Thread Subject: Re: teitac-general Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2
Note
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Schomburg, Paul
Date: Fri, Aug 03 2007 3:25 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: teitac-general Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2"
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Greg: Thanks for your reply. My main concern was that the TEITAC not
recommend a specific technology for an alternative biometric.
It appears the language below would not require an alternative biometric
identification but "an alternative form of identification or activation"
-- which may or may not be biometric. For example, this would allow the
agency to show a photo to a human security guard for site access or use
an alpha-numeric password for network access, but if higher security is
required, to use an alternative biometric technology. If this was the
intended result it is fine with me.
I am not sure of what is meant by "or activation". My understanding is
that biometric technologies are used to verify identity and do not in
themselves activate controls. Activation would be done by a software
program after identity is verified. If it is not necessary I would
recommend dropping the phrase "or activation."
Best regards, Paul
----------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:51:22 -0500
From: Gregg Vanderheiden < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] biometrics continued
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Message-ID: <001301c7d589$f1349760$0f6fa8c0@NC84301>
Thanks Paul
You said that agencies were free to use a second biometric. Do you
mean an
alternative biometric?
The provision we have been discussing is
"When biometric forms of user identification or control are used, an
alternative form of identification or activation shall also be provided
unless all people can use the biometric device."
This would seem to meet your recommendation that a specific form not be
required. Does it?
Do you have any recommendationed changes to this?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: teitac-general Digest, Vol 11, Issue 2"
- Previous message in Thread: None
WebAIM is an initiative of:
