Advertisement

Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 359–373 | Cite as

An evaluation of web-based voting usability and accessibility

  • Kristin Skeide Fuglerud
  • Till Halbach Røssvoll
Long paper

Abstract

Several countries are considering web-based voting as an alternative to, or a replacement of, traditional voting methods. It is argued that electronic voting could increase voter participation and help strengthen democracy, as e-voting would increase accessibility for large sections of the population, particularly with regard to groups that previously have experienced difficulties with the traditional voting setup. With a focus on usability and accessibility, this paper reports on a study evaluating several electronic voting prototypes in Norway, involving technical aspects as well as expert evaluation and user testing in the field, with users from a wide range of disabled user groups participating in the study. Technical testing regarding accessibility standard compliance, testing with the personas method and user testing revealed that many rather basic universal design principles were either not fully understood or not prioritized for implementation by the solution providers. However, despite various accessibility difficulties, the participants generally showed a positive attitude towards web-based elections. Through the findings of this study, the authors highlight factors that are important to consider in the development and testing of web-based voting systems.

Keywords

e-Inclusion Universal design e-voting REVS Accessibility Disabled Democracy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We want to thank the E-vote 2011 project for our engagement in this evaluation of the usability and accessibility of the prototypes under consideration. We also acknowledge the help of the user organizations in order to recruit participants for user testing. Our gratitude also goes to the testing participants who provided us with valuable insight. Special thanks to our co-workers and colleagues in the project, Ivar Solheim, Øystein Dale and Trenton Schultz. This paper is partly funded by the Norwegian Research Council, mostly through the e-Me project. Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us in improving the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Halbach, T., Fuglerud, K.S., Dale, Ø., Solheim, I., Schulz, T.: Usability and accessibility evaluation of the upcoming Norwegian E-vote solution. In: Sandnes, F.E., Lunde, M., Tollefsen, M., Hauge, A.M., Øverby, E., Bryn, R. (eds) Unitech 2010, Oslo, May 20, 2010 2010. Tapir Academic Publishers, pp. 156–167Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    KRD (2009) E-vote 2011 project. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/krd/prosjekter/e-vote-2011-project.html?id=597658. Accessed February 2010
  3. 3.
    E-vote 2011 (2009) Accessibility and Usability Requirements: Project: E-vote 2011. System specification document. Norwegian ministry of local government and regional developmentGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    W3C WCAG1.0 (2005) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/. Accessed 1. November 2006
  6. 6.
    NHD: ELMER 2 User Interface Guidelines for Governmental Forms on the Internet. Simplified Forms for the Private Sector. Norwegian Ministry of Trade and Industry, Norway (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stiefel, R.C.: Electronic voting system. Soc. Econ. Plan. Sci. 4(1), 33–39 (1970). doi: 10.1016/0038-0121(70)90027-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beroggi, G.E.G.: Secure and easy internet voting. Computer 41(2), 52–56 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Qadah, G.Z., Taha, R.: Electronic voting systems: requirements, design, and implementation. Comput. Stand. Interf. 29(3), 376–386 (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.csi.2006.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kenski, K.: To I-vote or not to I-vote? Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 23(3), 293–303 (2005). doi: 10.1177/0894439305275851 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herrnson, P.S., Niemi, R.G., Hanmer, M.J., Bederson, B.B., Conrad, F.G., Traugott, M.: The importance of usability testing of voting systems. In: Proceedings of the USENIX/Accurate Electronic Voting Technology Workshop 2006 on Electronic Voting Technology Workshop, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2006. USENIX Association, pp. 3–3. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/642611.642638
  12. 12.
    Yao, Y., Murphy, L.: Remote electronic voting systems: an exploration of voters’ perceptions and intention to use. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 16(2), 106–120 (2007). doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith, A.D.: Acceptability of internet voting and CRM principles among the internet savvy. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 3(5), 498–528 (2008). doi: 10.1504/IJBIS.2008.018601 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Byrne, M.D., Greene, K.K., Everett, S.P.: Usability of voting systems: baseline data for paper, punch cards, and lever machines. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bederson, B.B., Lee, B., Sherman, R.M., Herrnson, P.S., Niemi, R.G.: Electronic voting system usability issues. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 2003. ACM, pp. 145–152. doi: 10.1145/642611.642638
  16. 16.
    Conrad, F.G., Bederson, B.B., Lewis, B., Peytcheva, E., Traugott, M.W., Hanmer, M.J., Herrnson, P.S., Niemi, R.G.: Electronic voting eliminates hanging chads but introduces new usability challenges. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 67(1), 111–124 (2009). doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Felten, E.: Finnish Court Orders Re-Vote After E-Voting Snafu. Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy (2009). http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/felten/finnish-court-orders-re-vote-after-e-voting-snafu. Accessed July 2009
  18. 18.
