Technical Guidelines
Development Committee (TGDC)
Human Factors and Privacy Subcommittee (HFP)*
Agenda:
1. Administrative updates
(Eustis)
2. Discussion of usability benchmark white paper revisions and additional
reproducibility research (
3. Review VVSG HFP to-do
list for final revisions by John Cugini. (See Below)
4. Other issues
The next HFP teleconference
is scheduled for Friday July 20 at
Attendees: Alexia Scott
Morrison, Allan Eustis, John Cugini, John Wack, Mark Skall, Nelson Hastings, Sharon Laskowski, Wendy Havens
Administrative Updates:
·
The
agenda for the July 3rd plenary meeting has been re-scheduled for
August 17. 2007 (
·
There
will be a new version of the draft VVSG available well in advance- probably by
the end of next week (
Usability benchmark white paper revisions update and
additional reproducibility research:
·
In a review of the benchmarks and white paper, the
NIST team consensus determined that it was important to articulate the
methodology and expand with an executive summary that explains in layman’s
terms the meaning of the benchmarks. The white paper is going out to usability
experts in the Federal government for a technical review.
·
NIST team discussed performing additional usability
studies to confirm benchmarks. The plan is to conduct additional testing in
·
Updated paper will be re-circulated after peer
review. Expect 2-3 week turn around.
·
MS asked for time frame on additional testing. SL
gave best case scenario for completion at the end of September. The paperwork
reduction act paper work may need to be updated.
·
MS noted the suggestion to change the “shall”
requirements to “should” for the benchmarks since the testing will not be
complete when the VVSG draft is scheduled for delivery. The benchmarks could be updated during the
public review process after the research is complete and the ‘shoulds’ changed
to ‘shalls’.
·
SL noted questions from WQ on interpretation of
definition of “should’ in the benchmark context. MS noted that his
understanding is that you cannot fail a manufacturer on a testing benchmark
until the “should” is changed back to a “shall”. However, the testing is
mandated.
·
JC asked for clarification from an editorial
standpoint WRT twin requirements. The
VVSG requires reporting efficiency as a ‘shall’ in a completely different
section of the VVSG. “You shall conduct tests and report efficiency”. There is
no efficiency benchmark. So what we are really saying is that we will make the
effectiveness benchmark a ‘should’ but keep the number there until research is
complete.
·
SL noted parallel to efficiency benchmarks in
confidence in voting which are reported.
·
ASM felt comfortable with this approach if WQ and SL
are in agreement. SL will discuss with WQ.
·
MS noted that EAC indicated it would be appropriate
to change the “shoulds” to ‘shalls” in the public review process. The TGDC
adoption resolution could so specify the intent here.
·
SL noted the need to do further testing to ensure
that benchmarks are correct.
·
JW noted need to send out an e-mail to entire TGDC
on any outstanding issues from their perspective. NIST needs to know them
quickly. First, we will address WQ’s concerns.
Review VVSG HFP to-do list for final revisions by John Cuguni. (See Below):
Current
editing to-do list for HFP VVSG Draft
=============================================
Reconcile
repetitive sections 3.2.8.2 and 15.4.5 duplication of Maintenance requirements.
Proposal
is to delete 3.2.8.2 and put in a pointer to 15.4.5.
---------------------
Comment
from David Wagner:
- 3.2.6.1E voter inactivity time
different for blind/ low vision?
Analysis:
2 minutes is plenty we think. we don't think they would
take any longer finding the button to push on the tactile controls at
that granularity.
It might
be worth clarifying that the 2 minute period starts after the prompt has
finished (not from the last voter action).
Would need to re-define "voter inactivity time" -- small fix
but worth doing.
AE noted
concern of B. Williams for voter time requirements. (will
send out). U.S> access board noted that 2 minutes was a lot of time. SL
noted that we will leave it for now, pending further comment, and will be the
same as for audio ballot.
---------------------
Comment
from David Wagner:
-
3.2.2D notification of ballot casting, which now has new wording from after
the plenary. Wagner notes a similar
issue for poll workers: can the poll worker tell if voter successfully
cast? Any need to change wording
further?
This also
may be worth clarifying - it probably was the original intent. We have to think
about scenarios, however -- VEBD vs. PCOS -- and the preservation of privacy.
---------------------
Check
wording and measurements in accessibility figures e.g
label for fig. 3 says 254 mm, but diagram says 255 and inches and mm are not
numbered in the figures. JC will change to be consistent with reference to U.S.
Access Board for hard conversion.
---------------------
Resolve
all references - both to external sources and internal XREFs.
---------------------
Meeting adjourned at
[*
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. This teleconference discussion serves 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 telecon
are preliminary and do not necessarily reflect the views of NIST or the TGDC.]