Post on 27-Mar-2015
© 2004 Digital Habitats
E-voting: Starting from People
Louise Ferguson
UPA Voting and Usability Project
Director, Digital Habitats Ltd
louise@louiseferguson.com
4 November 2004
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Paper ballots
• Much improved design in recent years
• Still suffer from design problems
© 2004 Digital Habitats
London Mayoral election 2004
“There were no instructions on the paper at all. It simply said ‘what is your first and second choice for mayor?’. I said my first choice was ‘x’ and my second was the same guy, so I voted for him twice. But…you’re not allowed to vote for the same person twice.”
[Channel 4 news presenter Jon Snow]
© 2004 Digital Habitats
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Abbreviations – polling card
Your Polling Station is:
LORDSHIP LANE T R A HALL
ENTR. REAR OF BEW COURT
[From Southwark polling card, 2004]
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Some design issues
paper size and format - print quality - text layout - use of white space - fonts - font sizes - use of bold, capitals, underline - use of graphics, icons, pictograms - use of colour (paper, text, graphics), colour coding and ‘colour wording’ - contrast - information (parties, candidates): wording, appearance, position - explanation: wording, appearance, position - instructions: wording, appearance, position - syntax - active/passive - positives/negatives - punctuation - text justification - valid mark(s) and relative position - multiple ballots per paper - abbreviations and acronyms - consistency: information, formatting, terminology
© 2004 Digital Habitats
E-voting
• Opens up new possibilities
Creates more possibilities for tripping up - greater complexity
• Requirements of e-voting are unique…
…but the design issues are not• Easy to design badly, difficult to design well
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Even more design issues – e-voting
height and pitch of screen - controls, input devices: type, appearance, labels, location, grouping, ruggedness, force required - screen format and size - luminance - use of flashing/flash rates - display adjustability - system navigation - logon procedure - security procedure - location of information in navigation - location of explanation in navigation - location of instructions in navigation - group and candidate grouping and demarcation - ‘below the fold’ and scalability; scrolling, paging - alphabetical order/randomisation - selection mechanism - relationship to candidate information - button size, colour, position, relative position - button text - ‘live’ areas on touch screen; mapping to input - feedback (visual, auditory), response time - ballot review options: location, language, options - procedure for reporting undervoting to voter - procedure for amending, restarting; reversing, clearing votes - skipping ballots - casting a blank ballot - system checking on inputs, alerts - accessing help - content and format of help – website addresses
© 2004 Digital Habitats
For voters with
• No vision, limited vision• Colour-blindness• Reading problems• Learning difficulties• Limited English• No hearing, limited hearing• Limited movement, shaking• Poor co-ordination• Limited strength• Limited physical access• …vision deteriorates from around 40 years old
© 2004 Digital Habitats
And even more design issues for accessibility
location - selecting accessibility options - system timing, pacing - clarity of language - audio content - audio options - audio quality, volume - screen responsiveness - force required for input device - troublesome colours/colour combinations - colour coding - size of buttons - button colours - feedback redundancy – coercion
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Can my grandmother use it?
© 2004 Digital Habitats
…and what the law says
“One area that was prescribed in law was that the pilots had to have a replication of the ballot paper on the voting screen. In practice, this did not work very effectively as it was based on a paper design principle and it did not fit with the general design concepts used on the web.”
[Electoral Commission. Ballot paper design: Report and recommendations. June 2003]
© 2004 Digital Habitats
• Electronic voting districts <33%
• Electronic voting reported problems >55%
[MSNBC, 3 Nov 2004]
© 2004 Digital Habitats
SCOPE research report Polls Apart, 2003
“We do not believe any kiosks represent an improvement to the traditional ‘pen and paper’ method.”
© 2004 Digital Habitats
© 2004 Digital Habitats
E-voting in the wild…
• Is e-voting a private process?• Who controls the home computer? – from household registration to
household computer • Workplace monitoring• E-voting period – implications for campaigning• Interaction between campaign websites/pop-ups etc and official
voting sites• Independent monitoring/observation?• Where is the research?
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Usability
"The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use“
[ISO standard on usability: ISO 9241,1998]
Usability is key to free and fair elections.
© 2004 Digital Habitats
SCOPE research report Polls Apart, 2003
“…across all the channels in all the pilots [it was felt that] the usability could be improved. It sounds obvious but making something as simple as possible will make it more accessible to more people.”
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Dimensions of usability - the 5 Es
• Effective• Efficient• Engaging• Error Tolerant • Easy to Learn
[Quesenbery, 2001]
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Designing for usability means designing for and with users
Thanks to
Gary Larson
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Designing for usability
• Early focus on users and tasks– User research BEFORE system design– Typical users, not ‘experts’ or developers
• Empirical measurement– Establish testable behavioural specifications– Study user behaviour through user testing – This is not market research
• Iterative design– Modify design and repeat as necessary
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Usability testing
• People invariably say one thing and do another
• Observing what people actually do, one-to-one with the realistic materials/equipment
• With real citizens– Not experts or developers
• Not the same as focus groups, or system/functional testing
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Voting ecosystem
• Electoral officials and poll workers• Candidates and their representatives• Voters
• Voter registration• Election information• Candidate information• Polling day• Counting; getting the results
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Accessibility now on the agenda
• Campaigns from disability rights organisations– SCOPE, RNIB
• Disability Rights Commission
• Legislation – e.g. Disability Discrimination Act 1995
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Usability and accessibility
• Plentiful research on interaction design, cognitive psychology, human-computer interaction
• No UK voting usability standards
• Systems not developed in compliance with standards
• Lack of usability expertise in the voting design process
© 2004 Digital Habitats
International problem
“In general, voting systems have not been measured for usability nor have they been developed using a user-centered design process.
“We do not know the degree to which voters cast their vote NOT as they intended due to confusion with the user interface.”
[Sharon Laskowski, Head of Usability,
US National Institute for Standards and Technology]
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Don’t rely on system vendors
“Voting system vendors have limited awareness of the field of usability and have only limited awareness of accessibility.”
[Bill Killam, 2004, after having reviewed some 30
current e-voting systems and interviewed vendors]
© 2004 Digital Habitats
US standards
• IEEE – Standard P-1583 Section 5.3: Usability and Accessibility Standards– Updated version in progress
• Elections Assistance Commission – Technical Guidelines Development Committee– Started work 2004– Due to report formally spring 2005
• Improving the Usability and Accessibility of Voting Systems and Products. National Institute for Standards and Technology report to US Congress, April 2004
© 2004 Digital Habitats
IEEE Standard (2003 version)
Examples:
• “The use of colour for coding shall be redundant with another coding method.”
• “Do not use abbreviations or acronyms.”
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Recommendations
• Learn form the fields of Human-Computer Interaction and Design Research
• Learn from what’s happening elsewhere– Don’t try and reinvent the wheel– Consider NIST’s 10 Recommendations to US Congress
• Introduce user-centred design and usability testing to the e-voting process
• Develop performance-based usability standards and conformance tests for voting systems
© 2004 Digital Habitats
Resources and contacts
• Blog: http://www.louiseferguson.com/cityofbits.htm
• Website: http://www.louiseferguson.com
Voting resources: http://www.louiseferguson.com/resources/evoting.htm
• Email: louise@louiseferguson.com