fields formatted for user input in an Acrobat viewer. Creating fillable forms requires some extra effort for the forms provider. The workflow consists of first converting a form design to a PDF document and then opening it in Adobe Acrobat. In Acrobat, form fields are added to the PDF file as shown in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3. Fillable forms include form fields where data are added electronically by the end user. When the Select Object tool is selected, all the form fields appear as shown in the figure.
Note
If you are using Acrobat 9.0 you may find a little bug in the program when viewing field objects. Many times when you click the Select Object tool, the form field objects are not shown on the form. If you want to see the field objects, press Ctrl/
Fillable forms also can be created as smart forms. A smart form might include fields where automatic calculations and field completion help prevent user entry errors. Calculations such as total amounts, sales tax, and item costs can be programmed on a form. Taking unnecessary calculations away from the end user can help eliminate potential errors and more efficiently process transactions.
The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the number of printed business forms has declined in the U.S. over the past decade, and we've made the assumption that the reason for the reduction in printed forms is due to more electronic forms in use today. If you read the preceding section, you also know that static and fillable PDF forms are in circulation on the Web.
We're moving slowly to converting static forms to fillable forms, but hopefully we are moving forward. The next question that comes to mind is this: How good are the PDF forms that we find hosted on Web servers? If indeed we are seeing more electronic forms, are the forms fillable and are they properly designed and suited for a true electronic workflow?
We were curious about this question and decided to do a little study. One very good example of forms hosting services is income tax reporting in the United States The U.S. Federal Government has led the way with forms hosting to make it easy for citizens to download income tax forms and file them electronically. For several years, the Internal Revenue Service has hosted fillable forms that can be downloaded and completed with an Acrobat viewer.
All but seven of the 50 U.S. states also have income tax forms that the residents of those states need to file annually. We thought it would be interesting to look at all 50 states and examine the income tax reporting forms that each state hosts on its Web servers. Since seven states don't require income tax reporting, we looked at comparable forms for reporting inheritance taxes, sales and use taxes, or a similar type of tax reporting form that those seven states use.
In our research, we looked at some aspects of what we would define as a form that's designed properly. We compared all 50 states, the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), and the U.S. Federal IRS Form 1040, resulting in a sample size of 52 comparisons. We used the most recent forms hosted by all samples for the 2007 tax year where available or the 2006 tax year for states not hosting the 2007 forms as of this writing.
Our first question was: Are the forms fillable? In other words, do the forms have fields where an Acrobat or Adobe Reader user can type in the form data? As far as the file type goes, all states host PDF documents. Of the 52 samples, 31 had fillable forms (60%), while 21 states (40%) hosted forms that were not fillable. We find 40 percent to be a significant number. Because the IRS has served as an example for income tax forms hosting, we expected more states to host fillable forms. Yet the results show that much work still needs to be done to make these forms true PDF forms.
We had to toss out 21 samples for our comparison because no form fields were added to those forms. For the remaining 31 forms, we looked at the following:
State: In Table 2.1, the first column identifies the state by name. We added the U.S. Federal Form 1040 at the top of the table.
Type: Column two shows the type of PDF form hosted by the individual states. The types are either PDF forms created in Adobe Acrobat or forms created in Adobe LiveCycle Designer (LCD).
Creator: The Creator column identifies the original authoring document. In one sample, we were unable to determine the file creator.
DP: We looked at Document Properties for each form. The Document Property metadata is especially helpful when searching PDF documents. We recommend all users completely fill in the Document Property items for Title, Author, Subject, and Keywords fields. The columns show Y for Yes, indicating that Document Property Information is properly added to the form; P for Partial, indicating that the Document Property information is partially filled in; and N for No, meaning that no Document Property information was added to the form.
Note
For more information in setting Document Properties, see Chapter 4.
IV: Next we looked at the Initial View settings. Were the Initial View settings edited to open the PDF document in a standard view that the PDF document authors wanted all users to see when the file opens? Users can set opening views to different preferences, so a form can open at different zoom levels and different page layouts on different computers. We recommend editing these settings to force a default override, so forms open at the same zoom and page layout view on every user's computer. Of the 31 sample forms we examined, only four forms had Initial View settings prescribed in the form.
Note
For more information in setting Initial Views, see Chapter 4.
FS: We looked at file size for each form. A few things affect the file size. If the PDF file is not properly created with an acceptable PDF creator such as Acrobat Distiller or exported using an export feature from an Adobe Application or the PDFMaker from an Office program, the file size can grow. Additionally, the more fields you add to a form and the more pages added to your form, the more the file size increases. The thing we were most interested in was comparing forms with similar attributes. For example, if you look at the form for New Jersey, you see that the four-page form has 752 fields and the file size is 443K. Compare the New Jersey form to the Hawaii form, and you see that the Hawaii form is almost twice the size of the New Jersey form. Yet the Hawaii form has the same number of pages and almost half the number of fields.
