Advertisement

A Universal Ballot to Enable Voting for All

  • Seunghyun “Tina” LeeEmail author
  • Yilin Elaine Liu
  • Ljilja Ruzic Kascak
  • Jon A. Sanford
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9178)

Abstract

Voting is a glocalized event across countries, states and municipalities in which individuals of all abilities want to participate. To enable people with disabilities to participate accessible voting is typically implemented by adding assistive technologies to electronic voting machines to accommodate people with physical and visual disabilities. To overcome the complexities and inequities in this practice, two interfaces, EZ Ballot, which uses a linear yes/no input system for all selections, and QUICK Ballot, which provides random access voting through direct selection, were designed with multi-modal inputs and outputs to provide one system for all voters. This paper reports on the results of Phase I usability testing of EZ Ballot with 21 adults with visual, dexterity and cognitive limitations, which indicated the need for the second interface and describes the Phase II efficacy testing of both interfaces that is currently ongoing. Participants performed a standard set of voting tasks including: voting for one and two candidates, using the write-in function, voting on a referendum and changing their vote. Task performance was recorded by video. Post-trial interviews solicited feedback about ease of use and preferences. Overall, the study demonstrated that people with different limitations could perform voting tasks on a single system, although their preferred input and output methods varied, suggesting that providing flexibility through multi-modal inputs is important to ensure participation of all individuals in the voting process.

Keywords

Accessible voting Ballot design User interface Multi-modal Interactions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded, in part, by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation as part of a grant from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

References

  1. 1.
    Herrnson, P.S., Niemi, R.G., Hanmer, M.J., Francia, P.L., Bederson, B.B., Conrad, F.G., Traugott, M.W.: Voters’ evaluations of electronic voting systems: results from a usability field study. Am. Polit. Res. 36(4), 580–611 (2008). doi: 10.1177/1532673x08316667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Piner, G.E., Byrne, M.D.: The experience of accessible voting: results of a survey among legally-blind users. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 55(1), 1686–1690 (2011). doi: 10.1177/1071181311551351 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burton, U.: The ballot ballet: the usability of accessible voting machines. In: AFB AccessWorld, vol. 5,4. American Foundation for the Blind (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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. 9(4), 357–365 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s10209-009-0181-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Runyan, N., Tobias, J.: Accessibility review report for california top-to-bottom voting systems review. In: Report to the Secretary of State of California (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ott, B.R., Heindel, W.C., Papandonatos, G.D.: A survey of voter participation by cognitively impaired elderly patients. Neurology 60(9), 1546–1548 (2003). doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000061481.46191.75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gilbert, J.: PRIME III: One Machine, One Vote for Everyone. http://www.juangilbert.com/ (2005)
  8. 8.
    Connell, B.R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., Vanderheiden, G.: The principles of universal design. In: NC State University, The Center for Universal Design (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saffer, D.: Designing Gestural Interfaces: Touchscreens and Interactive Devices. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaudry, B.M., Connelly, K.H., Siek, K.A., Welch, J.L.: Mobile interface design for low-literacy populations. In: Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGHIT International Health Informatics Symposium, Miami (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parikh, T., Ghosh, K., Chavan, A.: Design studies for a financial management system for micro-credit groups in rural india. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Universal Usability, Vancouver (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oliveira, J., Guerreiro, T., Nicolau, H., Jorge, J., Gonçalves, D.: Blind people and mobile touch-based text-entry: acknowledging the need for different flavors. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, Dundee (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leporini, B., Buzzi, M.C., Buzzi, M.: Interacting with mobile devices via VoiceOver: usability and accessibility issues. In: Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference OzCHI 2012, pp. 339–348 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vanderheiden, G.C.: Using extended and enhanced usability (EEU) to provide access to mainstream electronic voting machines. Information Technology and Disabilities, 10(2) (2004) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seunghyun “Tina” Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yilin Elaine Liu
    • 1
  • Ljilja Ruzic Kascak
    • 1
  • Jon A. Sanford
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental AccessGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations