Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC)
telecon is scheduled for: Friday, April 20, 2007 at 11 AM ET
Attendees: Alexa Scott-Morrison, Alice Miller, Allan Eustis, Barbara Guttman, Bill Burr, David Baquis (U.S. Access Board), David Wagner, John Cugini, John Kelsey, John Wack, Mat Masterson (EAC), Nelson Hastings, Paul Miller, Ron Rivest, Sharon Laskowski, Sharon Turner-Buie, Steve Freeman (NVLAP), Tricia Mason, Wendy Havens, Whitney Quesenbery
Updates (Allan Eustis):
Bar Code Requirements:
of the discussion today was to help the HFP subcommittee come to a conclusion
on a recommendation about barcodes for the purpose of usability and accessibility.
At the last HFP meeting, it was suggested that they be used with assistive
technology with three constraints:
After the last meeting Secretary Gale . put out feelers to election officials about their input on this issue. The response indicated that election officials didn't see any reason that a system that utilizes bar codes shouldn't be certified.
David Wagner of the STS subcommittee wanted to separate the use of bar codes for recounts and audits from use of bar codes for accessibility. He also stated that bar codes must be able to be turned off or on depending on the user. David has two main concerns. First, not sure if the bar codes accomplish much, there could be the same problem that is caused by generating audio read back from electronic memory (there is a possibility for mismatched data), and second, if we put the information in for accessibility and it contains ballot choice information, then there will be temptation to use it for audits and recounts.
Ron Rivest of STS pointed out if you have the same information in two different formats on the same sheet, you have to audit a portion of this to make sure the information is being generated correctly. Ron supports the use of barcodes as long as the vendor supplies an open source for scanning. Barcodes should be readable but machines from different vendors than the voting machines.
At the end of the discussion it was decided that draft recommendations would be written. These draft requirements would include:
At the last teleconference vote-by-phone was discussed and Sharon took it to the EAC to find out about certification. The conclusion from the EAC certification manual is that a whole system has to be submitted for certification - you cannot certify components. Therefore, if you wanted to submit vote-by-phone as an accessible system, it must be submitted in entirety with documentation and the rest of the system to make it a complete accessible system. In order for a system to be certified as an ACC-VS, it must meet all the requirements in the accessibility chapter of the VVSG. There are no further action items on this issue.
The purpose of this discussion was to set the agenda for next week's meeting. Accessibility and usability testing is something new to the test labs. They have been discovering issues when testing systems, such as in the mobility accessibility testing and the audio speed testing. Whitney was concerned that testers are not certified to test for accessibility and usability. The current standards seem to be missing details in test methods.
for next week: What can NIST do to generate test methods in this stage
to make sure enough repeatability is capable (how do we write clear requirements).
Also, there is an upcoming summit on costs of testing systems. Possible
discussion of HFP's input for summit.
[* 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.]
policy / security notice / accessibility statement