PP: This column reports the total pages on the form.
Note
FLDS: This column reports the total number of fields. Look at the form for Georgia. The form has 1131 fields for a four-page form! Compare the Georgia form to the Ohio form, where you see a four-page form with 141 fields. When we looked at the Georgia form, we noticed that form fields were used as design elements, and nested within the design elements were the data fields. This form has twice as many fields as needed because you can assign appearance attributes such as border styles and colors to the data fields. There's no need to create separate fields for design appearances as was used on the Georgia form.
RB: The RB column shows results for how radio buttons and check boxes were configured on the sample forms. We looked at mutually exclusive fields where the form recipient needs to make a decision for one choice or another. Were these fields properly configured so a user could click on one field while the remaining fields in the same group were turned off? Were the fields named properly such as the same name for the field with different export values? When we compared the forms, we found more than half the forms had radio buttons/check boxes improperly configured. In most cases, the forms with improper radio button/check box assignments had individual fields with actions assigned to clear other fields within the same groups.
Note
For more information on configuring radio buttons and check boxes, see Chapter 7.
CMB: This column looks at comb fields. You find comb fields on many U.S. government forms where a single field such as a name field is designed with boxes or vertical lines to separate individual characters such as what you see in Figure 2.4. A properly configured comb field is a single field with an option switch in Acrobat that spaces the data to fit within the field box. Users who improperly configure comb fields generally add separate fields for each box. This results in creating larger file sizes and more work to handle the data exported from a form. Not all forms we examined had comb fields. Of the 15 forms that used comb fields, only the Federal IRS form and the states of Alaska and Texas properly configured these fields.
SEC: Were the forms protected with password security? If a form is not secured, users can edit the background and the fields. At a glance, a tax specialist may not notice a form that was edited. For the purpose of tax reporting, we thought it was important for all states to secure the forms. Of all the samples (including the non-fillable forms), we found only six states had added security to the forms. The state of Montana (denoted as Y**) added security to protect a document from page extractions but didn't bother to secure the file against editing the form. We therefore tossed this form into the batch that weren't secured. Interestingly enough, we also found that the most recent IRS Form 1040 is not a secure form. In past years, these forms were secure documents, but the IRS is now using a forms service (Amgraf One Plus) to create the forms and manage the data. The forms are now being produced without security.
Note
For more information on securing forms, see Chapter 12.
FD: This column reports the results of the field designs. We looked at how well fields are assigned attributes and how well the fields are configured. Was it clear to the user where form data needed to be added? Did the form make use of proper configurations for naming conventions, number formatting, dates, social security numbers, and so on? We could have categorized this column in several subdivisions for above average, good, below average, and poor. However, we decided to simply use G for good and B for bad. If fields were obviously designed improperly, we gave a hit to the form and placed it in the B category. As you can see in Table 2.1, we found more than half the forms, in our estimation, poorly designed in terms of field attribute assignments.
We also included consideration for the overall design appearance. Of the worst among our sample for overall form design was the state of Utah, whose form is shown in Figure 2.5. Inasmuch as the form displays a message for turning on the field Highlight option in Adobe Reader, this form is very poorly designed and a form recipient can easily become frustrated in completing the form.
CLC: This column reports whether fields are calculated on forms. With all tax reporting forms in our sample, some fields needed to be calculated. Did the form authors add calculation scripts to remove the possibility of error from the form recipient or were the fields added without formulas? As you can see in Table 2.1, only seven forms made use of calculation formulas.
Note
For more information on creating calculation formulas, see Chapters 15 and 18.
E: Were the forms enabled with Adobe Reader usage rights so the Adobe Reader users could save the form data after completing the form? Our research showed only seven forms were enabled with Reader usage rights.
Note
For more information on enabling forms with Adobe Reader usage rights, see Chapter 10.
Table 2.1. Comparing Fillable Income Tax Reporting Forms Hosted by U.S. States
State | Type | Creator | DP | IV | FS | PP | FLDS | RB | CMB | SEC | FD | CLC | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
U.S. IRS 1040 | Amgraf | Y | N | 438 | 2 | 252 | Y | Y | N | G | N | Y | |
Alabama | QuarkXPress | P | N | 682 | 1 | 98 | N | NA | N | G | N | N | |
Alaska | Amgraf | Y | N | 239 | 1 | 73 | Y | Y | N | G | N | Y | |
Arizona | UltraForms[a] | N | N | 428 | 9 | 406 | Y | N | Y | G | Y | N | |
Arkansas | InDesign | N | N | 233 | 2 | 134 | Y | NA | N | G | N | N | |
California | InDesign | Y | N | 378 | 2 | 219 | N | N | N | B | N | Y | |
Delaware | PageMaker | P | N | 124 | 3 | 211 | Y | N | Y | G | N | N | |
Georgia | PageMaker | Y | N | 691 | 4 | 1131 | N | N | N | B | N | N | |
Hawaii | Distiller | Y | N | 808 | 4 | 301 | N | NA | N | G | N | N | |
Idaho | PageMaker | Y | N | 180 | 2 | 161 | N | N | N | B | N | N | |
Illinois | Distiller | P | N | 128 | 2 | 109 | N | N | N | B | N | Y | |
Iowa | PageMaker | P | N | 372 | 2 | 208 | Y | NA | N | B | N | N | |
Louisiana | Distiller | N | N | 921 | 5 | 754 | N | N | N | B | N | N | |
Maryland | UltraForms[a] | P | N | 274 | 2 | 253 | N | N | N | B | N | N | |
Michigan | Distiller | Y | N | 250 | 2 | 174 | N | NA | N | B | N | N | |
Minnesota | InDesign | N | N | 838 | 4 | 399 | N | NA | N | B | N | N | |
Missouri | UltraForms[a] | P | N | 214 | 2 | 143 | N | NA | Y | G | Y | N | |
Montana | InDesign | Y | N | 573 | 2 | 230 | Y | N | Y[b] | G | N | N | |
Nevada | LCD | Designer | -- | -- | 1019 | 2 | 167 | NA | NA | N | G | Y | N |
New Jersey | Distiller | Y | Y | 443 | 4 | 752 | Y | N | N | G | N | N | |
New York | InDesign | Y | N | 161 | 2 | 188 | NA | NA | N | B | N | Y | |
North Dakota | Distiller | Y | Y | 324 | 2 | 76 | N | NA | N | B | N | Y | |
Ohio | LCD | Designer | -- | -- | 424 | 4 | 141 | Y | NA | Y | G | Y | Y |
Oklahoma | UltraForms[a] | Y | N | 488 | 6 | 395 | Y | N | Y | G | Y | N | |
Oregon | InDesign | N | N | 172 | 2 | 108 | N | N | N | B | N | N | |
Pennsylvania | QuarkXPress | Y | N | 292 | 2 | 87 | Y | NA | N | B | N | N | |
South Dakota | PageMaker | Y | N | 113 | 1 | 107 | NA | NA | N | B | Y | N | |
Tennessee | PageMaker | Y | Y | 145 | 3 | 135 | Y | NA | N | B | N | N | |
Texas | Undetermined | Y | N | 137 | 1 | 63 | Y | Y | N | B | Y | N | |
Utah | Distiller | N | N | 62 | 2 | 106 | N | NA | N | B | N | N | |
Wisconsin | PageMaker | Y | Y | 182 | 4 | 192 | Y | NA | N | B | N | N | |
[a] UltraForms was the final PDF producer. The original authoring program could not be determined. [b] Security was limited to protecting against page extractions only. | |||||||||||||
What form was the best overall? Hands down, our vote goes to the state of Ohio, whose form is shown in Figure 2.6. The form was created in Adobe LiveCycle Designer, so the Document Properties and Initial View settings couldn't be changed because Designer 8.1 and earlier doesn't support editing these properties. The file size is 424K for a four-page form with 141 fields. The form has properly configured radio button/check boxes, security is added to the form, overall field design is excellent with the use of drop-down lists for restricting responses and masks for formatting fields such as dates and social security numbers, calculation formulas are added to the form, a 2D barcode is included on the form, and the form is enabled with Adobe Reader usage rights.
If we can assume that federal and state tax reporting forms should be among the most advanced form designs available on Web servers, you can easily see that there is much work to do to create properly designed forms.
The line of Acrobat products represents almost an entire division within Adobe Systems, Inc. There are products designed as standalone applications, enterprise solutions, online hosting services, and add-ons in the form of Acrobat plug-ins. These products are intended to be used with files converted to PDF documents.
For the forms designer, the products of most interest are the Acrobat viewer products. There are four Acrobat viewers you should become familiar with to help guide users for viewing, printing, and completing your forms.
At the low end of the Acrobat viewers is the Adobe Reader software. Reader is a freely distributed application intended for users who need to view, print, and search PDF files. Reader users can fill in form fields and print a populated PDF form. When PDF authors add special features to forms by enabling a PDF document with Adobe Reader usage rights, the Adobe Reader users can save edited forms and add digital signatures.
Adobe estimates more than 750,000 million computer users have Adobe Reader program installed. The number of copies of Reader installed by users makes it one of the most popular computer programs (including operating systems) in existence today.
Acrobat Standard prior to version 9 had no Forms tools, and forms authoring, editing, and modification was not possible in this viewer. In Acrobat 9 Standard has all the form editing options you find in Acrobat Pro and Acrobat Pro Extended.
