Business Printing Technologies Report
November 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Ballots Are In

Possible Changes for IRS 2001 W2 Form

Who Buys Print

Report from GraphExpo 2000

DIGITAL DIRECTIONS:
Xerox Announces "Premiere Partner" Program, Closes XBS Locations

The BPTR Discussion Bulletin Board

EDITORIAL STAFF:

Dennis McGarry, CDC
Managing Editor

Robert Barnett
Contributor

Teri Nagi
Contributor

Jennie Gordon
Design & Layout

Submit articles, questions, or letters to:
BPTR Editors/DMIA
433 E. Monroe Ave.
Alexandria, VA 22301-1693
P: 703/836-6232
F: 703/836-2241
mailto:dmcgarry@dmia.org

If you would like information about advertising in this newsletter, click here to reach the Townsend Group, DMIA's advertising representatives.

©Copyright 2000 by DMIA. All rights reserved. Published in the United States of America. This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in whole, or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopied, recorded, or otherwise, without the prior permission of DMIA, 433 E. Monroe Ave., Alexandria, VA 22301-1693.
www.dmia.org




















"Forms analyists have to get past the old-fashioned design ideas of the 1950's and come into the 21st Century."
























"People rarely examine the whole form before filling it out."




























"We found repeatedly that older people had an intense fear of forms."















































"Between 80% and 100% of people filling out public-use forms make mistakes."



























BACK TO TOP


























BACK TO TOP






























































BACK TO TOP




































































BACK TO TOP		 THE BALLOTS ARE IN
By Robert Barnett
Robert Barnett and Associates Pty. Ltd.



The war of words with the 2000 US Presidential election in Florida highlights a significant and serious problem with forms, not just for the ballot but for all public-use and internal forms for many organizations. In this article, I would like to address some of the major issues that the ballot design issue has highlighted. As an Australian, I'm not in a position to comment on US politics so I don't even want that to be an issue in this discussion. Irrespective of any political content, it should be obvious to any professional forms person that there was indeed a problem with the form. For those American readers who have strong political views on the issue, I just ask that you put those aside while reading this article and consider the form design aspects.

The poor design and resulting issues are typical of many forms. I have read comments that the person who designed the form was not a forms professional. That may be so, but design by a "professional forms person" is of itself no guarantee of success. I can tell you from years of experience that if you were to examine most public-use forms designed by forms specialists you would still find a huge number of errors. The typical response to this is that it's the form fillers who are to blame. There have been many comments on the ballot issue along these lines. Some have commented that it should have been obvious to voters that they just follow the arrow to the hole. Others have said that people who cannot read the form did not deserve to have their vote registered correctly. In other words, the form was well designed. It was just incompetent voters. But is that how we should approach our form design?

I put it to you that the purpose of a good form is to collect or provide accurate information. If the form doesn't do that then it is not a good form. It isn't fulfilling its purpose. To blame the form filler is a cop out for incompetent design and has no place in professional forms analysis work. We have proved repeatedly that it IS POSSIBLE to eliminate most forms errors with a better approach to design. We will never have 100% success, but we CAN reduce the errors on most forms to a minimal amount. Now to be fair to my fellow analysts, much of the understanding of what people do with forms has come about in the past 20 years. Unfortunately much of the research and resultant knowledge has either not been made available or has been ignored. I have been talking about these issues for years, especially at the annual Symposiums of the Business Forms Management Association. However, it amazes me how many people say that they like the ideas but could not apply them in their organizations because "we don't design forms that way". Well, let's hope the recent fiasco helps us all to reconsider.

Contrary to popular opinion (which is not substantiated by scientific studies), designing forms according to old fashioned "rules" of box layout, cryptic captions and minimizing paper doesn't lead to effective data collection. I've read some amazing statements from forms people about "zoning", the need for heavy lines to show people where to go and a host of other techniques. Yet when we look at forms being filled out in the real world we find that such approaches often hinder form filling rather than helping. Many people do not like change, so I am sure what I am saying here will not be popular in some quarters. All I can say is, if you want to follow tradition, go ahead. But don't complain when people don't fill out your forms as they should. Forms analysts have to get past the old-fashioned design ideas of the 1950's and come into the 21st Century. If we are going to get forms to WORK then we need a better approach.

This is not the place to go into those issues in detail. I've done that in my book Forms For People. But I do want to go back to the ballot problem and look at four of the five issues that this form raises.

1) Form Filling Habits
One of the major items to come from recent research is the knowledge that most people fill out forms habitually. Most of us tend to approach form filling based on the experience of filling out other forms. When faced with a new form most people jump straight in and make many assumptions about what to do. I will expand on this in subsequent sections. Therefore, in our form design we have to consider this. From extensive testing of public-use forms, I can assure you that it is a MAJOR consideration in creating effective forms. I am a firm believer that the role of a forms analyst is to design a form that does what it's supposed to do. A big part of that analytical process is to do all we can to help the form fillers. Complaining about their incompetence won't change things. What we need to do is create forms that work in spite of incompetence. Some years ago, we had the International Year of Literacy. During that year there were many articles written on functional illiteracy. My comment then was that it's often the form designers who are functionally illiterate since they don't design forms that fulfill their function. My view of this has not changed.

In the case of the ballot, many people reported that they filled out the form according to past experience, reading down the list on the left and, if selecting the second name, punching the second hole. Why didn't they see the arrow? Read on!

2) Reading a Form
Here is where many form designers make serious mistakes. PEOPLE DO NOT READ A FORM LIKE A BOOK. They don't just read from left to right and top to bottom. People tend to look for where they THINK the first data item is and then backtrack to where the question/caption/instruction APPEARS to be. Too bad if they guessed wrong! Too bad if they didn't read or even see all the instruction! In the case of the ballot, it appears that past experience led many people to the names first, but then they went straight to the hole they thought they had to punch. The reason they did not see the arrow is explained below.

This issue highlights a problem that many designers aren't aware of. A person's field of focus is very narrow. Let me give you an example that you may be able to try for yourself. To do this you'll need a coin such as an Australian 20 cent, American Quarter or Canadian Dollar. On the Australian and US coin, stare at the nose on the head and you will not be able to read the coin's year. On the Canadian coin, stare at the word "CANADA" and you cannot see the year--at least on the one I have in my possession. In other words just focusing on something as close as 1 cm (1/2 inch) away from the year means you cannot read the year.

We also know now that people rarely examine the whole form before filling it out. The point I am making is that when people are reading a question or entering data they have not yet seen what follows. When they have finished, they just go to where they believe the next entry/reading point is. In the case of the ballot, it appears that many people did not see the arrow. They went straight from the name to the hole.

It is for this reason that we usually design forms with text right aligned to the left of check boxes. The person reads the text and the box follows immediately after. Many people are afraid to use this approach because they think it is unconventional. However, try it and you will find it often gets much better results.

3) Consistency
To make matters even more confusing, some people reported that they "knew" they were voting for the second name on the ballot and just went straight to the second hole as they had done in the past. Consistency in design is an important issue. It is closely related to the reading and habit issues raised above.

4) Aged People
This is another of the areas where the ballot failed. Yet ironically, the person who designed it was reported to have said that it was changed from the previous approach to HELP aged people. Where did it go wrong?

Here are some of the essential points that come from our research.
Most aged people DO NOT progress through the form the same way younger people do. Our testing has shown that they skim the form looking for items they expect to find, often the items they think are most important. Often their poor eyesight plays an important part in this behavior. They find it very tiring and time consuming to read everything. Aged people have a serious problem with short-term memory loss. Even if they had read the whole form, it is likely that many would not have remembered the location of all items. Aged people have had a whole lifetime of bad experiences in form filling. The habit problem mentioned earlier is worse with aged people, many of whom have NEVER had the experience of filling out an easy-to-use form. They just expect EVERY form to be bad.

The bad experience mentioned above frequently leads to the idea that a form, by definition, must be hard to use. We found repeatedly that older people had an intense fear of forms. Many realized that their poor vision and memory problems made form filling a slow process and, for them, very unpleasant. This leads to the old psychological problem of stress having a bearing on how the form is completed. It's bad enough when people face real problems with their forms, but when they are fearful before they even see the form, the problems are greatly magnified. The fear and intimidating nature of many forms cause some aged form fillers to panic, become flustered and unable to think clearly about the answers.

These are only some of the issues that would have influenced the results with aged people filling out the ballot. For other types of forms there are even more issues that are discussed in Forms For People. I have heard numerous comments that if people were too old to fill out the forms properly then they should not have been voting. I choose to have the view that just because a person has a disability that hinders their form filling capacity they should not just be thrown on the scrap heap.

TESTING A FORM
This is the final point I want to make and it is by far the most important matter. In Australia, businesses recently filled out what I believe is one of the most horrific forms I've ever come across--their quarterly Activity Statement (a type of tax return). I read a report in a printing journal that the people who produced it claimed that it had been "tested". But what did they mean by "testing"? If it was tested and found to work, why has it been such a dismal failure? Why were there so many angry and confused business people? Why is there such fear that many small businesses are threatening to close down because they can't cope with the paperwork? We could ask similar questions about the ballot issue.

There have been two very common approaches to testing that modern scientific research has shown to be useless for producing effective forms. Often these approaches are referred to as "market testing", applying market research principles. Consistently, research has shown that testing the potential market of a product is a very different issue to testing the usability of a form.

The first approach is to conduct an opinion survey, maybe asking people if they like the way the form has been laid out--or worse, asking people their opinions on whether or not the form will work. The research has shown that this approach just doesn't produce facts. All the tester gets is a warm fuzzy feeling that people like the design.

The second is to get a group of people--often very large--to fill out the form and then examine the completed forms to see what was entered. Again, research has shown that there is little value in this. It certainly will show numerous areas where people went wrong and may give you some useful statistics, but it does not show WHY the errors occurred or tell you much about the problems people had.

I have consistently advised form designers to use observational usability studies where you watch the person filling out the form. There will be some forms where this approach is not feasible and you will have to use some other methodology, but for most forms, this provides the most detailed information on how the form is functioning. I am confidant that a simple observational study, with perhaps as few as 10 people, would have revealed the problems with the ballot. The process is so simple yet I find that many form designers are unwilling to use it because it is not the way they normally go about things. In other words, it isn't tradition--or maybe it's just fear of the unknown and untried.

However, I must point out that while it is a simple process, it must be done the right way. It isn't just a matter of watching. There is a right way to go about it. I strongly recommend that you read the relevant chapters in Forms For People. You may also find some useful information on a paper on our web site called "How would you know if your forms were failing?"

CONCLUSION
Modern research is showing that between 80% and 100% of people filling out public-use forms make mistakes. Yet there is no need for the error rate to be anywhere near this. I would not be happy until this figure went down to as low as 5%. Good forms can be produced. Of course, this generally requires professional forms analysts, but even they need to keep up to date with the latest knowledge on their profession. Do not just rely on outdated advice from 50 years ago. We've learned a great deal about human form-filling behavior in the last 20 years, so let's make use of it and make everyone's form-filling experience so much sweeter.


Robert Barnett is President of Robert Barnett and Associates Pty Ltd, a consulting firm that specializes in human communications. He is the author of a number of books on forms design and forms management. No need to call Australia for his books, all can be purchased directly from DMIA. Call DMIA directly at 800-336-4641, or visit the DMIA Bookstore online at www.dmia.org.

Want to join a discussion on this article? Click here to go directly to the BPTR Discussion Bulletin Board.

BACK TO TOP




Possible changes for 2001 IRS W-2 Form

Changes to the 2001 IRS W-2 could be just around the corner. HR 1264, also known as the Right-To-Know National Payroll Act is now waiting for Senate action. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the act in July.

If passed, employees could see the breakdown of specific FICA taxes paid by the employer on the employee’s behalf. However, the change means that employers would need to make software and form changes. Specifically, the accounting package used to produce W-2’s will need to be altered to add two new fields, and the printed W-2 forms will need to be adjusted with two new boxes.

The American Payroll Association, who is lobbying against passage, told the U.S. Senate that HR 1264 would create a burden on accountants in a number of ways including: altering software and forms, verifying correct print locations, and answering more employee questions. If passed, the bill will become effective for tax year 2001.

Want to join a discussion on this article? Click here to go directly to the BPTR Discussion Bulletin Board.




WHO BUYS PRINT?
A recent study highlighted by the Digital Printing Council and Frank Romano shows where print originates. While the general public will most often guess that publishing is the biggest consumer of ink and paper, the printing that "business and industry" consumes actually has publishers by a full six-point margin. That’s a lot of print that we’re responsible for! Just think about it--About two-thirds of potential print orders fit neatly into the made-to-order print job slot. This is great news for distributors and the manufacturers that can help the distributor make the sale!

ALL PUBLISHERS 33.7%
Books 5.2%
Magazines 8.0%
Catalogs 8.6%
Newspapers 7.4%
Others 4.5%

ALL BUSINESS & INDUSTRY 39.74%
Purchasing 16.35%
Marketing 15.66%
Other Departments 7.73%

ALL CREATIVE SERVICES 16.55%
Ad Agency 8.59%
Design Service 5.30%
Other Services 2.66%

MISCELLANEOUS 10.01%
Associations 2.10%
Government 1.90%
Other 6.01%

TOTAL 100%

Want to join a discussion on this article? Click here to go directly to the BPTR Discussion Bulletin Board.

BACK TO TOP




Report from GraphExpo 2000

By Terry Nagi

With few exceptions, much of what was displayed at the September GraphExpo 2000 in Chicago was similar to what was shown at the 2000 DRUPA event.

Here are a few significant events, which may or may not impact your strategic planning for the future.
  1. The battle between the established thermal computer-to-plate setters versus the violet diode lasers continues. There is no doubt that the violet diode laser computer-to-plate setters (internal drum) are a match for the thermal processes.

    The announcements at GraphExpo from the thermal computer-to-plate setters (specifically Creo-Scitex) was that plate material prices were expected to decrease and make the thermal process more competitive with the violet diode. At this time, there is at least a 20% to 30% savings on processing violet diode plates versus thermal plates.

    In addition, the violet diode plate setter cannot make digital proofs versus its thermal counterparts. Also, the process-less plate (ablative technology) cannot be used in the violet diode plate setter. If either of these are important in your workflow management than thermal (with decreasing cost) may be the better choice.
  2. printcafe announced a restructuring of its pricing model. Instead of basing its charge for its e-commerce solution on the total sales dollars of a printing company (amounting to approximately 1.5% after 3 years) it has now offers a two-level subscription pricing model based on a printer’s volume needs. Called Web Start, the introductory level starts at $25,000 and includes a printer’s own branded Web site and integration with printCafe Print Management Systems. It also includes training and a preset number of archive licenses.

    The second tier printCafe Unlimited E-commerce gives customers license to process unlimited e-commerce and is designed to meet the needs of printers who anticipate a steady ramp up of e-commerce.

