Brian Stanton, Mary Theofanos, Shahram Orandi, Ross Micheals, Nien-Fan Zhang These tests were performed for the Department of Homeland Security in accordance with section 303 of the Border Security Act, codified as 8 U.S.C Specific hardware and software products identified in this report were used in order to perform the evaluations described in this document. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the products and equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose. HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability

2 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 2 HFES October 5, 2007 Current US VISIT Procedure – 2 Index Prints Future US VISIT Procedure – All 10 Little, if any, previous usability work has been done nited tates isitor and mmigrant tatus ndicator echnology

Biometrics and Usability 3 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 3 HFES October 5, 2007  4 fingerprint scanner heights ◦ Work Table : 26” ◦ Desk: 32” ◦ Counter: 36” ◦ Standing Counter: 42”  5 tasks: ◦ Right Slap (Index, Middle, Ring, and Little) ◦ Left Slap (Index, Middle, Ring, and Little) ◦ Both thumbs at once ◦ Individual Thumbs 26” 32” 36” 42”

Biometrics and Usability 4 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 4 HFES October 5, 2007  4 × 5 factorial design  Each participant did each task at every height  Height and task order was counterbalanced and randomly assigned.

Biometrics and Usability 5 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 5 HFES October 5, 2007  Rack with a movable shelf  6” tall electronic fingerprint scanner capable of taking a four finger image.  PC system with custom software to control the order of tasks/heights and to record timing data and fingerprint images

Biometrics and Usability 6 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 6 HFES October 5, NIST employees 17 to 67 years and were distributed fairly normally across the age ranges. 41 men and 34 women 83% right handed, while 17% were either left-handed or ambidextrous. Participants ranged from 5 feet (152 cm) to 6 feet 5 inches (196 cm).

Biometrics and Usability 7 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 7 HFES October 5, 2007  Effectiveness – Fingerprint Quality  Efficiency – Timing  User Satisfaction – Questionnaire

Biometrics and Usability 8 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 8 HFES October 5, 2007  NIST Fingerprint Image Quality Software 2  Breaks slap into individual fingers  1: Best quality – 5: Worst quality  Counted frequency of scores for each finger at each height Index Middle Ring Little

Biometrics and Usability 9 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 9 HFES October 5, 2007  Add all 1’s and 2’s and 4’s and 5’s  Look at the amount of change at each height  Determine if change is significant Index

Biometrics and Usability 10 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 10 HFES October 5, 2007  The right index finger had no significant changes with height  Left hand was more sensitive to height  Generally, quality improved as height reduced  For left slap and both thumbs quality was best at 26” and 32”. Right Hand 42”  36” 42”  32”42”  26”36”  32”36”  26”32”  26” Thumb Solo  Thumb Duo  Index Middle  Ringer  Little  Left Hand 42”  36”42”  32”42”  26”36”  32”36”  26”32”  26” Thumb Solo  Thumb Duo  Index  Middle  Ring  Little 

Biometrics and Usability 11 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 11 HFES October 5, 2007  Total time for each task ◦ Right Slap ◦ Left Slap ◦ Right Thumb ◦ Left Thumb ◦ Both Thumbs  Friedman’s two-way non-parametric test showed the medians for Right Slap were not the same, p < 0.05.

Biometrics and Usability 12 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 12 HFES October 5, 2007 Right Slap  Box plot of task times  26” vs. 36” p<.01 with participants being faster at 36”  Overall, 36” had the  smallest means smallest standard deviations, smallest medians and smallest interquartile ranges

Biometrics and Usability 13 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 13 HFES October 5, 2007  (1) Which scan height did you find most comfortable?  (2) Which scan height did you find most uncomfortable?  (3) Please rank the heights in order of preference: 1 is most preferred, 4 is least preferred.  (4) When prompted for your thumbs, which method did you prefer?  (5) Did you have difficulty repositioning yourself for any of the trials?  (6) Any additional comments on how we can improve the fingerprint capture process?

Biometrics and Usability 14 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 14 HFES October 5, 2007  (1) Which scan height did you find most comfortable? ◦ 41% - 32” ◦ 40% - 36”  (2) Which scan height did you find most uncomfortable? ◦ 68% - 42”  (3) Please rank the heights in order of preference: 1 is most preferred, 4 is least preferred. 1.32”  (4) When prompted for your thumbs, which method did you prefer? ◦ No significant difference  (5) Did you have difficulty positioning yourself for any of the trials? ◦ 45/75 said both thumbs at 42” was difficult 26” 32” 36” 42”

Biometrics and Usability 15 HFES October 5, 2007 Biometrics and Usability 15 HFES October 5, 2007 Assuming that all five fingerprint images are collected for a given user, the results can be summarized by the following recommendations for a ten-print capture sequence with a six inch high sensor:  a counter height of 42 inches (1067 mm) or higher does not satisfy the efficiency, effectiveness, nor satisfaction requirements.  a counter height of 36 inches (914 mm) gives the fastest performance  a counter height of 32 or 36 inches (813 mm or 914 mm) is the most comfortable for users  a counter height of 26 inches (660 mm) gives the highest quality performance  starting a capture sequence with the right slap was most efficient  capturing individual thumb prints yields higher quality images than capturing simultaneous thumb prints 26” 32” 42” 36”