Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Damien Mac Namara, Paul Gibson, Ken Oakley, Just Like Paper: A Classification system for eVoting Machines
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Damien Mac Namara, Paul Gibson, Ken Oakley, Just Like Paper: A Classification system for eVoting Machines

166
views

Published on

#CeDEM13 Day 2 afternoon, Reflections, Main Hall, Chair: Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

#CeDEM13 Day 2 afternoon, Reflections, Main Hall, Chair: Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

Published in: Business, Technology

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
166
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. D A M I E N M A C N A M A R A , J . PA U L G I B S O N A N D K E NO A K L E YJUST LIKE PAPER: A CLASSIFICATIONSYSTEM FOR EVOTING MACHINES
  • 2. CLASSIFICATION•  This work is part of the DualVote project•  Development of an pen and paper based eVoting System•  In DualVote, the voter uses a pen and paper to cast theirvote but during this process their vote is also recordedelectronically•  We became interested in expanding on the functionality ofDualVote so we decided to develop a feature basedclassification for voting machines
  • 3. SPECIFICATION OF INTERFACEFEATURES•  We looked at 26 commercial eVoting systemsworldwide•  We identified 5 broad categories of InterfaceFeatures•  Error-Feedback•  Ballot Confirmation•  Machine Activation•  Duality Generation•  Interface Modality•  We identified 14 distinct Interface Features in total
  • 4. JLP CLASSIFICATION•  We then ranked the 26 systems in a particular orderand assigned each machine classification number.•  We chose the traditional pen and paper method ofvoting as our ‘baseline’ and assigned this the lowestclassification number: JSN1
  • 5. JLP CLASSIFICATION•  We were interested primarily in incrementaldifferences in functionality between votingmachines•  A simple pen and paper voting method offers the least interms of functionality and allows us to compare commercialeVoting systems to same.•  This is useful when we are replacing a pen and paper systemwith an electronic one
  • 6. JLP CLASSIFICATION•  There are approximately 162 possible classifications(1-162)•  Systems with a low classification have more incommon with the basic functionality offered by asimple pen and paper method•  Systems with a higher classification have less incommon with pen and paper and offer morefunctionality
  • 7. FOR THE FUTURE?•  We have also documented the design decisionsrelating to how each Interface Feature has beenimplemented•  We would like to determine if a lower classificationnumber directly corresponds to a system whichrequires less user actions to cast a vote•  In this way, a system with a lower classification is also moreusable
  • 8. QUESTIONS?