See the accompanying paper here: https://www.usenix.org/conference/evtwote14/workshop-program/presentation/summers

1. Making voting accessible
Designing digital ballot marking
for people with low literacy
Dana Chisnell
@danachis
@ChadButterfly

2. Kathryn Summers, University of Baltimore
Dana Chisnell, Center for Civic Design
Drew Davies, Oxide Design Co
Megan McKeever, University of Baltimore
Noel Alton, University of Baltimore

3. Accessible Voting Technology Initiative (AVTI)
sub grant from Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation (ITIF)

4. How might we design an accessible
election experience for everyone?

5. What if anyone could mark their ballot
anywhere, any time, on any device?

6. Disability is treated
as an
accommodation

7. But what does
“disability” mean?

8. HAVA requires an accessible system in
each polling place
VVSG covers visible disabilities
blind, low vision
mobility
dexterity

9. What about invisible
disabilities?

10. 670,000 veterans of Iraq and
Afghanistan have been awarded
disability status
About 150,000 of them have PTSD
10-20% of all serving have TBI

11. low literacy - 44% of US adults
low education - 25-50% drop out
limited English proficiency

12. Where to start?

13. Best practice
ballot design
Effective designs for the
administration of federal
elections, 2007

14. Best practice
ballot design
NIST research on language of
instructions on ballots
Redish, et al, NIST IR 7556, 2009

15. 2007
2008
Started with
best practice

16. Low literacy: beyond
plain language
linear reading
literal meaning
struggle with
word recognition
understanding what words together mean

17. field of view is narrow
not able to pay attention to what might
be coming up
can’t remember where they came from

18. Implications
sequential, linear
processing support
pages must stand alone,
make sense
independently
headings must work out
of context
adjacent paragraphs
must be independent

19. Challenge
provide an overview showing the
structure of the ballot
!+
!
without losing specificity
and clarity in interaction

20. Method
Combined research and design methods
!
Generative, exploratory
!
Paper prototype —> digital prototype
!
Rapid Iterative Testing and Evaluation (RITE)

21. RITE
collaborative
identification of issues in each session
immediate development of theory for remedy
!
Medlock, et al. Using the RITE method to improve products; a definition and a
case study, 2002

22. Process
33 sessions (18 paper; 15 digital)
NIST medium complexity ballot
protocol from NIST IR 7556

23. Process
at least 3 iterations
up to 20

24. Results

25. many iterations
plain interaction

26. Simpler
language
bolding key phrases for skimming
correcting order and focus

27. Simpler
language
bolding key phrases for skimming
correcting order and focus

28. Positive,
prescriptive
wording
Vote for up to 5. You have 5
choices left.
!
Plus instructions for marking the
ballot.

29. Positive,
prescriptive
wording
Vote for up to 5. You have 3
choices left.

30. Positive,
prescriptive
wording
Vote for up to 5. You can choose 2
more.

31. Scrolling
for non-computer users
buttons at the top and bottom of the
visible candidate names
!
visible scroll bar, or on the iPad by flicking
with a finger

32. Scrolling
for non-computer users
with a label that went from
“Touch to see additional
candidates” to
“Touch to see more names”

33. Vertical
layout

34. Vertical
layout
for linear reading and processing
!
allowed more text without
scrolling

35. Deselect
message
intentional changes
!
recovering from the message
Close button
simplified wording
important information bolded

36. Deselect
message
intentional changes
!
recovering from the message
Close button
simplified wording
important information bolded

37. Spacing and
proximity
on the Review screen made a
huge difference in understanding
and performance

38. Spacing and
proximity
on the Review screen made a
huge difference in understanding
and performance

39. Interaction
pattern
Out, with steps back
Out and back, using Review
as a hub

40. Confirmation
message
Are you sure?
!
versus
!
Are you finished?

41. Confirmation
message
Are you sure?
!
versus
!
Are you finished?

42. Lessons learned

43. test the language
choice
options
vote
cast

44. make it look easy
to read

45. support users’
preferred interactions

46. The process proved
the conventions
were broken

47. Plain interaction
The fewest, simplest steps with maximal focus on
the user’s immediate next interaction.

48. Mobile voting is coming

49. In the meantime…

50. If it’s not accessible,
it’s not usable.

51. Thank you.
Especially to
ITIF
University of Baltimore
Whitney Quesenbery

52. Dana Chisnell
dana@centerforcivicdesign.org
centerforcivicdesign.org
anywhereballot.com/library
@danachis
@ChadButterfly