Thread Subject: Re: identification and authentication provision
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
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: identification and authentication provision"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "identification and authentication provision"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Would "does not require..." be better stated as "must support Section 508 functional performance criteria (Â§ 1194.31 = Subpart C)".
Just trying to offer language that doesn't allow interpretation.
Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
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
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."
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
+1 908.907.2387 mobile
- Next message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: identification and authentication provision"
- Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "identification and authentication provision"