+8 Customer Experience Considerations
---+8.1 Usability
------+8.1.1 Common Usability Considerations for Authenticators
------+8.1.2 Usability Considerations by Authenticator Type
---------+8.1.2.1 Passwords
---------+8.1.2.2 Look-Up Secrets
---------+8.1.2.3 Out-of-Band
---------+8.1.2.4 Single-Factor OTP
---------+8.1.2.5 Multi-Factor OTP
---------+8.1.2.6 Single-Factor Cryptographic Authenticator
---------+8.1.2.7 Multi-Factor Cryptographic Authenticator
------+8.1.3 Summary of Usability Considerations
------+8.1.4 Usability Considerations for Biometrics
---+8.2 Customer Success Considerations

8 Customer Experience Considerations

This section is informative.

To align with the standard terminology of user-centered design, customer experience, and usability, the term “user” is used throughout this section to refer to the human party. In most cases, the user in question will be the subject in the role of applicant, claimant, or subscriber. Customer experience sits at the nexus of usability, accessibility, and optionality. Considering user needs allows organizations to provide responsive and secure identity solutions while minimizing unnecessary friction and frustration.

1. Přehled

Název Standard
8.1 Usability

[ISO/IEC9241-11] defines usability as the “extent to which a system, product, or service can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use.” This definition focuses on users, their goals, and the contexts of use as the key elements necessary for achieving effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, and usability.

A user’s goal when accessing an information system is to perform an intended task. Authentication is the function that enables this goal. However, from the user’s perspective, authentication stands between them and their intended task. Effective design and implementation of the authentication process makes it easy to do the right thing, hard to do the wrong thing, and easy to recover if the wrong thing happens.

Organizations need to be cognizant of the overall implications of their stakeholders’ entire digital authentication ecosystem. Users often employ multiple authenticators, each for a different RP. They then struggle to remember passwords, recall which authenticator goes with which RP, and carry multiple physical authentication devices. Evaluating the usability of authentication is critical, as poor usability often results in coping mechanisms and unintended workarounds that can ultimately degrade the effectiveness of security controls.

Integrating usability into the development process can lead to authentication solutions that are secure and usable while still addressing users’ authentication needs and organizations’ business goals. The impacts of usability across digital systems needs to be considered as part of the risk assessment when deciding on the appropriate AAL. Authenticators with a higher AAL sometimes offer better usability and should be allowed for use with lower AAL applications.

Leveraging federation for authentication can alleviate many usability issues, though such an approach has its trade-offs, as discussed in [SP800-63C].

This section provides general usability considerations and possible implementations but does not recommend specific solutions. The implementations mentioned are examples that encourage innovative technological approaches to address specific usability needs. Furthermore, usability considerations and their implementations are sensitive to many factors that prevent a one-size-fits-all solution. For example, a font size that works in a desktop computing environment may force text to scroll off of a small OTP authenticator screen. Performing a usability evaluation on the selected authenticator is a critical component of implementation. It is important to conduct evaluations with representative users, set realistic goals and tasks, and identify appropriate contexts of use.

Guidelines and considerations are described from the users’ perspective.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [Section508] was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology and require federal agencies to make electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities. While these guidelines do not directly assert requirements from Section 508, identity service providers are expected to comply with Section 508 provisions. Beyond compliance with Section 508, federal agencies and their service providers are generally expected to design services and systems with the experiences of people with disabilities in mind to ensure that accessibility is prioritized throughout identity system life cycles.

8.2 Customer Success Considerations

A primary aspect of customer experience is anticipating the needs of the user population and offering authenticator options that are suitable for that population. Some examples of authenticator suitability problems are:

SMS-based out-of-band authentication may not be usable for subscribers in rural areas without mobile phone service.
OTP authenticators may be difficult to read for subscribers with vision issues.
Out-of-band authentication secrets sent via a voice telephone call may be difficult to understand for subscribers with hearing issues.
Some facial matching algorithms may not perform equally well for all user populations.
Some subscribers may have conditions that interfere with fingerprint collection, such as missing fingers, degraded fingerprints (e.g., from working with chemicals or extensively using their hands), or dexterity problems.
The cost of hardware-based authenticators may be beyond the means of some subscribers.
Accurate manual entry of passwords may be difficult for subscribers with mobility and dexterity-related physical disabilities.
Certain authenticator types may be challenging for subscribers with intellectual, developmental, learning, or neurocognitive difficulties.
Lower-income subscribers are less likely to have up-to-date devices that are required by some authentication modes.
Subscribers with less technological skill may need help to enter OTP codes from one device to another.
The small form factor of some authenticators may pose challenges for certain users, such as senior citizens and individuals with dexterity challenges.

While CSPs are required to mitigate common and expected problems in this area, it is not feasible to anticipate all potential customer experience problems, which will vary for different applications. Accordingly, CSPs need to provide mechanisms for subscribers to report challenges with authentication requirements and advise them on potential alternative authentication strategies.

1.1 Odkazy

1.2 Identifikované požadavky

1.3 Související regulace

2. Identifikované požadavky

Požadavky
Zdroj Požadavek

3. Související regulace

Regulace
Zdroj Regulace
  • NIST -

    EN: Publications of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, https://www.nist.gov/, from their electronic versions (OSCAL; SP 800-63-4 from its HTML version, https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/). Works of NIST employees are not subject to copyright protection in the United States (17 U.S.C. § 105); the OSCAL content is dedicated to the public domain worldwide (CC0 1.0); outside the United States NIST grants the right to reprint its technical series publications in all formats (NIST copyright statement). Republished courtesy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology; each document names its citation. Divided into sections and converted into the GRCA format, the wording unchanged. Only the versions published by NIST are authoritative.

    DE: Veröffentlichungen des National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), U.S. Department of Commerce, https://www.nist.gov/, aus ihren elektronischen Fassungen (OSCAL; SP 800-63-4 aus ihrer HTML-Fassung, https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/). Werke von NIST-Beschäftigten sind in den USA urheberrechtlich nicht geschützt (17 U.S.C. § 105); die OSCAL-Inhalte sind weltweit gemeinfrei gestellt (CC0 1.0); außerhalb der USA räumt das NIST das Recht ein, seine Technical-Series-Publikationen in allen Formaten neu zu veröffentlichen (Copyright-Hinweis des NIST). „Republished courtesy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology“; jedes Dokument nennt seine Zitierangabe. In Abschnitte aufgeteilt und in das GRCA-Format umgewandelt, der Wortlaut unverändert. Maßgeblich sind allein die vom NIST veröffentlichten Fassungen.