Thread Subject: Cognitive Disability - require remoteassistance feature?
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.
Return to this mailing list's archives
From: Michele Budris
Date: Fri, Mar 16 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: Cognitive Disability - require remoteassistance feature?
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Albany">In the draft submission wiki page
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission">http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission</a>), the following
comment was added to section 3 (Other Material) item B: </font><font
face="Albany"><span class="mw-headline">Issues this subcommittee is
not addressing, but which should be addressed.</span></font><font
face="Albany"> It was not included in the official submitted draft #1
since we had not discussed it. The comment was submitted by Jim
Tobias. The text is:<br>
<br>
</font>"In the presentation on Cognitive Disability, it was said that
remote
assistance for computer software and hardware was a helpful feature.
That is, the user can contact someone over a network who can log into
the user's computer and either show him/her what needs to be done, or
actually make those necessary changes remotely. Do we want to include
such a requirement?"<br>
<font face="Albany"><br>
This was discussed at the March 15 meeting with the following feedback:<br>
<br>
-Could have cost implications, especially for small businesses.<br>
-There could be security issues, many state and federal governments do
not allow remote access to systems.<br>
-But this would be more cost effective than having someone go to the
system to make the same fix multiple times.<br>
<br>
I'd like input from people on this regarding:<br>
-Should we add a requirement like this?<br>
-If yes, then recommended text.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Michele<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>
From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Cognitive Disability - require remote assistance feature?
<html>
<body>
I think that this goes beyond something that we can REQUIRE. I'd have to
think very hard about the possibility for unintended consequences for all
types of applications. Are there privacy issues to consider, in addition
to security issues?<br><br>
This seems like something that an agency help desk might want to
implement, rather than something that should be supplied with each
different application. Think how many different remote control programs
might end up being installed on each computer. <br><br>
On the other hand, I know nothing (except how to start them) about remote
control programs, and their accessibility. Anyone else have experience
with things like VNC and GoToMyPC from this perspective?<br><br>
This seems like a possible entry for a set of "best practices".
<br><br>
Whitney<br><br>
At 03:44 PM 3/16/2007, Michele Budris wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">In the draft submission wiki
page
(<a href="http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission">
http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission</a>), the following
comment was added to section 3 (Other Material) item B: Issues this
subcommittee is not addressing, but which should be addressed. It was not
included in the official submitted draft #1 since we had not discussed
it. The comment was submitted by Jim Tobias. The text is:<br><br>
"In the presentation on Cognitive Disability, it was said that
remote assistance for computer software and hardware was a helpful
feature. That is, the user can contact someone over a network who can log
into the user's computer and either show him/her what needs to be done,
or actually make those necessary changes remotely. Do we want to include
such a requirement?"<br><br>
This was discussed at the March 15 meeting with the following
feedback:<br><br>
-Could have cost implications, especially for small businesses.<br>
-There could be security issues, many state and federal governments do
not allow remote access to systems.<br>
-But this would be more cost effective than having someone go to the
system to make the same fix multiple times.<br><br>
I'd like input from people on this regarding:<br>
-Should we add a requirement like this?<br>
-If yes, then recommended text.<br><br>
Thanks,<br>
Michele<br>
From: Clayton H Lewis
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Cognitive Disability - require remoteassistance feature?
In response to the request for input from Michele Budris on requiring
a remote assistance feature:
This item is very important for people who use computers but need
help with some of the complexities.
Given that there are commercial tools that work for this, this could
be handled not as a requirement that vendors provide this facility,
but that they not block it.
So something modeled on "Paragraph 1194.21 (b) Applications shall not
disrupt or disable activated features of other products that are
identified as accessibility features, where those features are
developed and documented according to industry standards. ..."
could be used:
"Applications shall not disrupt or disable tools that support remote
user assistance for software or hardware."
I believe this meets the cost concerns, as well as avoiding the
question of what to do when government policies do block these
things... I presume that those policies are a different issue (and
should be worked on in some way, but I suppose that's not a 508 thing)
Clayton Lewis
Professor of Computer Science
Scientist in Residence, Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities
University of Colorado
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~clayton
From: Debbie Cook
Date: Mon, Mar 19 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Cognitive Disability - require remoteassistance feature?
There are all kinds of conditions where an agency or other entity would not
want to support the use of off-the-shelf Remote desktop or control apps. If
the agency is providing this as part of it's systems support, then the
appropriate protocols will be dealt with. But it would create a security
nightmare for us to require this type of support. Probably not even as a
best practice.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Whitney Quesenbery" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC documentation and technical support subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-documentation] Cognitive Disability - require remote
assistance feature?
I think that this goes beyond something that we can REQUIRE. I'd have to
think very hard about the possibility for unintended consequences for all
types of applications. Are there privacy issues to consider, in addition to
security issues?
This seems like something that an agency help desk might want to implement,
rather than something that should be supplied with each different
application. Think how many different remote control programs might end up
being installed on each computer.
On the other hand, I know nothing (except how to start them) about remote
control programs, and their accessibility. Anyone else have experience with
things like VNC and GoToMyPC from this perspective?
This seems like a possible entry for a set of "best practices".
Whitney
At 03:44 PM 3/16/2007, Michele Budris wrote:
In the draft submission wiki page (
http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission), the following
comment was added to section 3 (Other Material) item B: Issues this
subcommittee is not addressing, but which should be addressed. It was not
included in the official submitted draft #1 since we had not discussed it.
The comment was submitted by Jim Tobias. The text is:
"In the presentation on Cognitive Disability, it was said that remote
assistance for computer software and hardware was a helpful feature. That
is, the user can contact someone over a network who can log into the user's
computer and either show him/her what needs to be done, or actually make
those necessary changes remotely. Do we want to include such a requirement?"
This was discussed at the March 15 meeting with the following feedback:
-Could have cost implications, especially for small businesses.
-There could be security issues, many state and federal governments do not
allow remote access to systems.
-But this would be more cost effective than having someone go to the
system to make the same fix multiple times.
I'd like input from people on this regarding:
-Should we add a requirement like this?
-If yes, then recommended text.
Thanks,
Michele
From: terry.weaver@gsa.gov
Date: Mon, Mar 19 2007 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Cognitive Disability - require remote assistance feature?
However, I think that most agencies have utilize a helpdesk center for
supporting the agency's hardware and software. I know my agency's
helpdesk will remote control of my desktop to install/debug/upgrade
applications.
Do we need to include a potential risky recommendation that may already
have been solved in reality?
"Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
03/19/2007 03:05 PM
Please respond to
"TEITAC documentation and technical support subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To
"TEITAC documentation and technical support subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc
Subject
Re: [teitac-documentation] Cognitive Disability - require remote
assistance feature?
There are all kinds of conditions where an agency or other entity would
not
want to support the use of off-the-shelf Remote desktop or control apps.
If
the agency is providing this as part of it's systems support, then the
appropriate protocols will be dealt with. But it would create a security
nightmare for us to require this type of support. Probably not even as a
best practice.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Whitney Quesenbery" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC documentation and technical support subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-documentation] Cognitive Disability - require remote
assistance feature?
I think that this goes beyond something that we can REQUIRE. I'd have to
think very hard about the possibility for unintended consequences for all
types of applications. Are there privacy issues to consider, in addition
to
security issues?
This seems like something that an agency help desk might want to
implement,
rather than something that should be supplied with each different
application. Think how many different remote control programs might end up
being installed on each computer.
On the other hand, I know nothing (except how to start them) about remote
control programs, and their accessibility. Anyone else have experience
with
things like VNC and GoToMyPC from this perspective?
This seems like a possible entry for a set of "best practices".
Whitney
At 03:44 PM 3/16/2007, Michele Budris wrote:
In the draft submission wiki page (
http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission), the following
comment was added to section 3 (Other Material) item B: Issues this
subcommittee is not addressing, but which should be addressed. It was not
included in the official submitted draft #1 since we had not discussed it.
