Through the theoretical adaptation of biometric technologies to people of variable abilities
Adaptation to People of Variable Abilities
Download 2.12 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Figure 2: CBEFF Data Block
Adaptation to People of Variable AbilitiesThink of biometrics as a key! Yes… A key, it can open doors for you and provides security to keep others out. It is a key that can be customized to an individual’s access needs. You can use a biometric to access your home, your account, or to invoke a customized setting for any secure area/application. Reasonable Accommodation Would the adaptation of biometrics to people of variable abilities be considered a reasonable accommodation? To answer this, the concept of reasonable accommodation must be revisited to determine if the biometric solution meets qualification factors. For the purposes of convenience the definition of ‘Reasonable Accommodation’ has been restated below: Reasonable accommodations will include those structural and technological modifications that do not impose an undue hardship on the employer. The phases ‘reasonable accommodations’ and ‘undue hardship’ have not been distinctly defined. However, each can be gauged by the size, revenue, and nature of the company. For those employers or managers desiring more detail, they can refer the guidelines outlined by the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 and current amendments via the Disability Rights Section website (United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section [USDOJ], 2002). It is the conclusion of the researcher that the adaptation of biometric technologies to people of variable abilities would absolutely meet reasonable accommodation guidelines. Smart Card Interface While contact smart cards can provide an excellent storage platform they do not easily adapt to people of variable abilities. The interfaces available to contactless smart cards are well suited and easily adaptable to people of all ability levels. Contactless smart card technologies provide the ideal interface access and control of physical facilities and logical assets. Per the Smart Card Alliance web site, contactless smart card technologies provide:
High speed access and throughput, as wireless provides immense bandwidth. The interface is useable in harsh or dirty environments, because it is sealed from the elements. User friendly and simple to use. Less intrusive, because direct contact is not required. Does not require insertion of card into a reader. No issues with orientation of card. Card may be kept in wallet or pursue for personal security during use. Encryptions and encryption protocols provide excellent security. Protection of privacy, as MOC can be used. Flexibility of application interoperability. Reduced maintenance cost of readers for there are no moving parts and direct contact is not required. Reduced vandalism to readers for it can be hidden from sight and/or direct physical access. Durable and reliable, because all elements of the card are self-contained. Established international standards (ISO/IEC). When using a contactless platform (i.e. two-way radio, Wi-Fi, etc.), encryption and a triple acknowledgement certificate is best method of ensuring secure bi-directional communications. Even with this the method the biometric templates are not accessible to external communications as all matching is still processed within the confines of the card (MOC). Control Can either be logical or physical in nature. Logical involves the granting a user access to information technology systems such as a network or database. Physical control refers to the ability to affect ingress of a user to an entryway. The medium for such control can be acquired via the Internet, infra-red (IR), radio frequencies, microwaves, or via another wireless technology. Universal Design The methodology behind the concept of universal design is to establish a standard or technology that can be applied to people of all ability levels. A pioneer of the universal design concept for technology is Dr. Gregg Vanderheiden, Ph.D. (Director, Trace R&D Center, University of Wisconsin) and his team. The methodologies of universal design are not limited to only technology. An organization know as “The Center for Universal Design” is comprised of architects, product designers, engineers, and researchers have made it their mission to ride the world of physical barriers. The Center for Universal Design has crafted a formidable list of principles and guidelines that can be applied to technology and physical structures alike. The principles and guidelines are displayed below in the same context as they appear at The Center for Universal Design website, http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm:
1a. Provide the same means of use for all users: identical whenever possible; equivalent when not.
equally available to all users. 1d. Make the design appealing to all users. PRINCIPLE TWO: Flexibility in Use - The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. Guidelines: 2a. Provide choice in methods of use. 2b. Accommodate right- or left-handed access and use. 2c. Facilitate the user's accuracy and precision. 2d. Provide adaptability to the user's pace. PRINCIPLE THREE: Simple and Intuitive Use - Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. Guidelines: 3a. Eliminate unnecessary complexity. 3b. Be consistent with user expectations and intuition. 3c. Accommodate a wide range of literacy and language skills.
