1 / 31

Enhancing E-Voting Usability for Fair Elections: Lessons from the 2004 Mayoral Election

The transition to e-voting presents both opportunities and challenges in usability, as evidenced by issues faced during the 2004 London Mayoral election. Users encountered design flaws that led to confusion, illustrating the critical need for improved instructions, interface design, and accessibility options for all voters. This analysis explores the complexities of e-voting, emphasizing the importance of user-centered design principles to ensure fair elections. By addressing common e-voting design issues, we can enhance voter experience and confidence in the electoral process.

phuc
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing E-Voting Usability for Fair Elections: Lessons from the 2004 Mayoral Election

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. E-voting: Starting from People 4 November 2004 Louise Ferguson UPA Voting and Usability Project Director, Digital Habitats Ltd louise@louiseferguson.com

  2. Paper ballots • Much improved design in recent years • Still suffer from design problems

  3. 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]

  4. Abbreviations – polling card Your Polling Station is: LORDSHIP LANE T R A HALL ENTR. REAR OF BEW COURT [From Southwark polling card, 2004]

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Can my grandmother use it?

  11. …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]

  12. Electronic voting districts <33% • Electronic voting reported problems >55% • [MSNBC, 3 Nov 2004]

  13. SCOPE research report Polls Apart, 2003 “We do not believe any kiosks represent an improvement to the traditional ‘pen and paper’ method.”

  14. 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?

  15. 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.

  16. 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.”

  17. Dimensions of usability - the 5 Es • Effective • Efficient • Engaging • Error Tolerant • Easy to Learn [Quesenbery, 2001]

  18. Designing for usability means designing for and with users Thanks to Gary Larson

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. Voting ecosystem • Electoral officials and poll workers • Candidates and their representatives • Voters • Voter registration • Election information • Candidate information • Polling day • Counting; getting the results

  22. Accessibility now on the agenda • Campaigns from disability rights organisations • SCOPE, RNIB • Disability Rights Commission • Legislation • e.g. Disability Discrimination Act 1995

  23. 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

  24. 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]

  25. 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]

  26. 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

  27. IEEE Standard (2003 version) Examples: • “The use of colour for coding shall be redundant with another coding method.” • “Do not use abbreviations or acronyms.”

  28. 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

  29. 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

More Related