May 15, 2015 UXC Meeting Page: Difference between revisions

From IDESG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(created minutes)
 
(created minutes)
Line 5: Line 5:
*Ann Racuya-Robbins
*Ann Racuya-Robbins
*Suzanne Lightman
*Suzanne Lightman
*Ellen Nadeau
*Noreen Whysel
*Paul Knight
*Paul Knight
*Jamie Clark
*Jamie Clark
Line 11: Line 11:
<br />
<br />
'''Meeting Notes'''
'''Meeting Notes'''
* Recording Minutes; Recording Policy link (https://www.idecosystem.org/page/recording-policy-conduct-meetings)  
* Recording Minutes Recording Policy link (https://www.idecosystem.org/page/recording-policy-conduct-meetings) Linda to send a copy of the WebEx recording to Mary Hodder and Ann Racuya-Robbins.  
̶* Linda to send a copy of the WebEx recording to Mary Hodder and Ann Racuya-Robbins.  
* No prior minutes were posted for approval.
* No prior minutes were posted for approval.
* Current Work and Activities Discussion  
* Current Work and Activities Discussion  
̶ The UXC reviewed and commented on FMO’s feedback to the UXC requirements that was sent on May 12.


Mary asked about the results from the election for the UXC Secretary. Linda will send results from SurveyMonkey to Mary.
̶ UXC needs to agree on comments in bold. Requirements were delivered by FMO in a Word document and UXC will comment back in Word even though most people preferred to use Excel. Any edits to the changes/comments made by FMO are due May 22.


̶ The UXC continued in its review of FMO’s feedback to the UXC requirements that were sent on May 12.  Original submission was in Excel, FMO sent their feedback in Word.  FMO will be using Word documents going forward.  At that last meeting, the team looked at requirements and raised issues, walked through each 1 by 1.  Original number 1 requirement were split into two pieces.
Changes made here:
̶ Suzanne summarized comments:  Found issue with FMO replacement word for pathways.  Discussion on entities.  Roles discussed, being driven by TFTM.  Testing usability was OK.  While testing usability is good, UXC pointed out that it should not be our first priority.  Team discussed switching requirement priorities (1 and 2) and agreed to do so.
NEW NUMBER:  USABLE-1
OLD NUMBER:    UX-1 (portion, modified)
SHORT NAME:  USABILITY ASSESSMENT


̶ USABLE – 2 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (nonnormative):
REQUIREMENT STATEMENT (normative):  
̶ This requirement requires that entities confirm that they have responded to and remediated material*** defects raised by their usability assessment (other than trivial*** defects), but does not require a specific methodology or measurement approach.
Entities** MUST assess the usability of the [communications, interfaces, policies, data transactions and end-to-end processes] they provide and conduct in digital identity management functions.
̶ *** rather than define terms (either significant or material) give way to measure (measurements and methodology) by adding graphic from J. Nielsen on Severity Errors and Fixes (Noreen to add).


NEW NUMBER: USABLE-3
APPLIES TO ROLES: IDENTITY-PROVIDERS, RELYING-PARTIES, FEDERATIONS, USERS
OLD NUMBER:   UX-2
APPLIES TO ACTIVITY TYPES:  REGISTRATION, CREDENTIALING, AUTHENTICATION, AUTHORIZATION, INTERMEDIATION
SHORT NAME:  PLAIN LANGUAGE
OTHER KEYWORDS:  ASSESSMENT
 
REFERENCES AND GUIDANCE (nonnormative):
See "Usability Evaluation Methods" (US DHHS 2015):  http://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/usability-evaluation/index.html; Jakob Nielsen's Heuristics evaluation methodology, summarized at http://www.nngroup.com/topic/heuristic-evaluation/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_evaluation.
Normative Definitions (could be used in glossary for all requirements):
*Definition of processes or “pathways” TBD. 
** Expecting response from FMO re: humans v. non-humans definition in supplemental.  
- NOTE: could add guidance for error correction by end users for their assessment answers.


REQUIREMENT STATEMENT (normative):  
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (nonnormative):
̶ Information presented to USERS in digital identity management functions and transactions MUST be in plain language that is clear and easy for a general audience [or the transaction's identified target audience] to understand
Entities may satisfy this requirement by confirming that they have conducted a usability assessment of their digital identity management functions.  Other requirements and best practices in this set address their duty to mitigate issues identified in that assessment. 
̶ Supplementation guidance and requirements:  A number of the (shoulds) were changed to (must).  Mary went through each line and made the appropriate changes.
"Digital identity management functions" includes each of the functions described in the IDESG Functional Model (registration, credentialing, authentication, authorization, and intermediation), which also encompass enrollment, identity proofing, identity vetting, access control, attribute management, transaction processing, and identity data maintenance


NEW NUMBER: USABLE-4
NEW NUMBER:   USABLE-2
OLD NUMBER:   UX-3
OLD NUMBER: UX-1 (portion, modified) 
SHORT NAME:  NAVIGATION
SHORT NAME:  USABILITY PRACTICES


REQUIREMENT STATEMENT (normative):
Entities providing and conducting digital identity management functions or transactions MUST apply recognized, appropriate usability  guidelines and practices to the [communications, interfaces, policies and data transactions] they offer, and remediate significant*** defects identified by their usability assessment.
All choices, pathways* and solutions provided to USERS in digital identity management functions and transactions MUST be clearly identifiable by the user.
Pathways was added back to USABLE-4.


