June 14, 2016 UXC Meeting Page

USER EXPERIENCE COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

• Mary Hodder
• Ellen Nadeau
• Jim Zok
• Bev Corwin
• Noreen Whysel
• Tom Jones
• Jim Kragh
• Paul Knight
• Linda Braun, Global Inventures

Meeting Notes

• Mary Hodder led the call. Notes taken by Linda Braun
• Meeting was called to order at 12:06p.m. ET
• IPR policy reminder:

http://www.idesg.org/portals/0/documents/governance/IDESG%20IPR-Policy.pdf

• Recording policy:

https://workspace.idesg.org/kws/groups/idesg_members/download.php/475/Recording_Policy_Conduct_at_IDESG_Meetings[1].pdf

• Roll call.
• Quorum was met.

Minutes

• Action items from previous meetings
  • Update requirements and SG for July 15, 2016 (need clarity on date).
  • Adding transparency in supplemental guidance
  • Create another page for UX review of other committee’s requirements.
  • Jamie to send SME write-up. Completed.
• Guidelines and Self-assessment metrics page (Noreen Whysel).
• https://wiki.idesg.org/wiki/index.php/User_Experience_Guidelines_Metric
• Noreen has a working document on Google and suggested we review at the next meeting, June 21.
• https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KWDmd9wkIPMSgedpfL0k_UM6AOD740mgNHnzAw8iSaw/edit?usp=sharing. *She has been looking at guidelines that some government organizations use.
  • Privacy Committee – the two design pattern documents sent to Privacy have not had any feedback.
  • At Plenary, there was an inter-committee meeting about how all committees will work together, including TFTM’s next activities. The Board wants to have a Business Plan in place within the next few weeks. Build the next version of the IDEF Registry including third party registration are some tactics. The original Business Plan was developed without a lot of information about the IDEF Registry. Kelly Sullivan, the government rep to the Board, USPS, has a process that the Board will be using – answer nine questions about the organization and the product. Third party certification/assessment has been discussed a lot. For third party assessors we could charge a licensing fee. All this needs to be figured out.
  • Mary did a presentation on the Registry at the Plenary. It was well received and people commented on a good job and the value of the product.
  • There are five organizations on the IDESG Website who have completed the self-assessment.
• Mary took the team to the website to show them the listing, in particular Tozny, LLC. A discussion took place about the five categories that the companies assessed to. Some of the comments included: Categories are artificial. The pie chart information for each category does not add up correctly. The UX needs work. What are the organizations evaluating against, a product or category? It is product, followed by categories. This is a not an accurate picture. Need to refactor and present information in a better manner. Need to do a UX evaluation of this site. Put this at the top of this list to do this. It might be more informative to look at a company where only one category is being tested. Need to figure out how the audience is for this page. Tozny is not yet open for business yet – the implementation is underway and shows that they are underway in their implementation. A transparency solution mark was coined as the completed mark. They plan to launch at the end of the summer. The categorization information is not helpful. If you are showing a percentage of compliance, that is misleading to the public. Tozny is currently in beta and is developing a personal data service. They want to show themselves as having implemented to the IDESG framework. Showing partial completion of self-assessment was not a problem to some folks on the call, but it was to others. The site should differentiate products that are completed and available to the public from those that are partially completed and not yet launched. There could be a sort for launched versus non-launched products, small versus large companies. The IDEF Registry team will go back and figure out the best approach going forward as there wasn’t enough time prior to launch to do this work. Also, need to include the version number of the product from each organization that they have attested to.
  • Tom Jones had created a list of categories (spreadsheet) that the team reviewed. This list may be useful to review as it appears to be a realistic list of categories that organizations use.
  • Morpho Trust uses two products that they are attesting to and their answer is confusing against Interop-02 is confusing. Jim Kragh offered comments from a Healthcare perspective on registration.
• Ongoing Action Items
  • Update Reqs and SG for July 15, 2016
  • Consider insertions of the word "transparency" in supplemental guidance.
  • Create another page(s) for UX review of other committees’ requirements
• Next regular meeting June 21, 2016.

Adjourn

• Adjourn: Meeting was adjourned at 1.00p.m. ET