Ensuring biometrics work for everyone

Bio­met­ric tech­nolo­gies, such as fin­ger­print iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, reti­na scan­ning or voice recog­ni­tion, can improve the expe­ri­ence, secu­ri­ty and usabil­i­ty of elec­tron­ic devices for many. All too often, how­ev­er, those with dis­abil­i­ties are over­looked in the design process.

Peo­ple with a loss of dex­ter­i­ty may have dif­fi­cul­ty using bio­met­ric fin­ger­print tech­nol­o­gy, some­one with a voice tremor could strug­gle with voice iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and blind peo­ple may find facial recog­ni­tion does not work for them.

If peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties are forced to dis­card bio­met­ric secu­ri­ty inno­va­tions they could be less secure online. “Then peo­ple are less able to engage in a dig­i­tal lifestyle,” says Robin Christo­pher­son, head of dig­i­tal inclu­sion at Abil­i­tyNet. “This has a huge impact and leads to mas­sive dis­en­fran­chise­ment.” So how can bio­met­rics be made more acces­si­ble?

Biometrics must be inclusive

There is lim­it­ed research into the usabil­i­ty of bio­met­rics for peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties. How­ev­er, a recent study by US not-for-prof­it organ­i­sa­tion MITRE found bio­met­rics that required dynam­ic device posi­tion­ing, such as hold­ing a phone or lap­top in a cer­tain place in rela­tion to your face, lack usabil­i­ty for peo­ple with lim­it­ed or no vision, accord­ing to researcher and senior human fac­tors engi­neer Ron­na ten Brink.

In fact, a large num­ber of us could be affect­ed if dig­i­tal iden­ti­ty tech­nolo­gies are not acces­si­ble, espe­cial­ly as we get old­er. Chris Milling­ton, man­ag­ing direc­tor of empo­ria tele­com, which has been mak­ing sim­pli­fied smart­phone fea­tures for retirees, says: “For many of us there is dis­abil­i­ty, such as hear­ing loss, sight loss and loss of dex­ter­i­ty, in the age­ing process.” 

Bec­ca Scol­lan, senior human fac­tors engi­neer at the MITRE Cor­po­ra­tion along­side ten Brink, agrees. “You might not have a dis­abil­i­ty now, but you could injure your­self,” she says. “We all age which brings on greater poten­tial for hav­ing a dis­abil­i­ty.”

Laws against discrimination not thoroughly enforced

Leg­is­la­tion, such as the Amer­i­cans with Dis­abil­i­ties Act or the Equal­i­ty Act in the UK, exists to pre­vent dis­crim­i­na­tion against dis­abled peo­ple. How­ev­er, Christo­pher­son says it is not always enforced. 

It’s not enough to strive to meet min­i­mum require­ments either, says Matt Webb, group head of dig­i­tal at LAB Group, who has decades of expe­ri­ence work­ing with tech­nol­o­gy providers. At the moment, too many tech devel­op­ers are work­ing towards the low­est pos­si­ble bar, he says. “So if some­one can’t use a fin­ger­print scan­ner, just give them a pass­word,” he says. “That kind of approach is a wor­ry.”

Technology companies gain from accessibility

There are many rea­sons tech­nol­o­gy com­pa­nies should want to make bio­met­ric authen­ti­ca­tion acces­si­ble, with­out being forced to do so. “It’s good for your brand and you’ve got the pur­ple pound,” says Christo­pher­son. “Acces­si­ble prod­ucts are not just eas­i­er for dis­abled peo­ple, they’re eas­i­er for every­one to use. Plus dis­abled users are mas­sive advo­cates for tech, so you have a real­ly invest­ed audi­ence.”

Tech­nol­o­gy com­pa­nies should be sup­port­ed in the process. “It’s about sup­port­ing organ­i­sa­tions [to cre­ate acces­si­ble prod­ucts],” accord­ing to Keir Haines, senior prod­uct design­er at Des­ignabil­i­ty, a char­i­ty that enables dis­abled peo­ple to live with greater inde­pen­dence. 

Offering choice of biometric identification

How can tech providers enrol dis­abled peo­ple in the devel­op­ment process? “It’s about build­ing on a more diverse frame­work at the begin­ning of the design process,” says Dr Louise Hick­man, senior research offi­cer at the Ada Lovelace Insti­tute. Acces­si­bil­i­ty should be woven in right from the start and not con­sid­ered as an after­thought, she says.

Hav­ing more diverse teams would also help. “Ide­al­ly in the devel­op­ment team, but def­i­nite­ly in the user test­ing,” adds Christo­pher­son. 

Anoth­er solu­tion is giv­ing users a choice when it comes to bio­met­ric acces­si­bil­i­ty and secu­ri­ty. One of the rec­om­men­da­tions from the MITRE report is to offer more than one bio­met­ric option for users. “Bio­met­rics best prac­tice is to offer a range of alter­na­tives so peo­ple can choose from a range of options,” says ten Brink. Users can then select the bio­met­ric option that suits them best.

Biometrics and the potential for disabled people

Bio­met­rics have the poten­tial to improve the lives of peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties. Christo­pher­son says that, as a blind per­son, he strug­gles to use CAPTCHA, which relies on images to deter­mine whether a user is human. “I’m often told I’m a robot,” he says. “But if CAPTCHA chal­lenges were replaced by bio­met­rics that would help a lot. For dis­abled peo­ple, bio­met­rics rep­re­sent a huge oppor­tu­ni­ty.”

Voice recog­ni­tion can be a game-chang­er for peo­ple with phys­i­cal dis­abil­i­ties or sight loss, while bio­met­ric logins, such as fin­ger­print, face or iris authen­ti­ca­tion, can work for peo­ple with phys­i­cal dis­abil­i­ties or those with dyslex­ia who might strug­gle to remem­ber pass­words. 

“Access­ing ser­vices in per­son can have addi­tion­al chal­lenges when you have a dis­abil­i­ty, so any­thing that allows you more access to ser­vices from wher­ev­er you are in the world is some­thing which helps peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties,” says ten Brink. 

But tech­nol­o­gy providers need to keep dis­abled peo­ple in mind when devel­op­ing bio­met­ric inno­va­tions. It’s impor­tant to make prod­ucts inclu­sive now. “If we don’t, then the only peo­ple who are going to be left using pass­words are the dis­abled because they’ve not been catered for,” says LAB Group’s Webb. 

It’s not just peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties who will ben­e­fit from more usable prod­ucts. “It’s in everyone’s best inter­ests to design with peo­ple with dis­abil­i­ties in mind because you’re gen­er­al­ly mak­ing your prod­ucts bet­ter,” Scol­lan at MITRE con­cludes.