And to USABLE-1 added definition of pathways.
APPLIES TO ROLES:  IDENTITY-PROVIDERS, RELYING-PARTIES
APPLIES TO ACTIVITY TYPES:  REGISTRATION, CREDENTIALING, AUTHENTICATION, AUTHORIZATION, INTERMEDIATION
OTHER KEYWORDS:  ASSESSMENT, REMEDIATION


'''REFERENCES AND GUIDANCE''' (nonnormative):
REFERENCES AND GUIDANCE (nonnormative):
See "Usability Evaluation Methods" (US DHHS 2015):  http://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/usability-evaluation/index.html;  Jakob Nielsen's Heuristics evaluation methodology, summarized at http://www.nngroup.com/topic/heuristic-evaluation/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_evaluation.   
. See Jakob Nielsen's Heuristics list, summarized at http://www.nngroup.com/topic/heuristic-evaluation/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_evaluation.  See the "Usability Guidelines" database (US DHHS 2015): http://guidelines.usability.gov/   Consult the UXC Resources page located here for additional examples:  https://www.idecosystem.org/wiki/UXC_resources
Normative Definitions (could be used in glossary for all requirements):
* Definition of processes or “pathways” to be added: Pathways generally means that users understand where else the information will be use once entered. It also means a series of steps or sequence of choices that leads to intended result.   
** Expecting response from FMO re: humans v. non-humans definition in supplemental.


(Should) to (must) changes were made in the Supplemental Information.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (nonnormative):
This requirement requires that entities confirm that they have responded to and remediated material*** defects raised by their usability assessment (other than trivial*** defects), but does not require a specific methodology or measurement approach.
*** define term (either significant or material) and give way to measure (measurements and methodology)?


Meeting adjourned at 1:06p.m., EDT. Next regular meeting scheduled for May 22, 2015,    10:00 a.m. EDT.
Meeting adjourned at 1:32p.m., EDT. Next regular meeting scheduled for May 19, 2015. UXC will continue with the review/edit of this work.

Revision as of 19:25, 14 July 2015

USER EXPERIENCE COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES


Attendees:

  • Mary Hodder
  • Ann Racuya-Robbins
  • Suzanne Lightman
  • Noreen Whysel
  • Paul Knight
  • Jamie Clark
  • Linda Braun, Global Inventures


Meeting Notes

̶ The UXC reviewed and commented on FMO’s feedback to the UXC requirements that was sent on May 12.

̶ UXC needs to agree on comments in bold. Requirements were delivered by FMO in a Word document and UXC will comment back in Word even though most people preferred to use Excel. Any edits to the changes/comments made by FMO are due May 22.

Changes made here: NEW NUMBER: USABLE-1 OLD NUMBER: UX-1 (portion, modified) SHORT NAME: USABILITY ASSESSMENT

REQUIREMENT STATEMENT (normative): Entities** MUST assess the usability of the [communications, interfaces, policies, data transactions and end-to-end processes] they provide and conduct in digital identity management functions.

APPLIES TO ROLES: IDENTITY-PROVIDERS, RELYING-PARTIES, FEDERATIONS, USERS APPLIES TO ACTIVITY TYPES: REGISTRATION, CREDENTIALING, AUTHENTICATION, AUTHORIZATION, INTERMEDIATION OTHER KEYWORDS: ASSESSMENT

REFERENCES AND GUIDANCE (nonnormative): See "Usability Evaluation Methods" (US DHHS 2015): http://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/usability-evaluation/index.html; Jakob Nielsen's Heuristics evaluation methodology, summarized at http://www.nngroup.com/topic/heuristic-evaluation/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_evaluation. Normative Definitions (could be used in glossary for all requirements):

  • Definition of processes or “pathways” TBD.
    • Expecting response from FMO re: humans v. non-humans definition in supplemental.

- NOTE: could add guidance for error correction by end users for their assessment answers.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (nonnormative): Entities may satisfy this requirement by confirming that they have conducted a usability assessment of their digital identity management functions. Other requirements and best practices in this set address their duty to mitigate issues identified in that assessment. "Digital identity management functions" includes each of the functions described in the IDESG Functional Model (registration, credentialing, authentication, authorization, and intermediation), which also encompass enrollment, identity proofing, identity vetting, access control, attribute management, transaction processing, and identity data maintenance

NEW NUMBER: USABLE-2 OLD NUMBER: UX-1 (portion, modified) SHORT NAME: USABILITY PRACTICES

Entities providing and conducting digital identity management functions or transactions MUST apply recognized, appropriate usability guidelines and practices to the [communications, interfaces, policies and data transactions] they offer, and remediate significant*** defects identified by their usability assessment.

APPLIES TO ROLES: IDENTITY-PROVIDERS, RELYING-PARTIES APPLIES TO ACTIVITY TYPES: REGISTRATION, CREDENTIALING, AUTHENTICATION, AUTHORIZATION, INTERMEDIATION OTHER KEYWORDS: ASSESSMENT, REMEDIATION

REFERENCES AND GUIDANCE (nonnormative): . See Jakob Nielsen's Heuristics list, summarized at http://www.nngroup.com/topic/heuristic-evaluation/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic_evaluation. See the "Usability Guidelines" database (US DHHS 2015): http://guidelines.usability.gov/ Consult the UXC Resources page located here for additional examples: https://www.idecosystem.org/wiki/UXC_resources

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (nonnormative): This requirement requires that entities confirm that they have responded to and remediated material*** defects raised by their usability assessment (other than trivial*** defects), but does not require a specific methodology or measurement approach.

      • define term (either significant or material) and give way to measure (measurements and methodology)?

Meeting adjourned at 1:32p.m., EDT. Next regular meeting scheduled for May 19, 2015. UXC will continue with the review/edit of this work.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.idesg.org/index.php?title=May_15,_2015_UXC_Meeting_Page&oldid=4660"