W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > May 2019

Re: My review of capture draft

From: Steve Lee <stevelee@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 09:30:44 +0100
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <c0395553-4e55-96ec-34b3-d22cec2f618c@w3.org>
I totally agree with Lisa's comment.

In the recent meeting of the Accessible Authentication 2.2 SC team (led 
by John Rochford) we touched on this issue. There was a feeling that 
CAPTCHAs are a part of the authentication topic as they are a form of 
authentication, if not identification.

Much of the meeting was spent on developing language that expresses the 
user requirements for all users including those with cognitive 
requirements.

Here is the latest draft text (Could this be shared with the CAPTCHA 
document?):

---

An authentication method is offered that does not rely upon a person’s 
ability to mentally process and provide information beyond the mental 
processes required to use a simple web page.

An alternative authentication method is available for people who are 
unable to use the primary authentication method unless it can be shown 
all users have access via the primary method. This alternative 
authentication method does not exclusively rely upon a person’s ability 
to do any of the following.

* memorize character strings and/or correct spellings;
* perform calculations;
* identify and enter numbers and/or letters from a character string;
* recognize presented characters then enter them in an input field;
* speak;
* see;
* hear;
* feel;
* reliably produce gestures;
* depend upon a specific biometric input.

# Exceptions

* An authentication method that relies upon an above ability can be the 
alternative method if that ability is essential to use content accessed 
by the authentication method.

* If there is a legal requirement.

Steve

On 22/05/2019 07:41, lisa.seeman wrote:
> 
> My review of capture draft at 
> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/apa/review-cfc/captcha/index.html
> 
> Although the technologies are discussed and explained, I feel the users 
> issues and challenges are not well represented or explained, 
> specifically when talking about COGA use groups which is a new topic for 
> many people  - including people in accessibility!
> 
> A problem that is not touched on with offering alternatives is typical 
> alternatives currently chosen for accessibility are often also unusable 
> for people with coga. They need to make sure one method does not require 
> problem solving or memory  including transcribing, and one method does 
> not rely on sight etc.
> 
> we have wonderful resources here to incorporate and get  the coga use 
> cases and challenges into the draft
> 
> look at the wonderful work by EA Jennie Jamie and others at 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/16OA95LpFAcHWb5Y_4wS65q64gEEWf1AYNfmt2_Pjd6A/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=110409080524773921565
> 
> and of course our issue paper at 
> https://w3c.github.io/coga/issue-papers/#web-security-and-privacy-technologies
> 
> 
> 
> All the best
> 
> Lisa Seeman
> 
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter 
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2019 08:30:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:03 UTC