Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC)
Human Factors and Privacy Subcommittee (HFP)*
July 13, 2007, 11:00 a.m.


1. Administrative updates (Eustis)

2. Discussion of usability benchmark white paper revisions and additional
reproducibility research (Sharon)

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 11AM ET

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 (11:30 am EDT).  The reason for the change in date was to allow NIST to more fully examine some open issues in both security and human factors to insure the best outcome for the plenary. Want to discuss today to make sure we are on the same page and approach closure.

·         There will be a new version of the draft VVSG available well in advance- probably by the end of next week (July 20, 2007)

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 Denver and Chicago first with 100 subjects per location for a total of 650 subjects for the usability benchmarks.  This will ensure that chosen demographics give good reproducibility.

·         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 and 15.4.5 duplication of Maintenance requirements.

Proposal is to delete and put in a pointer to 15.4.5.




Comment from David Wagner:

- 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 11:47 am.



[* 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.]