    Gilbert, J., McMillian, Y., Rouse, K., Williams, P., Rogers, G., McClendon, J., Mitchell, W., Gupta, P., Mkpong-Ruffin, I., Cross, E.: Universal access in e-voting for the blind. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 1–9 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s10209-009-0181-0
  19. 19.
    Smith, B., Laskowski, S., Lowry, S.: Implications of Graphics on Usability and Accessibility for the Voter. In: Ryan, P., Schoenmakers, B. (eds) E-Voting and Identity, vol 5767. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 54–74. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg (2009). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-04135-8_4
  20. 20.
    Little, L., Storer, T., Briggs, P., Duncan, I.: E-voting in an Ubicomp world. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 26(1), 44–59 (2008). doi: 10.1177/0894439307307683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kopackova, H., Michalek, K., Cejna, K.: Accessibility and findability of local e-government websites in the Czech Republic. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 9(1), 51–61 (2010). doi: 0.1007/s10209-009-0159-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dumas, J.S., Redish, J.C.: A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Revised edition, Intellect Books, Oregon, USA (1999). ISBN: 1-84150-020-8Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Molich, R., Ede, M.R., Kaasgaard, K., Karyukin, B.: Comparative usability evaluation. Behav. Inf. Tech. 23(1), 65–74 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Law, C., Yi, J., Choi, Y., Jacko, J.: A systematic examination of universal design resources: part 2, analysis of the development process. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 7(1–2), 55–77 (2008). doi: 10.1007/s10209-007-0100-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Law, C., Yi, J., Choi, Y., Jacko, J.: A systematic examination of universal design resources: part 1, heuristic evaluation. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 7(1), 31–54 (2008). doi: 10.1007/s10209-007-0100-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grudin, J., Pruitt, J.: Personas, participatory design and product development: an infrastructure for engagement. In: Proceedings of Participation and Design Conference (PDC2002), Sweden, pp. 144–161 (2002)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lindgren, A., Chen, F., Amdahl, P., Chaikiat, P.: Using Personas and Scenarios as an Interface Design. Tool for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) Universal Access in HCI, Part II, HCII 2007, pp. 460–469. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zimmermann, G., Vanderheiden, G.: Accessible design and testing in the application development process: considerations for an integrated approach. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 7(1–2), 117–128 (2007). doi: 10.1007/s10209-007-0108-6 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mankoff, J., Fait, H., Tran, T.: Is your web page accessible? A comparative study of methods for assessing web page accessibility for the blind. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, Oregon, USA, 2005. ACM. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1054972.1054979
  30. 30.
    Koutsabasis, P., Vlachogiannis, E., Darzentas, J.S.: Beyond specifications: towards a practical methodology for evaluating web accessibility. J. Usability Stud. 5(4), 157–171 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rømen, D., Svanæs, D.: Validating WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 through Usability Testing with Disabled Users. Paper presented at the Unitech 2010, Oslo (Norway) May 2010Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fuglerud, K.S.: ICT Services for Every Citizen: The Challenge of Gaps in User Knowledge. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed) Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Addressing Diversity. Part I: Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, 19-24 July 2009. 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS), pp. 38–47. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02707-9_5
  33. 33.
    Solheim, I.: Adaptive user interfaces: benefit or impediment for lower-literacy users? In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference in Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Part II: Intelligent and Ubiquitous Interaction Environments, San Diego, CA, 2009, pp. 758–765. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02710-9_84
  34. 34.
    Fuglerud, K.S., Reinertsen, A., Fritsch, L., Dale, Ø.: Universal Design of IT-Based Solutions for Registration and Authentication. DART/02/09. Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fuglerud, K.S., Halbach, T., Dale, Ø., Solheim, I., Schultz, T.: Accessibility and Usability Evaluation of E-Vote Prototypes. Norwegian Computing Center, Oslo (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shneiderman, B.: Promoting universal usability with multi-layer interface design. In: CUU 2003, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, 2003. ACM, pp. 1–8. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/957205.957206
  37. 37.
    E-vote 2011 (2009) Use case specification: 2.1 E-voting: Project: E-vote 2011. Systems specification document. Norwegian ministry of local government and regional developmentGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fritsch, L., Fuglerud, K., Solheim, I.: Towards inclusive identity management. Identity in the Information Society Online First, 7 October 2010:1–24Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brown, J.S., Duguid, P.: Borderline Issues: Social and material aspects of design. Human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc 9(1):3–36 (1994). doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci0901_2

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristin Skeide Fuglerud
    • 1
  • Till Halbach Røssvoll
    • 1
  1. 1.Norsk RegnesentralOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations