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

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

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

on

  • 493 views

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

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
493
Views on SlideShare
475
Embed Views
18

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 18

http://digitalgovernment.wordpress.com 18

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

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