May 31, 2016 UXC Meeting Page

From IDESG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

USER EXPERIENCE COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES


Attendees:

  • Mary Hodder
  • Ellen Nadeau
  • Jim Zok
  • 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
  • Meeting Notes: Minutes for May 3, 10 and 24 were approved unanimously.
  • 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

  • The meeting was focus on the Self-assessment metrics with Noreen Whysel.

https://wiki.idesg.org/wiki/index.php/User_Experience_Guidelines_Metric

  • FMO had asked UXC to look at this information and for Noreen to update as the SME. This would be revision 2, to be updated by July so it would be more prescriptive to the IDESG registry. The general idea is to help people understand usability requirements based on functional requirements. In the original draft of the page, the organization that was conducting a quantitative assessment would come back and say they are meeting the guidelines based on a certain percentage. The organization would just report back that they are within a specific percentage range instead. Noreen doesn’t think the registry is asking for that level of detail. Tom suggests that most organizations wouldn’t release this type of information. Guidelines are published and it is up to the organization to make the assertion that it has been done. When you have certification, the person doing the certification would look at this page. He doesn’t believe that we should be asking any organizations at this point about this level of detail. There is the pure self-assessment and the IDESG never sees the answer. And, then there is full sharing. The in-between space might be that the organization comes back and says they conducted the assessment and the results fall within this percentage range. The team thought the in-between activity was doable.
    • The FMO was less clear on what the ask is, but felt the organization wouldn’t be submitting any documentation after doing their self-assessment.
    • Chat from Ellen Nadeau to Everyone: USABLE-2. USABILITY ASSESSMENT **Entities MUST assess the usability of the communications, interfaces, policies, data transactions, and end-to-end processes they conduct in digital identity management functions
    • If an organization service provider wants to assess the usability of all the interfaces, how do they do that? That is the information we might want to provide. We are giving them something that is basically for their own use. If the organization wants to give feedback, they can, but at this point, there is no requirement to do so. In the supplemental guidance we do point to this page inUSABLE-2.
    • The discussion followed about what exactly UXC is asking Noreen to do about this page.
    • Noreen has been using a lot of the guidance in these pages for the surveys she is conducting for the SALS ATO project. It is giving her a lot of validation for the people who are doing the evaluation. “She has been testing the UXC test page.” She had some suggestions for updates to the page. Since this is a guidelines document, it should be a certain way.
    • Being prescriptive about percentages probably ought to be presented as a goal, or a minimal acceptable number. Each organization will need to make that decision. At the same time, here are some sample questions for communications, here are some questions for user interfaces. We could look at five areas. The five areas that we are covering in the IDEF registry in the self-attestation form - authorization, user interfaces and communications, for example was feedback Mary brought back to the FMO. The general notion is that these do not map to the kinds of products and services that the IDESG does. Mary was asked to write-up this feedback. We can’t change these five categories, but we can look at them later and update for V2.0. The Guidelines page will need to address these five categories even though they are a little off. Mary would like to get together with Tom Jones after the meeting. He sent mappings of the five categories to Mary earlier.
    • Tom Jones: He would like to know the scope of the page and who the target reader is. Current description sounds like IT services. It could be a product manager, not a system manager. It is the person who wants to evaluate their website to see if it meets the IDESG principles. It is almost a business unit, not a service unit that cares. Tie it back to someone who cares about the IDESG goals.
    • Noreen will update. Tom would like a separate document about the person who is trying to architect the user experience. Noreen will draft up some pages to look at for the next UXC meeting. Here is a link to the comments about this page that Mary has been keeping. https://wiki.idesg.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk%3AUser_Experience_Guidelines_Metrics.
  • No meeting next week because the IDESG Board and Plenary meetings will be taking place.
  • 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 June 14, 2016.


Adjourn

  • Adjourn: Meeting was adjourned at 1.00p.m. ET
Retrieved from "https://wiki.idesg.org/index.php?title=May_31,_2016_UXC_Meeting_Page&oldid=4720"