Universal Design Ballot Interfaces on Voting Performance and Satisfaction of Voters with and without Vision Loss

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 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 to provide one system for all voters. This paper reports efficacy testing of both interfaces. The study demonstrated that voters with a range of visual abilities were able to use both ballots independently. While non-sighted voters made fewer errors on the linear ballot (EZ Ballot), partially-sighted and sighted voters completed the random access ballot (QUICK Ballot) in less time. In addition, a higher percentage of non-sighted participants preferred the linear ballot, and a higher percentage of sighted participants preferred the random ballot.

[1]  Priyanka Gupta,et al.  Universal access in e-voting for the blind , 2009, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[2]  John Klahn,et al.  Principles of universal design , 2010 .

[3]  Joris Jasper van Hoof,et al.  User research of a voting machine: preliminary findings and experiences , 2007 .

[4]  Brian R. Ott,et al.  A survey of voter participation by cognitively impaired elderly patients , 2003, Neurology.

[5]  Barbara Leporini,et al.  Interacting with mobile devices via VoiceOver: usability and accessibility issues , 2012, OZCHI.

[6]  Karen B. Chen,et al.  Touch screen performance by individuals with and without motor control disabilities. , 2013, Applied ergonomics.

[7]  Kathryn Summers,et al.  Making Voting Accessible: Designing Digital Ballot Marking for People with Low Literacy and Mild Cognitive Disabilities , 2014, EVT/WOTE.

[8]  Bongshin Lee,et al.  Electronic voting system usability issues , 2003, CHI '03.

[9]  Jonathan N. Wand,et al.  The Butterfly Did It: The Aberrant Vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida , 2001, American Political Science Review.

[10]  Gregg C. Vanderheiden Using Extended and Enhanced Usability (EEU) to Provide Access to Mainstream Electronic Voting Machines , 2004 .

[11]  Jon A. Sanford,et al.  Development of a More Universal Voting Interface , 2013 .

[12]  Jaehyun Park,et al.  Touch key design for target selection on a mobile phone , 2008, Mobile HCI.

[13]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  The Experience of Accessible Voting , 2011 .

[14]  Neil Charness,et al.  What Older Adults Can Teach Us About Designing Better Ballots , 2007 .

[15]  Scott P. Robertson,et al.  Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1991 .

[16]  Joaquim A. Jorge,et al.  Blind people and mobile touch-based text-entry: acknowledging the need for different flavors , 2011, ASSETS.

[17]  Jon A. Sanford,et al.  Universal Design as a Rehabilitation Strategy: Design for the Ages , 2012 .

[18]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  Usability of voting systems: baseline data for paper, punch cards, and lever machines , 2007, CHI.

[19]  Liana M. Kiff,et al.  Touch Screen User Interfaces for Older Adults: Button Size and Spacing , 2007, HCI.

[20]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  Measuring the Usability of Paper Ballots: Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Satisfaction , 2006 .

[21]  G. Vanderheiden Thirty-Something Million: Should They Be Exceptions? , 1990, Human factors.