by Carlos Gonzalez, Foxit Software
are the original -based fillable forms, based on the PDF architecture. are XML-based forms, wrapped inside a PDF. So, what’s the difference—and more importantly, which should you use? Let’s take a look.
were released in 1997. In 2002, Adobe acquired Canadian service provider Accelio, who was using . Adobe adopted the format as the standard for PDF forms of a larger platform (LiveCycle). But it also made it available to Acrobat-only users. And that’s where the confusion began—two PDF fillable form standards from the same vendor at the same time.
Today, Adobe plans to stop supporting the LiveCycle platform. That leaves many customers understandably thinking about replacing theirwith . If you’re in that situation, here are some things to consider.
When talking about PDF fillable forms, we need to differentiate between:
- Form design or layout, aka, what the user sees on screen and in print.
- Form development, aka, addition of fields, check boxes, buttons, scripts, etc. This is what the user interacts with. It’s also the form intelligence “under the hood”.
PDF fillable forms can be very simple. And they can be really smart when you add dynamic behavior, electronic submission,for 100% error-free data collection, lookup tables, validations, complex calculations, version control, etc.
You can develop Acroforms using a number of different PDF platforms, such as, Adobe Acrobat, Nitro Pro, Nuance Power PDF, to mention a few.You create Acroforms in two steps. First, design the form layout using an external application such as Microsoft Word, InDesign, or Adobe Illustrator, etc. Second, add the form elements (fields, check boxes, scripts, etc) on top of the existing layout. This approach allows you to easily replace the form layout without affecting the form objects. This is a must when form design and form development are performed by different teams (e.g. Marketing and IT).
You can only developusing Adobe Forms Designer (FD). While the FD allows you to start with an existing PDF file—the same as Acroforms—it will truly unleash all its potential when you design the layout from scratch using FD. With this approach, you use a single application to do everything: design and development. Depending on the project and the departments involved, this has pros and cons.
XFA forms can do one thing that Acroforms can’t do: reflow PDF content. If, for example, you need the form to dynamically add more rows to accommodate varying data, while pushing the content layout down to make room for the new rows, it can do it. This solves some problems but creates other important ones.
Reflowing is a nice feature but it’s useless if your form needs to be printed and its data is collected using an OCR-based system. Why? OCR-based forms processing systems expect to find the same data in the same place. If you move the data, OCR gets lost and does not work.
You can overcome this problem by using 2D barcodes to collect data from your forms. That eliminates the need for OCR and it’s way more accurate. But it’s still not perfect. have fixed dimensions according to the amount of data they hold, and if you move the layout you may end up not being able to draw the 2D barcode at all. Again, no luck with reflow.
You can also send the electronic data directly to the server, if you want a “pure” electronic form with no paper involved but then, why use PDF at all?
PDF is the perfect format if your forms need to be printed at some point in the process.
If not, I suggest using a different technology better suited for desktop and mobile devices.
So, which one is better?
Want toto Acroforms? There are a number of tools out there that will let you do it. While none of them is fully automated, they may help in your transition.
Still not sure? Contact Foxit if you’re deciding between XFA and Acroforms or planning to move away from XFA. Since we support both XFA and Acroforms, we can help you decide which one is best for you and help you implement your project.