UX Usability Requirements and Guidelines Working Document

Overall mission of UXC requirements: Human users shall be able to understand the need for any personal information and be enabled to supply it with the least disruption to their work flow at the service provider site.

1) HL Requirement: Information presented to users should be in plain language, which is clear and easy to understand. (Category: Usable language)

-Error messages should be expressed in plain language--no codes and indicate clearly the problem and constructively suggest a solution. (Jim)

-Platform conventions for words, actions and situations are consistent across the platform. (Jim)

-The system should speak the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. Follow real-world conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order. (Jim)

-One example is "privacy enhancing technology", way too geeky, research show that "privacy protection" is better understood by real users. (Tom)

-Organizations shall utilize identity solutions that are simple to understand, intuitive, easy to use, and enabled by technology that requires minimal user training. (Jim)

Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions. 
(Jim: applicable principles)

-Even better than good error messages is a careful design which prevents a problem from occurring in the first place. Either eliminate error-prone conditions or check for them and present users with a confirmation option before they commit to the action. (Jim: applicable principles)

-Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large. (Jim)

-Visibility of system status (Noreen: heuristics)

-Noreen says: possibly more appropriate under HL2, since it is more about the systems and process than about language and instruction -An indicator of the current trust state

-Example: persistent icon or login link state that serves as a counter part to the RPs state indicator (eg the lock icon in the location bar) -::Example use: text next to the Log Out link displaying current state (anonymous, pseudonym, verified ID) Idea: Look at theNounProject.com for icons that are relatively universal

-Use Control and Freedom (Noreen: heuristic) Noreen says: possibly more appropriate under HL2, since it is more about the systems and process than about language and instruction. -Initial state is anonymous -Plain language alerts when conditions change -All providers will be accessible and localized in English, Spanish and any other language expected to be encountered by a significant number of users. -Example: a process that requires a verified identity versus a switch to a less secure state where user would be prompted to change their status as they leave a secure state.

-Consistency and Standards (Noreen: heuristic) -Link to standards documentation so user understands specifically how each state of anonymity is defined, what the potential actions and outcomes are and the definitions of terms used.

-Example: If there are competing Trustmark standards, the terms, situations and actions should be disambiguated. -Define unique or ambiguous terms in the instructions before each action.

-Aesthetic and Minimalist Design (Noreen: heuristic)

-Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed.

-Noreen: This heuristic also includes layout and look/feel/branding, so isn't necessarily about language.

-Clear explanations should aim to mitigate cognitive overload for individuals.

2) HL Requirement: All choices, pathways, and solutions should be available and clearly identifiable by the user. (Category: Clarity of pathways, options, solutions)

-Organizations shall operate in a manner that allows individuals to easily switch service providers if the organization becomes insolvent, incapable of adhering to policies, or revises their terms of service. (Jim)

-This is too abstract. Let's say something more concrete, eg If an Identity or attribute provider fails to perform to user's expectations, the user will have an easy option to switch providers or policies. (Tom)

-Noreen says: I prefer the first statement. Users should be able to switch providers for any reason, whether or not they feel the provider fails.

When choosing an identity provider at an RP site, the available options are clearly presented so that a user can make an informed decision. (Ellen)

-Need to clarify that this requirement is about the initial choice - specifically the problem is that a user going to a site anonymously cannot be known to be a returning or a new user so the information displayed, like that on the IDESG main page itself needs to work well for both cases. What this means is that whatever is displayed by the RP needs to function for both returning and new users, that means the additional choices cannot down a returning user. One possible solution is a way for a user to ask for more general help if they need it, rather than to demand that the RP site clearly present options on the RP site itself.

- When a new user visits an RP site that requires identity, the user will have the option to request information about the need for more identity and the types of identity providers or frameworks that are acceptable

Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate. 
(Jim)

-This is the recognition vs recall heuristic noted below. (Noreen)

Dialogues should not contain information which is irrelevant or rarely needed. Every extra unit of information in a dialogue competes with the relevant units of information and diminishes their relative visibility. (Jim: applicable principles)

-While I agree with the thought - IMHO it is more important to make a positive statement rather than a negative statement - also dialog boxes do not fit with small form factor, like smart phones - eg The information needed by the user to understand any choice needs to be clearly visible in a single, visible window. (Tom)

-Agree should be worded positively: Only relevant and needed information should be presented. Also "dialog" doesn't have to mean "dialog box" it would be any part of the conversation happening between user and system. (Noreen)

-Users often choose system functions by mistake and will need a clearly marked ""emergency exit"" to leave the unwanted state without having to go through an extended dialogue. Support undo and redo. (Jim: applicable principles)

-More the point of IDESG - The user should be able to terminate an identified interchange at any time removing any identifiers and attributes that were supplied as a part of the interchange and revert to an anonymous state. (Tom)

-this is the Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors Heuristic (Noreen: heuristic)

-Clear pathways exist for users to procure desired services. (Ellen)

-The user can find the path to the identity service that they desire, such as: privacy options, identity caching, etc.

-User Control and Freedom (Noreen: heuristic) -Ability to initiate a change in anonymity, back out of a process, at any time

-Example: as above, a button or link that lets you log out or switch identities

-Error Prevention (Noreen: heuristic) -Use error messages, confirmation actions -Perform usability tests to eliminate any error prone actions -

-Example: "The following procedure requires a verified ID" "Are you sure you want to continue?"

-Recognition vs. Recall (Noreen: heuristic) -Jim touches on this. I can see situations where the process may hold details in memory during a session that could be revealed, as in "I see you like the color Blue," but I am not sure what a general case would be for this. Perhaps simply repeating what the system has learned about the user that could help with the next step? Using consistent icons, color coding. A link to My Account, maybe?