    This pricing model may see printCafe survive as an e-commerce provider. There is no doubt that printCafe will survive as a supplier of MIS systems, especially since the companies behind the venture are Logic, Hagen, AHP, PrintSmith, and PSI, but without this new pricing model, its e-commerce solution was generally rejected.
  3. A new e-commerce provider, Digeno, introduced its entry into the marketplace. The Digeno Web based B2B e-Procurement prototype was officially launched at GraphExpo. Backed financially by R.R. Donnelley, its main target is the small sheetfed printer. Discussions with its people indicated there is a tremendous amount of development work that has yet to be accomplished; yet it intends to provide the industry’s most complete, end-to-end e-commerce transaction and management system. It is interesting to note that its recently-hired president Terry Tevis was fired the same day.
  4. The AFGA spray-on plate technology was demonstrated at GraphExpo. It created significant excitement. A compound is sprayed on a plate, used, and then washed off and re-sprayed. This eliminates both film and plate material costs.

    This is an important technology for the future. It is not ready now but could be a major step forward in plate development.
  5. Flint Ink single fluid ink, which prints on traditional regular plates and presses without water was introduced at DRUPA. At GraphExpo, there was a commitment from a number of press manufacturers to help Flint Ink optimize the process.
  6. Meta-Communications introduced a set of software packages, to provide printers with the opportunity to create their own e-commerce portals on their own computers. This avoids both yearly subscriptions and transaction fees. It combines a number of individual elements previously available including Virtual Ticket, into a robust e-commerce solution. This can be evaluated at www.meta-communications.com.
  7. HP’s investment in Indigo was well publicized at the Indigo booth. There is no doubt that HP expects to become a major player in the print marketplace. It is definitely moving from the home office market to the printer’s market. It certainly will advance the commonality of remote proofing via the ink-jet process.
  8. Xerox Corporation, in its attempt to overtake Heidelberg as the North American printing industry’s largest print vendor, announced an on-line, Internet browser related, educational service to help printers train their people in digital production. In addition. Continuing evaluation is made of eliminating their click charge, which is something most users of Xerox have always disliked.
  9. 58k.com became the first e-commerce solutions provider (auction site) to utilize the PCX capabilities of printCafe. This allows the front-end system of 58k to communicate with the back-end MIS systems of printCafe (Logic, Hagen, AHP, PrintSmith, PSI).
  10. At another e-commerce site, MicroInc announced three Web enabling modules of its Enterprise 32 management package. JobView, ShopFloorCollection, and Request for Quote Order modules. This solution provides printing companies with high-powered "e" front-ends without having to incur costly subscriptions or service fees.
  11. Creo-Scitex debuted its "SP Plateless" technology (switchable polymer). It is AGFA’s LightSpeed, sprayed onto the plate cylinder of a printing press. The system provides an 8-minute cycle of cleaning, recording, and re-imaging between jobs. Commercialization time is approximately 2 years.
  12. PDI announced a thermal CTP plate that is rated for 500,000 impressions without any pre or post-exposure baking. Many plates can usually do 100,000 impressions without baking and up to 1 million if they’re heated after exposure to harden the coating. The cost is expected to be less than $1.50 per square foot.
  13. Xerox also confirmed that it will market and sell Xerox branded offset presses. This represents the strongest evidence yet of Xerox’s determination to be a major player in the graphic arts market. Two of the presses, the DocuColor 400 DI-4 and the DocuColor 400 DI-5 are similar to the PAX/DI presses shown at DRUPA. These are 2-up presses made by Adast, equipped with Presstek direct-imaging systems, on-press plate imaging. The difference between the two models is the number of print units (4 versus 5). A third offering called the DocuColor 233 DI-4 is a compact 2-up 4-color press manufactured for Xerox by Ryobi. It also has a Presstek imaging system. It appears to be similar to Ryobi’s 3404 DI launched at DRUPA. It competes for approximately the same market as the Heidelberg QuickMaster/DI. All three presses are waterless. These presses are expected to be available in the first quarter of 2001.


