Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Adam Ambrogi (EAC), Alexis Scott-Morrison, Alice Miller, Allan Eustis,
David Baquis, David Flater, John Cugini, John Wack, Nelson Hastings, Philip
Pearce, Sharon Laskowski, Thelma Allen, Wendy Havens, Whitney Quesenbery
Eustis called the meeting to order at 11:03 a.m.
- Welcome to
new participants Philip Pearce (TDGC nominee representing the Access
Board) and Thelma Allen (NIST)
Updates - John Wack
- Security part
of the VVSG effort is kind of reorganizing and has sent out basic
assumptions about voting systems that security is going to go by and
they have been forwarded to the NIST people
- We've been
talking about the ease which security controls should be understood
and used by voters
- HFP will
see more drafts from security in the future for comments, noting
the more usable the security is the more it will be used
- Mark Skall
and Barbara Guttman will attend the Election Center Conference in
- There will
be a TDGC Plenary Meeting in December 4th and 5th 2006.
- AE - Efforts
to observe the auditing and certification procedures in some of the
remaining state primaries, NIST people will be making efforts to attend
upcoming primary activities in Maryland and DC.
- Sharon met
with AIG Design for Democracy Team doing usability studies of ballot
designs and signage for the EAC
- The have
been using the ballots of moderate complexity that we designed
for our usability tests for their tests
they will validate our results
- AIG working
on report for their first round of testing
Usability and Accessibility Section
- We are currently
circulating the next draft
- Working on
and editing in detail for the next few weeks
- John Cugini
sent out outline as well
- Document has
embedded a table of contents just for the section including the requirements
as well; this TOC should match what's in the document
requested - Changes/comments have been noted in [JC brackets].
The comments at top are general purpose regarding the philosophy of
creating the new draft. Please note content and structure, not formatting
at this time. Comments can be submitted in any format, whatever is
easiest for member, to the HFP mailing list. Please use headers and
be specific about section numbers. Not necessarily will all changes
be made; however, changes by individuals will be collected as open
issues and discussed as a group for possible consensus.
- David B isn't
on the email reflector. We need to make sure that we get access board
comments. He should be added.
ITEM: Wendy to add David Baquis to HFP subcommittee reflector list.
- Whitney - Question
to John C - it appears your first question is about levels and organizations
and whether it worked at the low level. Looking at the index it appears
that a good job has been done. The advantage to the new flat structure
is that it is easy to scan the TOC and find everything.
- John C - this
level organization is a VVSG-wide thing (The TDGC agreed to this organization
at their last meeting) and effort has been put into it. We felt that
our material fitted very well into this new structure.
- Alexis has reviewed
new draft in new format and commented that everything flowed well
and was understandable. The new structure is better for someone taking
a first look at it and know that the standards exist and can find
- Sharon NOTE:
Whole section added on clear language based on "best practices".
- John Wack NOTE:
Regarding John Cugini's format, please review only for content, not
presentation, fonts, etc. It is not in the official template.
- John Cuguni
- Question about whether these apply to the voting process as a whole,
including polling place procedures, versus just the voting equipment.
Last we were told was to limit it to equipment. The implication is
that the current VVSG says the voting process shall be opened to the
blind. It's put out as a "shall" but a very high level "shall".
That requirement went away. Currently it looks at things that support
- Whitney - At
the last TDGC meeting we discussed that there should be guidance for
poll workers. Not sure where this leaves us.
- John Wack -
From feedback of others with experience on this matter, that the requirements
have to be considered in the procedures. We're writing requirements
that pertain to equipment and procedures and it's OK to mention supporting
- John Cugini
- Limiting the strict requirements to the equipment because they are
intended to be applied in a test lab. It's important to keep the process
separate - either in this document or in a separate document.
- Whitney - Before
we had a requirement that said the process should have a lofty goal.
Changed to say that this group of requirements is in support of a
process, end goal. We should keep this in mind. The requirements have
- David B - Make
sure we clarify what are recommendations that support the requirement.
- Sharon - We're
looking at the context to why we did this.
- John Cugini
- For each requirement there is a discussion section to lets people
know how to meet the requirement. Any substantive change to the document
has been noted.
- David B - Does
the context impact the implementation? Is it a step back in not actually
requiring that it be implemented in a certain way? Without requiring
it specifically it may not happen?
- Whitney - Don't
think we can make certain requirements about where to put the equipment
in the polling. All we can test in the lab is possibilities about
where it can be placed, we don't know if the election official will
actually do it.
- Adam - These
topics are getting into subjects that will be discussed by the EAC's
Election Management Guidelines. We have a polling place set up and
an accessability place will be included. A lot of things can't be
covered by the voting system standards that are important to the accessibility
function of voting.
- John Wack -
Best to include more information than not. Perhaps go to some states
that are going through this quickly and look at the requirements and
looking at a particular piece of equipment and whether the requirements
that it satisfies also match with their procedures. Something in the
discussion about "this would best be used.."
and Sharon feel we should look at these on a case by case basis.
- Whitney - How
are we going to proceed with this? Suggestion is to go through it
section by section and move through the document in the next several
meetings, making specific notes about things that can't be worked
out at the meeting and come back to those later. This way we can check
off sections at a time so that we know what has been completed. Consensus
Sharon will send out email for the sections to be discussed at the
next meeting - September 8.
- John Wack -
Question about updating the VVPAT requirements to maintain privacy
of stored paper records. Paper roll systems actually violate the privacy
requirements. We need to put out a draft saying that paper records
must be stored in such a way that they do not violate voter privacy.
The HFP's requirements (Section 3.28) on privacy would apply to both
electronic and paper storage.
- Sharon -
We need to look at VVPAT carefully and make those connections.
We may want to put in prose in the discussion section so that
the section requirements point to each other.
- John Cugini
- It could also be added as a sub-requirement.
- NOTE: These
drafts are pre-decisional.
- Alexis - Likes
the idea of not using "shall" outside the actual requirements.
Helps to get rid of confusion.
- Sharon - Question
to Adam about setting up discussion regarding alternative language.
- Adam, Sharon,
and John Cugini to talk off line with Brian Hancock and Tom Wilke.
- John Wack -
John C. is using class structure that David Flater initiated. An example
is on line.
David Flater will send out email with URL for class structure. Sharon
would like people's opinion on this.
Next Telecon on September 8, 2006, at 2:00 p.m.
at 11:37 a.m.
to NIST HAVA Page
Last updated: July 25, 2007
Point of Contact
policy / security notice / accessibility statement
NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department