IACREOT - Plain language for voters and poll workers

Plain language for voters and election workers

1

Dana Chisnell, UPA | Usability in Civic Life Drew Davies, AIGA | Design for DemocracyKim Kizer, Elections Division - Texas

IACREOT - Spokane - 2009

optical scanDREpunch cardlever

Many changes

2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/plemeljr/61432544/

HistoryExpense MachinesState law

Constraints exist

lower residual vote rates + better security

Best practice

+ Incremental changes

+ Usability testing

5

6

Design problems cause voter errors

Design best practice helps

Plain language helps

Best practice + usability testing helps

Resources

The Texas story

7




Best practice + usability testing

Resources

The Texas story

Key pointsPoor ballot design frustrates voters, undermines confidence, and contributes to related Election Day problems

9

Dana Chisnell

Key pointsThousands of votes are lost or miscast

All voters are affected

The risk is greater for some groups of voters

All voting technologies are affected

Usability testing is the best way to make sure that voters are successful

10

Dana Chisnell

Design for Democracy - EAC

11

Best practice is a great place to start to

redesign ballots

12





Resources

The Texas story

Top 10 election design guidelines

1 Use lowercase letters

Optical scan ballots [detail]

Rolling DRE (touchscreen) ballot [detail]

2 Avoid centered type

3 Pick one sans-serif font

Voter information materials [detail]

4 Use big enough type

5 Support processand navigation

Voter information materials [wayfinding]

6 Use clear, simple language

“A vote for the names of a political partyʼs candidates for president is a vote for the electors of that party…”

Vote for one

“Vote for not more than one set of candidates” Vote for one pair

STATE REFERENDA 2A - CITY OF SPRINGFIELD

SHALL CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DEBT BE INCREASED BY AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $4,600,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $8,000,000, AND SHALL CITY OF SPRINGFIELD TAXES BE INCREASED $1,047,000 (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE) ANNUALLY; SUCH DEBT TO CONSIST OF SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS ISSUED SOLELY FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:· ACQUIRING, CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING A COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER WHICH SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:· AQUATICS CENTER/SWIMMING POOL· FITNESS CENTER· GYMNASIUM FOR BASKETBALL, VOLLEYBALL, AEROBICS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES· FAMILY, YOUTH AND SENIOR MULTI-PURPOSE ROOMS· PAYING ALL NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL COSTS RELATED THERETO, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:· OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE EXERCISE AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES FOR ALL AGES, INTERESTS AND ABILITIES· THE FUNDING OF A BOND RESERVE FUND AND COSTS OF ISSUING THE BONDS SUCH BONDS TO BE ISSUED, DATED AND SOLD AT SUCH TIMES, AND AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND CONTAINING SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE; SUCH TAX TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 5.06 OF THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND TO CONSIST OF A RATE INCREASE IN THE CITY-WIDE SALES TAX OF 0.70% (SEVENTY ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT, WHICH REPRESENTS SEVEN CENTS ON EACH TEN DOLLAR PURCHASE AS SHOWN IN THE TAX SCHEDULE AT THE END OF THIS BALLOT ISSUE) BEGINNING ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2005, WITH A REDUCTION OF SUCH TAX TO 0.50% (FIFTY ONEHUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT, WHICH REPRESENTS FIVE CENTS ON EACH TEN DOLLAR PURCHASE) BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2026 OR SUCH LOWER RATE AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE AFTER SUCH DATE, TO BE USED SOLELY TO PAY THE FOLLOWING:· COSTS OF ACQUIRING, CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING THE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER DESCRIBED ABOVE· PAYING DEBT SERVICE ON THE SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS DESCRIBED ABOVE· PAYING ALL NECESSARY OR INCIDENTAL COSTS RELATED THERETO, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, WHICH MAY INCLUDE EXERCISE AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES FOR ALL AGES, INTERESTS AND ABILITIES, AND REPAIRS, RENEWALS, REPLACEMENTS AND RENOVATIONS THEREOF, AND THE FUNDING OF RESERVES THEREFOR; AND· CONSTRUCTION OR UPGRADES TO CITY OUTDOOR ATHLETIC FACILITIES; AND SHALL ALL TAX REVENUES GENERATED FROM THE SALES TAX AUTHORIZED HEREIN AND FROM ANY EARNINGS FROM THE INVESTMENT OF SUCH REVENUES AND THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE, AND AN EXCEPTION TO THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION, OR ANY OTHER LAW?

