Re: Accessible Authentication and issue responses

AC:
> > We are not trying to specify what is happening on the user-end, just what the site cannot rely on.

PL:
> You *are* if you normatively say that a site cannot rely on "transcribe 
> information", aka copying.
  
The distinction is that a site can have a 1st or 2nd factor that uses recall/transcription if there is another option that does not.

Or more subtly, the same option could have two modes. E.g. an automatic entry method (copy/paste, or USB hardware) as well as copy the number across.

The webauth version means it is up to the user as to what method they use, that’s what I meant by not-specified by the content.

  
> > If you have to transcribe a captcha to authenticate then yes, if it is separate, no.
    
> That's not *authentication* (who I am). It's a challenge/verification (I 
> am human). … and combining authentication/CAPTCHA so blurrily into 
> one topic is what's also causing problems here.
    
CAPTCHA’s have multiple issues, but if it is required for a login (like the webex for W3C meetings sometimes), then it should come under this as well due to the transcribing aspect.

We could revert to the ‘required steps’ wording, but I think that is covered by the starting “Authentication process”.
(Current & previous versions: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/2-2-6_Revision#Latest_Version_For_Authentication_.28AAA.29 )


> I'd argue that the normative language of the SC is currently (as 
> demonstrated in this thread) not clear enough. Hoping the 
> soon-to-be-updated understanding helps, but as it's non-normative, I 
> think there's still quite a lot of gray area that makes this SC 
> problematic as a whole.
    
I think the current understanding doc seems to have lead people astray, if you focus on the SC language, what is not clear?

The other side of it is what the possible options are for the site to use, which has been run through several times on the previous threads, unfortunately there is a lot of overhead in that but I’m not going to sit down to re-write the understanding doc if it won’t be used.

This SC isn’t included in the editor’s version of WCAG21, so I’m not clear if it is progressing.

Cheers,

-Alastair

Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2018 11:42:47 UTC