May 24, 2016 UXC Meeting Page

USER EXPERIENCE COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES

Attendees:

• Mary Hodder
• Ellen Nadeau
• Jim Zok
• 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 12:07p.m. ET
• Meeting Notes: No minutes approved this week.
• 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

• Standards
  • Mary has asked for a copy of the third standard on usability and is waiting for a response. The two standards applications have not yet been completed.
• SALS ATO WG
  • The new proposed name for SALS is IDEF Registry. A few members of the WG got together recently. Noreen will be wrapping up the IDEF Registry work in the next two weeks. We have until July to do the self-assessment metrics work and we can pull her back into this work shortly. On June 6 we are launching the IDEF Registry. We could ask Noreen to come to our next meeting on May 31 to discuss the self-assessment work, define the deliverable which is targeted for mid-to-late July.
  • Just prior to the start of the meeting, Tom Jones sent the UXC an email about the User Experience Guidelines Metrics wiki page. It was pointed out that the “User Experience Guidelines Metrics” wiki page seems to be the next doc to resuscitate. It had originally been titled “User Experience Trust Metrics” and the target reader was originally a user experience researcher. The target reader for the current incarnation is less clear. The section titled “What is the baseline?” says: “Improving the security, privacy, usability, and interoperability of everyday online transactions” and that seems to be more like a goal. The following suggestion was made: This document is designed to inform any developer of a user experience that wishes to acquire the IDESG Trust Mark on the functional requirements and best practices to achieve certification. Tom had asked where the Functional requirements are posted and they are here: **https://wiki.idesg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Baseline_Functional_Requirements_v1.0#Usability and
  • A discussion followed: One of the concerns by the board and the TFTM is to make sure that people see the user distinction, whether they will or not is a different story.
  • The metrics page is meant to address UX Researchers and the people who might direct or affirm those who should do a study. If 70% of users come back and say the language is clear, which is desired by the FMO and the rest of IDESG, we have been successful.
  • There seems to be two different audiences, post and pre defector. The team took what Tom had originally written and went back to it and flushed out both user categories (before development and after development when self-attesting). However, we could split those pieces out into two.
  • We need to be clear on what the page is for – the developer or the researcher. Who do we want to read this information? We want it to be accessible to both, which is hard.
  • On the page, we were demonstrating the ways to do research and the ways we would give our blessing to do both. We could split the page and refactor it.
  • In the environment of a big organization, it would be better to have two separate pages. What content would we pull out for the developer? Tom said he could send links to material specific for developers. Tom developed the Windows UX Developers Guidelines.
  • We talked with the marketing group about writing up materials for specific groups, for developers, for marketing and for UX types. We could include some language that includes developers versus user experience people.
  • FMO looked at the page and thought it could be a helpful way to give guidance to cross organizations. It could be applied beyond the usability baseline requirements that are stated. Supporting those, would be the first step.
  • Action: Tom Jones to send example URLs to some of the work he has done for developers.
  • Action: Mary to contact Noreen Whysel about joining the May 31 UXC meeting.
• Liaison Report:
  • Tom Jones is contributing to NIST to create a federated cloud ID.
  • Privacy Evaluation Subcommittee meeting for today is cancelled.
• ID2020 Event
  • Mary attended the ID2020 event last Friday. She spoke about the IDEF Registry. There were a lot of speakers in the morning. They had examples of why 1.8B people don’t have legal identity which often happens because of human trafficking. Mary was the only one who gave a session about any kind of certification for frameworks.
• Operational Manual
  • The Operational Manual to be used by the IDESG person who is running the registry has been rewritten. Mary asked if UXC should review.
  • Action: Mary to send the Operational Manual to the team for a quick individual review.
• New Action Items
  • Tom Jones to send example URLs to some of the work he has done for developers.
  • Mary to contact Noreen Whysel about joining the May 31 UXC meeting.
  • Mary to send the Operational Manual to members of the UXC.
• 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
  • Waiting on Jamie's write up on SME requests - UX work in or 3 different SME reqs
• Next regular meeting May 31, 2016.

Adjourn

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