7 Use accurate instructional illustrations

Voter information materials

8 Use informational icons (only)

9 Use contrast and color functionally

Rolling DRE (touchscreen) ballot

10 Decide what’s most important

Grid-style optical scan ballot

Optical scan ballot [detail]

Voter information material

Top 10 election design guidelines

• Use lowercase letters• Avoid centered type• Pick one sans-serif font• Use big enough type• Support process and navigation• Use clear, simple language• Use accurate instructional illustrations • Use informational icons (only)• Use contrast and color functionally• Decide whatʼs most important

• EAC report• Sample files and software• Get design help• Additional resources

Resources

Get design help

• www.designfordemocracy.org• AIGA Designer Directory• AIGA Election Design Fellows now in

Oregon and Washington• [email protected]

Additional resources

Marcia Lausen: Ballot + Election Design[University of Chicago Press]


Ballot design sample collection


AIGA | Design for DemocracyGet Out The Vote campaign

67





Resources

The Texas story

HAVA and NIST

68

✤ HAVA calls for improved standards for voting systems

✤ NIST provides technical support to develop standards through EAC and TGDC

Design for every voter

69

✤ Universal access and usability

✤ Design standards based on best practice and research

✤ Performance standards: user-based testing

Groundbreaking

70

✤ First ever standards for usability and accessibility of voting systems

✤ Unique performance-based usability standards

Wanted: research on plain language in elections

71

2005Review of ballot instructions and system messages

2006-08Test of ballot instructions

2007Review of voting system documentation

2008Development of pass/fail test of voting system documentation for poll workers

72

Does plain language make a difference when people vote?

73

Does clear information make a difference in election worker performance?

74


Do voters vote more accurately on a ballot with plain language instructions?

Do voters recognize the difference in language?

Do voters prefer one ballot over the other?

75

Empirical study of language on ballots

Who participated? 45 voters

Eligible - US citizens age 18+

Focused on lower education levels

Balanced for gender ethnicity age (18-61; median = 36)

76

Education achieved

# of participants

Less than high school

High school or equivalent

Some college or associate

Bachelor’s degree

Courses beyond college

9

15

12

8

1

Where, what3 locations Georgia Maryland Michigan

suburban, city, small town

2 ballots only the wording was different based on NIST DRE “medium” ballot

77

78

Ballot A (traditional language)

Ballot B (plain language)

79

“Retain” or “Keep”?

80

81


Yes.

82

45 participants; 18 possible correct votes on each ballot

Marginally statistically significant, p<.071

83

Participants voted more accurately

Ballot A Ballot B Total

Correct

Incorrect

Total

698 726 1424

112 84 196

810 810 1620

Voting on B first helped on A

Very little difference on B whether it was first or second

A first, ave. correct = 14.4A second, ave. correct = 16.3

Statistically significant, p<.001

84

0

4.175

8.350

12.525

16.700

A First B First

Co

rrec

t Vo

tes

Correct Votes on ACorrect Votes on B

Participants recognized and overwhelmingly preferred plain language

85

Preference # of participants % of participants

Ballot A (traditional language)

Ballot B (plain language)

No preference

Total

4 9%

37 82%

4 9%

45 100%

Education made a difference

86

Education level Mean # correct both ballots

Less than high school (n=9)

High school graduate or equivalent (n=15)

Some college or associate

Bachelor’s degree (n=8)

Some courses beyond college (n=1)

14.4

15.6

16.0

17.4

17.0

Statistically significant, p<.004

1. At the beginning of the ballot, explain how to vote, how to change a vote, and that voters may write in a candidate.

87

2. Put instructions where voters need them.

88

3. Include information that will prevent voters from making errors, such as a caution to not write in someone already on the ballot.