-Flexibility and efficiency of use (Noreen: heuristic) -This heuristic calls for Accelerators that help expert users speed up the interaction and allows the users to tailor frequent actions. A trusted process may be better slowed down, but registered (non-anonymous) users may prefer to skip past certain steps.

-Allow frequent users to save preferences.

-Allow users to skip non-essential steps or data inputs.

-Map inputs to local law, if a datapoint is illegal to ask for in a user's country, don't make it required for that user.

-Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors (Noreen: heuristic)

-As above, clear confirmation messages and restating inputs before completing the next action.

-Allow user to delete session information and start over.

Help and Documentation (Noreen: heuristic)

-Link to help text explaining what the states mean.

-Examples: Definition of the Trustmark is presented sufficiently well so that user can make an informed consent decision. Help documentation page for the entire process. Link to help for each input item requested. Help button next to any control that initiates an action, etc.

-The objective is that users can securely know the identity of the web sites and the status of the current interaction - need to be reoriented to what the user sees and understands. (Tom)

-Since browsers all currently display an indicia of security provided by EV-certificates, we would like to use EV-certificates for user validation of the service provider’s web site. (Tom)

3) HL Requirement: The system shall (ARR) make reasonable accommodations to be accessible to as many users as is feasible and should be universally accessible.(ARR) (Category: Accessibility for all)

-All relying parties and identity providers, when feasible, provide access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the use and access by those who are individuals without disabilities. (Ellen)

-All IDESG compliant sites will provide all feasible functionality to any user with a compatible internet connected device as that available to fully functional individuals.

-Service providers provide access, when feasible, to all users that is comparable to access by individuals without disabilities.

-Even though it is better if the system can be used without documentation, it may be necessary to provide help and documentation. Any such information should be easy to search, focused on the user's task, list concrete steps to be carried out, and not be too large. (Jim: applicable principles)

-All indicia of trust or security (for example a Trustmark) must be clickable which will take you to a EV certified web side for that trust mark which will specifically report on whether the referring web site is verified. Now it is possible to spoof the referring web site, to the verifying site must be quite plane as to which site is protected. (Tom)

-Noreen suggests: This might be an appropriate place to include Ann's ethics and capabilities issue, since Accessibility is a human rights issue. It could state that the system should make reasonable accommodations to be accessible and sensitive to the rights and capabilities of as many users as is feasible. Could then show examples of user choices that might be affected by capability issues and a link to Ann's citations.

4) HL Requirement: The system should have a way to collect user feedback that shall be privacy enhancing(ARR), while conforming with the other high level requirements. (Category: Response to user feedback)

-All entities may only gather feedback from users on site usability that shall be privacy enhancing. adjust the site design in response. (ARR)(Ellen)

-The system should always keep users informed about what is going on, through appropriate privacy enhancing feedback within reasonable time. (ARR) (Jim: applicable principles)

5) HL Requirement: The system should provide opportunity for redress: an easy way for users to report errors, complaints, etc while preserving user privacy.(ARR)

-Noreen: I am still having some trouble understanding the difference between feedback in 4 and 5. They both seem to show instances in which users are contacting the providers directly to provide critical feedback, for example via an email, survey, or contact us form. User feedback could also be understood to mean any input or action (e.g., click a link, create a profile, agree to terms, etc) by the user while using the system and the data collected on those actions. If it were expanded then some of the heuristics I noted under HL 2 might actually fit here. I don't want to muddy it up too much thought so perhaps some clarification is all that is needed.

-tomj: I would like to see this restructured to giving the user access to data that is held about them and have the ability to request changes or deletions to the data. Data in this case includes both data about the user and transactional data about interchanges with the user.

-Ellen: Privacy already has a requirement re: redress. Is this one distinct enough? Privacy's requirement says: "Organizations shall provide effective redress mechanisms for, and advocacy on behalf of, individuals who believe their rights under these requirements have been violated." with guidance: "Organizations shall provide individuals the source of any verification or information that leads to an eligibility decision. If individuals seek redress, they must be provided with a mechanism to dispute or change erroneous information at the source of the information."

-tomj: I had no idea what this high level requirements was even addressing until this discussion. UX requirements need to address UX, not some abstract concepts that cannot be used in the evaluation of a provider web site. Let's stick to what we do - talk about the UX itself.

6) HL Requirement: Where interactions with users exist or are expected, and user requirements standards exist, users should have structured opportunities to document and express their requirements before interacting with Service Providers in online transactions. The user should receive a response to their requirement from the provider early on in the interaction. (eg. Do Not Track, link?)

This requirement is in alignment with the NSTIC Guiding Principle #32 "Organizations shall utilize identity solutions that are simple to understand, intuitive, easy-to-use, and enabled by technology that requires minimal user training. Speaking in the users' language, with words, phrases and concepts familiar to the user, rather than system-oriented terms. These expressed user conventions, making information appear in a natural and logical order."

7) HL Requirement: User shall(should) see simple, easy-to-understand and persistent methods for choosing and communicating their unique requirements (state, claim and promote) about their attributes and how they are used. Users should see simple, clear-language responses from an organization about how these requirements will be treated, before agreeing to share their attributes. (Category: Clarity of pathways, options, solutions; Usable Language)

This requirement is in alignment with the NSTIC Guiding Principles and FIPPS: "NSTIC requires that service providers abide by the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs) to ensure that people will be able to trust that their personal data are handled fairly, that they are informed about how their data will be used, have meaningful choices, and that checks and balances are in place to hold providers accountable for following a standard set of best practices."