    Xerox DocuColor 400 DI-4
  14. Noosh announced the addition of three new tools – Noosh Direct, Sales Force E-Commerce, and Data Exchange. These additions to its business-to-business e-commerce site is designed to increase efficiency and reduce cost for printers, even if their customers are not members of the Noosh.com service.
  15. MAN-Roland introduced the Roland 200E sheetfed press, geared toward new printers entering the four-color market. 13,000 sheets per hour, 20 x 29", handling paper stocks from Bible paper to .032" board and foil.
  16. Heidelberg featured its NexPress 2100, originally reported in the BPTR DRUPA report. 2100 tabloid sized color sheets per hour (approximately 4,200 letter sized pages printed simplex) or the equivalent of 70 letter-sized pages per minute. NexStation is the front-end system to service the complete workflow solution based on an open Adobe Extreme architecture. NexQueue assures accurate registration when printing both sides of the paper.


    Heidelberg NexPress 2100


As you can see, most of the announcements at GraphExpo revolved around enhancements to e-commerce systems. Little new was discovered in the hardware exhibited. If you have questions or want additional information, contact mailto:tanagi@aol.com

Want to join a discussion on this article? Click here to go directly to the BPTR Discussion Bulletin Board.

BACK TO TOP




DIGITAL DIRECTIONS

Xerox Announces "Premiere Partner" Program, Closes XBS locations

In September, Xerox Corporation launched an innovative e-business initiative called "Premier Partners" that will turn graphic arts service providers into Web partners. The new program, involving quick and commercial printers and other graphic arts professionals worldwide, is designed as a virtual "channel" or hub to connect supply and demand in the printing industry. Xerox is offering the Premier Partners access to an expensive infrastructure without having to invest in their own. In a related move, Xerox simultaneously announced that it will no longer compete with quick and commercial printers for print production work through company-run print shops known in the past as XBS (Xerox Business Services). More recently, the print centers have been dubbed Document Technology Centers (DTCs) by Xerox. Over the next few months, Xerox will close selected DTCs and change the charter of the remaining facilities to focus on document services that go beyond traditional print shop operations. Xerox has not disclosed which print centers will be shut down. According to Xerox, the mission of the remaining facilities will be to meet the requirements of pre-existing global account contracts and direct new print production work to Premier Partners.

The Premier Partners program taps a market opportunity valued at more than $1 trillion, including print-related creative services, equipment, production, training, education and Web-based services. The online Premier Partners e-commerce network, to launch globally in early 2001, will channel printing jobs to partners who are certified for specific projects or proficient in unique applications. The initial focus is to attract about 750 Premier Partners, including Xerox's largest graphic arts customers across North America and Europe. Over time, Xerox expects thousands of graphic arts service providers to participate. Under the program, graphic arts service providers will be organized around a Xerox-hosted Web site at www.XeroxgraphX.com.

Want to join a discussion on this article? Click here to go directly to the BPTR Discussion Bulletin Board.

BACK TO TOP




The BPTR Discussion Bulletin Board
The BPTR Discussion Bulletin Board is an online, interactive forum where you can post messages, read messages and reply to messages related to topics discussed in the Business Printing Technologies Report. At the end of each article in the BPTR, you will find a link to a related discussion. Just click on those links to go directly to that particular discussion forum. Once there, you can also check out the "FAQ" link to read more details on the different features of the BPTR Discussion Bulletin Board.

To use the BPTR Discussion Bulletin Board you must first register.
Print these instructions or open a second browser window so you'll have something to follow while you register.

Here's how to register:

  1. Click on the "register" link near the top right of the BPTR Discussion page, or click here.
  2. Read the Rules, Policies, and Disclaimers and click the "Agree" button.
  3. Enter a username and password of your choice. Usernames can be up to 25 characters and passwords can be a maximum of 13 characters.
    Please use only letters and numbers. Passwords are case-sensitive.
  4. Enter your email address.
  5. You may enter more information for your profile if you wish.
  6. IMPORTANT: To avoid having to retype your username and password each time you post a message, make sure that the "Store Username & Password in browser memory for 1 year" option is set to "yes".
  7. Click on the "Submit Registration" button.
  8. Click here to register now.


BACK TO TOP