89

4. Write short sentences.

90

5. Use short, simple, everyday words.

91

6. Write in active voice, where the person doing the action comes before the verb.

92

7. Write in the positive. Tell people what to do rather than what not to do.

93

8. When giving people instructions that are more than one step, give each step as an item in a numbered list. Do not number other instructions.

94

9. Keep paragraphs short. A one-sentence paragraph is fine.

95

10. Separate paragraphs by a space so each paragraph stands out on the page.

96

To see all 28 guidelines, go to http://vote.nist.gov/NISTIR-7556.pdf

The guidelines are the last appendix in the report, pages 189-190

97

98


How should the documentation be tested? What are poll workers’ tasks? How long do the tasks take?

How many participants will it take to pass or fail the documentation?

What should the pass/fail criteria for the documentation be?

99

Qualitative, exploratory study of voting system documentation for poll workers

Testing the test

✤ Drafted protocol and checklists

✤ Recruited 4 pairs of participants

✤ 2 voting systems - one DRE and one optical scan

✤ Each pair worked on both systems

100

Observations

101

102

Matching the documentation to the machine was difficult

Dana Chisnell

103

Participants had questions that the documentation didn’t answer

Dana Chisnell

104

Information on troubleshooting was hard to use because it was not related to tasks

Dana Chisnell

105

Documentation covered too many systems

Met many best practices but fails because the configuration is not the same as implementation

106

Met many best practices but fails because the configuration is not the same as implementation

107

108


109

Yes.

✤ Participants are able to use voting system documentation to:

✤ Complete tasks without asking questions

✤ Find the information they need

✤ Match messages between system and documentation

✤ Read, understand, and react

✤ Perform tasks without missing steps

✤ Perform steps to complete tasks

110

Evidence

✤ Have participants asked for help?

✤ Have they completed the tasks in the time allotted?

111

Pass / fail criteria

112





Resources

The Texas story

What is a usability test?

113

114

What is usable? You: A countable ballot

Voter: Voting as intended

Dana Chisnell

115

Sit next to someone. Watch. Listen.

Dana Chisnell

116

Complement to best practice

When something changes

Take constraints into account

Reveal remedies

Why test?Avoid residual votes and fall-off

Even best practice design can introduce unpredictable problems

Make it more likely that voter intent is carried out

More likely to have only good news about an election

117

Dana Chisnell

The Testing KitWhat you need to know

Session script

Report template

118


Session script

Report template

119


Session script

Report template

120


Session script

Report template

121

122

Redesign.

Look at best practice within your constraints

Use checklists

Test.

Low risk, low cost

Reveal issues that are local, subtle

Improve.

Smoother voting

Smoother counting

Better experience

123





Resources

The Texas story

Resources

Usability Professionals’ Association: www.usabilityprofessionals.org/

LEO Usability Testing Kit:http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org/civiclife/voting/leo_testing.html

Ballot Usability and Accessibility Blog: http://ballotusability.blogspot.com/

National Institute of Standards and Technology:http://vote.nist.gov

124

Dana Chisnell

Resources

Brennan Center for Justice at NYU: Better Ballotshttp://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/better_ballots/

AIGA - Design for Democracy: Effective Design for Federal Elections http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/design-for-democracy-eac-reports

Handbook of Usability Testing, Second Edition by Jeff Rubin and Dana Chisnell

125

Dana Chisnell

Announcing

126

LEOExchange Online discussion group for local election officials

Dana

Dana [email protected]

www.usabilityworks.net 415.519.1148

127

Drew

Drew [email protected]

www.oxidedesign.com

128

129





Resources

The Texas story

Voter Registration Form (Before)

Voter Registration Form (After)Version 1

Voter Registration Form (After)Version 2

Back of this form looks exactly like Version 1 – horizontal layout versus vertical layout

Application Ballot by Mail (Before)Front

Application Ballot by Mail (Before)Back

Application Ballot by Mail (After)Front

Layout went from bifold to

trifold

Application Ballot by Mail (After)Back

Layout went from bifold to

trifold

137

Questions?

138

Thank you.

IACREOT - Plain language for voters and poll workers

News & Politics

Transcript of IACREOT - Plain language for voters and poll workers