Touchscreen Voting Interface Design for Persons with Dexterity Impairments: Insights from Usability Evaluation of Mobile Voting Prototype

  • Jennifer IsmirleEmail author
  • Ian O’Bara
  • James E. Jackson
  • Sarah J. Swierenga
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9752)


To address the need for a universal and accessible voting solution, our research team designed and created a mobile voting user interface prototype for individuals with disabilities using specifications gathered from previous research focused on mobile and/or accessible design. We evaluated the usability of our prototype with individuals with moderate dexterity impairments and with no disabilities, and the majority of participants had a positive reaction and experience using this system. Our study generally confirmed previous research, and we discovered further considerations for mobile voting interface design for users with moderate dexterity impairments, involving buttons that are repeatedly pressed, button placement options, interpretations of inputs or touches, and adjustable support that provides various angle and height options.


Accessible voting Dexterity impairments Disability Mobile voting Universal design Usability 



The design specifications and prototype development were funded through a research grant from the National Institute of Standards and Technology to Michigan State University: Enhancement of Accessible Mobile Voting System Standards (Grant #70NANB13H150). Principal Investigator: Dr. Sarah J. Swierenga, Michigan State University. We would also like to thank the Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service for their assistance in recruiting participants and for providing space at their facility for conducting some of the usability sessions.


  1. 1.
    U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey. Disability Characteristics, 2009–2013 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2013).
  2. 2.
    Brault, M.W.: Americans with Disabilities: 2010. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2012).
  3. 3.
    Help America Vote Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-252, 116 Stat. 1666-1730, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§15301–15545 (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bovbjerg, B.: Voters with Disabilities: Challenges to Voting Accessibility. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Swierenga, S.J., Pierce, G.L.: Testing usability performance of accessible voting systems: final report. Technical report, Michigan State University, Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting, East Lansing, MI (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schur, L., Adya, M., Kruse, D.: Disability, voter turnout, and voting difficulties in the 2012 elections. Report to U.S. EAC and RAAV (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norden, L., Famighetti, C.: America’s Voting Machines at Risk. Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, New York, 11 September 2015Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pew Research Center: Pew Research Internet Project: Mobile Technology Fact Sheet (2014).
  9. 9.
    U.S. Election Assistance Commission: Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 1.0. U.S. EAC, Washington, D.C (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anthony, L., Kim, Y., Findlater, L.: Analyzing user-generated youtube videos to understand touchscreen use by people with motor impairments. In: SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1223–1232. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guerreiro, T., Nicolau, H., Jorge, J., Gonçalves, D.: Towards accessible touch interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 19–26. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Irwin, C.B., Sesto, M.E.: Performance and touch characteristics of disabled and non-disabled participants during a reciprocal tapping task using touch screen technology. Appl. Ergon. 43, 1038–1043 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pierce, G.L., Jackson, J.E., Swierenga, S.J.: Enhanced user interface and interaction design standards for accessible mobile voting systems. Technical report, Michigan State University, Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting, East Lansing, MI (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duff, S.N., Irwin, C.B., Skye, J.L., Sesto, M.E., Wiegmann, D.A.: The effect of disability and approach on touch screen performance during a number entry task. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 54(6), 566–570 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jin, Z.X., Plocher, T., Kiff, L.: Touch screen user interfaces for older adults: button size and spacing. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 933–941. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sesto, M.E., Irwin, C.B., Chen, K.B., Chourasia, A.O., Wiegmann, D.A.: Effect of touch screen button size and spacing on touch characteristics of users with and without disabilities. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 54(3), 425–436 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nicolau, H., Guerreiro, T., Jorge, J., Gonçalves, D.: Mobile touchscreen user interfaces: bridging the gap between motor-impaired and able-bodied users. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 13, 303–313 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Association for the Visually Handicapped: NAVH Standards & Criteria for Large Print Publications (2006).
  19. 19.
    World Wide Web Consortium: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 (2008).
  20. 20.
    Jackson, J.E., Ismirle, J., Swierenga, S.J., Blosser, S.R., Pierce, G.L.: Joystick interaction strategies of individuals with dexterity impairments: observations from the smart voting joystick usability evaluation. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) UAHCI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9178, pp. 192–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST Medium Complexity Test Ballot Specification.
  22. 22.
    Tullis, T.S., Stetson, J.N.: A comparison of questionnaires for assessing website usability. In: Usability Professionals Association Annual Conference Presentation, Minneapolis (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kurschl, W., Augstein, M., Stitz, H., Heumader, P., Pointner, C.: A user modelling wizard for people with motor impairments. In: Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing & Multimedia, p. 541. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wobbrock, J.O., Kane, S.K., Gajos, K.Z., Harada, S., Froehlich, J.: Ability-based design concept principles and examples. ACM Trans. Accessible Comput. 3(3), 9 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Swierenga, S.J., Zantjer, R.S., Jackson, J.E., Ismirle, J., Blosser, S.R., Pierce, G.L.: Security implications for personal assistive technology in voting. In: Tryfonas, T., Askoxylakis, I. (eds.) HAS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9190, pp. 582–591. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Ismirle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ian O’Bara
    • 1
  • James E. Jackson
    • 2
  • Sarah J. Swierenga
    • 1
  1. 1.Usability/Accessibility Research and ConsultingMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.MSU Information TechnologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations