Documentation:Remote Assistance

Should we require a remote assistance feature to support people with cognitive disabilities?

This discussion was started with a comment submitted by Jim Tobias.'

"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?"

A draft "best practice" for this topic was added to the April working drafts page

Proposed Draft

The current proposal is to include this as a "best practice" rather than a required recommendation, with the possibility of a "do no harm" requirement:

"Remote assistance programs allow someone to access a computer system remotely to provide support or instruction. This ability to demonstrate features of the computer software or hardware is helpful to people with cognitive disabilities.

Applications shall not disrupt or disable tools that support remote user assistance for software or hardware."

Comments and Discussion

'Fri, March 16, 2007 - Michele Budris, Co-Chair 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.

'Sun, 18 Mar 2007 - Clayton Lewis' 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)

S'un, 18 Mar 2007 - Whitney Quesenbery' 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.

'Mon, 19 Mar 2007 - Deb Cook' 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.

'Mon, 19 Mar 2007 - Terry Weaver' 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?

'Tue, 20 Mar 2007 - Robert Baker' 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.

'Wed, 21 Mar 2007 - Barbara Lybarger' 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.)

'Thu, 22 Mar 2007 - Tom Brett' I think it would be up to each agency to determine if support for people with cognitive disabilities will be through some sort of remote access or by someone from the help desk visiting the desk of the employee with a cognitive disability. In many cases the purchase of the software to allow remote access may exceed the benefits that could be derived. The agency may find that having a dedicated help desk technician would provide better service and save the agency money.