Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC)
Human Factors and Privacy Subcommittee (HFP)*
June 1, 2007
Draft Minutes


1. Administrative Updates (Allan Eustis)
2. Discussion of edits in response to TGDC plenary meeting. The newest version of our chapter is attached.
3. Issues of confusion in public comments:
- have strengthened partial vision requirements
- "requests for assistance" as a separate metric would have been desirable, but the cost (in terms of extra testing) was prohibitive. end-to-end accessibility and usability benchmark of errors for VS (not Acc-VS) do measure some of this characteristic
- pros/cons of bar codes to help with human readable text--> issue discussed and settled,
4. Performance metrics status, explanatory writeups needed
5. Other issues

Attendees:  Alexis Scott-Morrison, Allan Eustis, David Flater, John Cugini, John Gale, Mat Masterson (EAC), Nelson Hastings, Sharon Laskowski, Wendy Havens, Whitney Quesenbery

Administrative Updates (Allan Eustis): 

  • The public plenary teleconference of the TGDC is scheduled for July 3, starting at 11:30 a.m.  It should last 3-4 hours.
  • We have added a link to the public comments received on the VVSG to the main voting web page
  • We are in the process of creating a spreadsheet that will be posted on the TGDC site that is a collated chart showing all comments received and their disposition.
  • Reminder:  EAC will have a formal public comment process when the VVSG is delivered to them.

Discussion of VVSG Edits (John Cugini):

  • A lot of the VVSG material that was previously bracketed has gone away after the May plenary because the material was accepted by the TGDC.
  • Comments at the front of the chapter are the same as always.
  • HFP has been waiting for a customized version of the CIF which is still not available as it will be part of the test method worked after the VVSG is delivered.  The placeholder in the chapter will be removed.
  • Overall Effectiveness – still waiting for benchmarks
  • Notification of Ballot Casting:  David Flater of CRT suggested new wording (similar to what was in VVSG 05) stating that not only would a voter get an indication of a vote was cast successfully but also one if a vote was not cast successfully.  (These notifications are critical – if they do not work correctly, systems will not be certified.)  John Cugini will use David’s wording also adding a discussion point about falsifiability being a different test.
  • Editable Interfaces – clarified scope
  • Privacy at Polls:  The words “when deployed” were removed.  David Flater pointed out that CRT was adding a statement under general requirements that says the requirements of the product standard in terms of what is supposed to be delivered in functionality and performance is based on the assumption that the system is deployed, calibrated, and tested as per the instructions of the vendor. 
  • Privacy at Polls:  Ron Rivest’s concerns about the wording over “with cooperation of voter” will be discussed offline.
  • Low Vision and Legibility:  There are new legibility requirements.  There is confusion over the phrase “partial or low vision” used in the accessibility section.  It will be changed to read “partial vision” throughout this section.  The phrase “poor vision” will continue to be used in the usability section.
  • Auditability of Records for English Readers: There was discussion whether this should be changed to read “primary language of the jurisdiction”.  It was decided to leave this as is and the topic will be brought up to EAC and the Standards Board for discussion.
  • Safety Certification: Citation change only
  • Accessibility Throughout Voting Session:  Just a note that the vendor documentation requirement was moved to Vol. IV.
  • Partial vs. Low Vision: Not a new requirement.  The “partial or low vision” phrase will remain here, but changed to just “partial vision” throughout accessibility section.
  • Synchronized Audio and Video: There were public comments of concern over this requirement, but it was decided to leave as is.
  • Other Issue:  Alexis had a concern over whether in the magnifier required for low vision, if the vendor said certain magnifiers would work, would that be tested.  It was agreed that was the consensus.

Confusion in Public Comments:

  • There was confusion that since the requirement regarding two font sizes being available was moved to the usability section that it weakened the requirement under accessibility.  A pointer will be added to make sure this is not weakened.
  • HFP removed request for assistance metrics as they are too costly.
  • There was public confusion over the pros and cons of barcodes.  TGDC has reached a consensus on their use.


  • New data for the performance benchmarks is due in on Monday.
  • We need to put together explanations of our statistics, our approach, and our protocol.
  • We will make available the spreadsheets containing background data.

Next HFP meeting scheduled for Friday, June 8, 2007.

Meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

[* 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.]



Link to NIST HAVA Page

Last updated: July 25, 2007
Point of Contact

Privacy policy / security notice / accessibility statement
Disclaimer / FOIA
NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department