3e. Provide effective prompting and feedback during and after task completion. PRINCIPLE FOUR: Perceptible Information - The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities. Guidelines: 4a. Use different modes (pictorial, verbal, tactile) for redundant presentation of essential information.
information and its surroundings. 4c. Maximize "legibility" of essential information. 4d. Differentiate elements in ways that can be described (i.e., make it easy to give instructions or directions). 4e. Provide compatibility with a variety of techniques or devices used by people with sensory limitations. PRINCIPLE FIVE: Tolerance for Error - The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. Guidelines: 5a. Arrange elements to minimize hazards and errors: most used elements, most accessible; hazardous elements eliminated, isolated, or shielded. 5b. Provide warnings of hazards and errors. 5c. Provide fail safe features. 5d. Discourage unconscious action in tasks that require vigilance. PRINCIPLE SIX: Low Physical Effort - The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue. Guidelines: 6a. Allow user to maintain a neutral body position. 6b. Use reasonable operating forces. 6c. Minimize repetitive actions. 6d. Minimize sustained physical effort. PRINCIPLE SEVEN: Size and Space for Approach and Use - Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility. Guidelines: 7a. Provide a clear line of sight to important elements for any seated or standing user.
seated or standing user. 7c. Accommodate variations in hand and grip size. 7d. Provide adequate space for the use of assistive devices or personal assistance. All though universal design of technology is a critical concept, not even one of the one-on-one interview participants considered universal design to be relevant, as per question 4 of Appendix 6.
In the context of this research paper a fused solution involves combining the enabling attributes of contactless biometrics with those of contactless smart cards will produce a solution that is fully autonomous, programmable and has the capability of storing at least 16mb of data (i.e. other biometric templates, financial records, medical records, etc…). The fused solution is a one-to-one matching (MOC) schema, for example at an ATM the user would still have a card (contactless smart card). The user’s profile will prompt the user to key in his or her password, or press their finger against a fingerprint sensor, or speak a predetermined phrase into a microphone, or look at a facial camera, all contained on an autonomous smart card. An ulterior addition of the contrived fused solution would in due course directly lead to the creation of a universal international standard. Most importantly as part of the fused solution is the storage of the Accessibility Level Field (ALF) and user’s profile can be stored on the smart card. Complied with the ALF the profile can theoretically allow technology to adapt to a user's special needs by prioritizing the user’s choice of authentication, access requirement, challenge and response. Currently the ALF does not exist and would have to be crafted by adding what the research has named as the Accessibility Level Field (ALF) to the Common Biometric Exchange File Format (CBEFF). To accomplish this the researcher has convinced Dr. Fernando Podio, the Co-Chairman of the Biometric Consortium to reserve twelve hexadecimal digits from the Payload Field and two hexadecimal digits from the Challenge-Response Field of the CBEFF. The theory is that such a modification to the CBEFF would allow manufactures and vendors to promote interface interoperability between biometrics technologies and assistive technology. Both the Payload and the Challenge-Response Fields fall under the Standard Biometric Header (SBH) Element of the CBEFF as optional fields (see image and table below). Figure 2: CBEFF Data Block Standard Biometric Header Biometric Data Block Signature Block
Table 3: Standard Biometric Header Followed by the BDB and the SB
Excluding the ALF requirement, to the researchers knowledge there is only one smart card that even comes close to embodying the requirement of the proposed fused solution. However, as this time a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is currently preventing the researcher from divulging specific details relative to the smart card solution. Exoskeleton Creating an exoskeleton is relatively ease, controlling the exoskeleton is another matters altogether. The most desirable method of facilitating control is to use a neural control interface. Download 2.12 Mb. Share with your friends:
|