Re: User Contexts: identifying assistive technologies

Andy Heath <andyheath@axelrod.plus.com> wrote:
 
> Well yes, I agree!
> 
> >
> >Nevertheless, if we are going to disclose assistive technologies, as was
> >pointed out to me off-list in response to my requirements-gathering proposal,
> >the current requirements and spec are inadequate: they cover only screen
> >readers and allow only one name and version to be retrieved, whereas there
> >could be several independent assistive technologies (screen reader, screen
> >magnifier, etc.) active on a user's system simultaneously.
> 
> I think we should *worry* about the privacy implications of this and
> give serious consideration as to if/what/how.

I agree, naturally, although it isn't clear that the privacy implications of
this proposed item (i.e., identification of assistive technologies) are much
different from those of combinations of some of the other proposed items. For
example, if a user declares a need for, say, auditory descriptions of video,
descriptions of images, etc., then this is most likely because eyes are
occupied or the user has a vision-related disability, with the latter being
more probable. If the user logs into a Web-based account from different user
agents and different IP addresses while retaining these preferences then we
can infer with an even greater level of assurance that there's a disability in
play.

Thus for practical purposes, outright declaring the presence of a screen
reader in this scenario isn't going to tell the Web site operator much that
wasn't already known. While I agree that there are privacy implications, the
same applies for many of the other items which is why the user needs to be
able to exercise control with respect to disclosure of most of the profile.

Received on Tuesday, 4 June 2013 10:40:36 UTC