The comment was submitted by Jim Tobias. The text is:
"In the presentation on Cognitive Disability, it was said that remote
assistance for computer software and hardware was a helpful feature. That
is, the user can contact someone over a network who can log into the
user's
computer and either show him/her what needs to be done, or actually make
those necessary changes remotely. Do we want to include such a
requirement?"
This was discussed at the March 15 meeting with the following feedback:
-Could have cost implications, especially for small businesses.
-There could be security issues, many state and federal governments do
not
allow remote access to systems.
-But this would be more cost effective than having someone go to the
system to make the same fix multiple times.
I'd like input from people on this regarding:
-Should we add a requirement like this?
-If yes, then recommended text.
Thanks,
Michele
From: Baker, Robert C.
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2007 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: Cognitive Disability - require remoteassistance feature?
SSA also has a separate help desk to address all concerns for people
with disabilities. Remote screen control is a solution that would not
work at our agency. I do not recommend including it in the standards as
a best practice.
Robert Baker
Social Security Administration
Section 508 Coordinator
SSA Accessibility Resource Center
From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Wed, Mar 21 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Cognitive Disability - requireremoteassistance feature?
Massachusetts used to allow remote access from outside vendors for all
kinds of tech support including accessibility. It doesn't allow that
wide open access anymore, because we had too many bad infections from
the outside vendors. Now that level of support is only allow under
tightly controlled circumstances to the Commonwealth's help desks.
However, I'm not sure that direct access within an entity by it's own
help desk presents the same issues, since the entity has the ability to
control its own environment.
Is it possible to craft language that addresses internal help desks and
if so is that enough of a move forward for those with cognitively-based
impairments? (I know I could use that to move the Massachusetts help
desk [serving over 60,000 desktops] forward.)
Barbara Lybarger
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Debbie Cook
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:05 PM
To: TEITAC documentation and technical support subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-documentation] Cognitive Disability - require
remoteassistance feature?
There are all kinds of conditions where an agency or other entity would
not want to support the use of off-the-shelf Remote desktop or control
apps. If the agency is providing this as part of it's systems support,
then the appropriate protocols will be dealt with. But it would create a
security nightmare for us to require this type of support. Probably not
even as a best practice.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Whitney Quesenbery" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC documentation and technical support subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-documentation] Cognitive Disability - require
remote assistance feature?
I think that this goes beyond something that we can REQUIRE. I'd have to
think very hard about the possibility for unintended consequences for
all types of applications. Are there privacy issues to consider, in
addition to security issues?
This seems like something that an agency help desk might want to
implement, rather than something that should be supplied with each
different application. Think how many different remote control programs
might end up being installed on each computer.
On the other hand, I know nothing (except how to start them) about
remote control programs, and their accessibility. Anyone else have
experience with things like VNC and GoToMyPC from this perspective?
This seems like a possible entry for a set of "best practices".
Whitney
At 03:44 PM 3/16/2007, Michele Budris wrote:
In the draft submission wiki page (
http://teitac.org/wiki/Documentation:Draft_Submission), the following
comment was added to section 3 (Other Material) item B: Issues this
subcommittee is not addressing, but which should be addressed. It was
not included in the official submitted draft #1 since we had not
discussed it.
The comment was submitted by Jim Tobias. The text is:
"In the presentation on Cognitive Disability, it was said that remote
assistance for computer software and hardware was a helpful feature.
That is, the user can contact someone over a network who can log into
the user's computer and either show him/her what needs to be done, or
actually make those necessary changes remotely. Do we want to include
such a requirement?"
This was discussed at the March 15 meeting with the following
feedback:
-Could have cost implications, especially for small businesses.
-There could be security issues, many state and federal governments do
not allow remote access to systems.
-But this would be more cost effective than having someone go to the
system to make the same fix multiple times.
I'd like input from people on this regarding:
-Should we add a requirement like this?
-If yes, then recommended text.
Thanks,
Michele
WebAIM is an initiative of:
