Thread Subject: Re: identification and authentication provision

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: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Wed, Sep 05 2007 8:35 AM

Would "does not require..." be better stated as "must support Section 508 functional performance criteria (§ 1194.31 = Subpart C)".

Just trying to offer language that doesn't allow interpretation.

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:00 AM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-general] identification and authentication provision


I think the problem we had with the biometric provision was that it focused
on biometrics rather than the underlying need to have user id and
authentication.

Instead, how about:

"User identification and authentication systems must provide at least one
mode of operation that does not require the presence of a specific
biological characterstic that not all people possess."

******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University