When users purchase the Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro software (both Windows and Macintosh), they can add form fields to populate a form. Adobe Acrobat Pro has more editing features than Acrobat Standard (Windows only), and although Acrobat 9 Standard offers forms editing features, the more serious forms author is best off using Acrobat Pro.
Acrobat supports a plug-in architecture whereby third-party software manufacturers can develop tools and add-ons designed for special editing purposes. If Acrobat cannot perform a given task, chances are good that you can find a third-party plug-in to support your needs. You can find many plug-ins that work with Acrobat by doing a Web search or looking at the products available at the Adobe Store (http://store.adobe.com/store/).
Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended is more robust in features such as transcoding Adobe Flash files and offering Adobe Presenter as a PowerPoint add-in and includes many of the 3D and CAD conversion options that were available in Acrobat 8 3D. All the forms features you find in Acrobat Pro are included in Acrobat Pro Extended.
We're certain that everyone reading this book and everyone creating PDF forms is not using the most recent version of Acrobat. In every version of Acrobat from version 6 to the current version, we've seen many new features added related to forms authoring. A major overhaul of the forms editing features was introduced in Acrobat 6 and extended greatly in Acrobat 8. In Acrobat 9, we find many additional forms editing features and improvements.
To help you understand some of the differences in features among the various Acrobat viewer versions, look over Table 2.2 and bookmark this page for future reference.
Table 2.2. Forms-Related Features by Acrobat Versions
Feature | Acrobat 6 | Acrobat 8 | Acrobat 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Acrobat Standard on Mac | X | X | ||
Acrobat Standard Forms Editing (Windows only) | X | |||
Arbitrary Mask | X | X | X | X |
Assemble Forms in PDF Collections (PDF Packages in Acrobat 8 and PDF Portfolios in Acrobat 9) | X | X | ||
Auto Tab Order via Page Properties | X | X | X | X |
Barcode Fields | X | X | ||
Create Dataset File | X | X | ||
Collect/Distribute Data via | X | |||
Collect/Distribute Data via Internal Server | X | |||
X | X | X | X | |
Create Multiple Copies (creating tables) | X | X | X | X |
Create Spreadsheet from Data Files | X | X | X | |
Customize Toolbars | X | X | X[b] | |
Digital Signatures - Adobe Reader | X | X | ||
X | X | |||
Document Message Bar | X | X | X | |
Document Message Bar - Always Hide | X | X | ||
Drag and Drop Tab Order in Fields Panel | X | |||
X | ||||
Enable for Commenting in Adobe Reader | X | X | X | |
Enable for Forms Saving and Digital Signatures in Adobe Reader | X | X | ||
Export Data Tool | X | X | ||
Flash-based Interactive PDF Portfolios | X | |||
Fill in LCD Dynamic Forms in Adobe Reader | X | X | X | |
Flatten Form Fields (via PDF Optimizer) | X | X | ||
X | X | |||
X | X | X | ||
JavaScript | X | X | X | X |
Limited Execute Menu Items | X | X | ||
X | X | X | X | |
Quick Access to Forms Toolbar (Tools Menu) | X | |||
Restricting Some Features via JavaScript | X | X | ||
Simplified Field Notation | X | X | X | X |
Track Forms | X | X | X | |
X | X | X | ||
XML Data Exports | X | X | X | X |
[a] Barcodes were available in Acrobat 7 via a plug-in distributed by Adobe. [b] Can customize toolbars but no Forms tools. | ||||
Inasmuch as you can create forms in Acrobat 6 and even earlier back to Acrobat 3, as shown in Table 2.2, there's a huge difference in forms features between Acrobat 6 and 7. Additionally, you see many more options available for forms authoring between Acrobat 7 and 8. Our recommendation is that serious forms authors should consider upgrading to Acrobat 9.0 or greater. If that doesn't fit your budget, then at the very least you should consider using Acrobat 8 Professional.
Note
Forms editing was available in Acrobat 6, 7, and 8 Professional only. In Acrobat 9, forms editing is supported in Acrobat Standard (Windows only), Acrobat Pro (Windows and Mac), and Acrobat Pro Extended (Windows only).
The U.S. forms industry is a multi-billion dollar economy. Recent reports from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate that printing of business forms is declining.
Several types of PDF forms are hosted on Web servers today. Static forms are forms that are either scanned paper documents with no form fields or electronic form designs converted to a PDF document with no form fields. Dynamic forms include PDF forms that contain form fields and can be filled in by a user of an Acrobat viewer.
A comparison of income tax reporting forms from U.S. states shows that although the number of dynamic forms is increasing on government Web servers, many forms are not properly designed.
Acrobat viewers include the free Adobe Reader software, Adobe Acrobat Standard, Adobe Acrobat Pro, and Adobe Acrobat Pro Extended. Forms can be filled in using any one of the Acrobat viewers. Forms authoring can be accomplished in all versions of Acrobat 9.