Attendees: Alexis Scott-Morrison, Alice Miller, Allan Eustis, Ben Long, David Flater, John Cugini, John Wack, Nelson Hastings, Sharon Laskowski, Tricia Mason, Wendy Havens, Whitney Quesenbery, Ben Long
Discussion of Proposed Edits to the VVSG (John Cugini):
John Cugini had passed out a list of HFP issues raised at the December 2006 TGDC meeting. The subcommittee reviewed each issue:
3.1.3 - HAVA and VVSG. After drafting this general overview section, there is nothing specific to HFP. It should be moved to the general introduction by CRT, but HFP should put comment in about where it is. Change "voting equipment" to "voting system" (BE CONSISTENT), as voting system includes documentation and we are discussing what you get complete from the vendor.
3.2.2 - Clarify that when a voter receives a warning about under or overvoting that they are given the chance to fix the problem after the warning.
3.2.3-C - Should the specific guidelines point out that the plain language requirement is only for English and may not apply to other languages? Subcommittee feels this should be left alone.
3.2.4-C - Should all voter settings be adjustable throughout the voting session? Subcommittee feels that there should be "on demand" choices, but that the "switching mode" option should be a start over option. John Wack to ask EAC if we can pass this suggestion around and bring up at ITAA vendor meeting to get feedback.
3.2.4-E - Requirements should mandate at least two font size choices on all editable systems (not just accessible equipment).
3.2.4-H - Visual access to VVPAT. The goal would be if you make a selection on one piece of equipment, that it follows through to the next such as the printer. This will be discussed at joint meeting with STS regarding VVPAT. However, the requirement about physical posture of reaching both voting system and printer should remain.
3.2.4-J - Requirements should mandate at least two contrast settings on all editable systems (not just accessible equipment).
18.104.22.168 - Timing issues. Should we make a requirement about keyboard response time? No, not unless it proves to be a problem during testing. However, change the requirement to read "voter inactivity time" instead of "system response time".
22.214.171.124-D - Change "system activity indicator" to "system response indicator".
126.96.36.199-E - Voter inactivity time. Should we specify a time? If we did it would have to be on the high end. Leave as is for now.
188.8.131.52-A.4 - No receipts. We need to add a requirement stating that a receipt shall not be able to provide proof to another about how someone voted.
3.2.8 - Usability for poll workers. Should we mandate a state option whereby a poll worker could specify a state for which a system should be configured? NO.
184.108.40.206-A - Change "average" poll worker to "typical" poll worker.
220.127.116.11-B - Maintenance documentation requirement should be taken out and covered in documentation section of VVSG.
18.104.22.168-A - Should we change the regulations to reference and IEC standard? No, leave as is. We should state that systems must meet Federal Standards that are available.
22.214.171.124-B - Is the "elimination of hazards" section redundant? Leave in for now until further research is conducted.
3.3.5-B - Allowance for an assistant. Clarify spacing issues stating "adequate physical access".
Next meeting will be a joint HFP/STS subcommittee meeting on February 9, 2007.
[*Pursuant to the Help America Vote Act of 2002, the TGDC is charged with directing NIST in performing voting systems research so that the TGDC can fulfill its role of recommending technical standards for voting equipment to the EAC. These teleconferences serve the purposes of the HFP subcommittee of the TGDC to direct NIST staff and coordinate its voting-related research relevant to the VVSG 2007. Discussions on this teleconference are preliminary and do not necessarily reflect the views of NIST or the TGDC.]
policy / security notice / accessibility statement