1. The UX of Voting
ELIZABETH ROSENZWEIG
USER EXPERIENCE CENTER
BENTLEY UNIVERSITY
erosenzweig@bentley.edu
781.891. 2032 | www.bentley.edu/uxc

2. UX of Voting
 Introduction
 How Does UX effect Voting
 When did this become important?
 HAVA
 Design for Democracy
 MIT-CalTech Voting Project-Voting Test
Methodology
 NIST
 Center of Civic Design

3. How Does UX Effect Voting
Single Most Important UX Issue of Our Time
 Ballot Design
 Voting Technology
 Polling Places
 Instructions for Voting
Result is seen in the leaders
we elect to run our country.

4. Voting Technology
 User Interface design for voting machines is
a new idea
 Voter Intent has been studied since 1940
but until 2000,but from a political science
and psychology perspective
 Accessibility issues have only
been reviewed and included in the
few decades

5. Traditional Voting Machine

6. Punch card

7. Human Factors in Vote Counts

8. Optical Scan

9. When Did UX Get Noticed?
Case Study: 2000 USA Presidential Election
 Close vote count
 Every single votes makes a difference
 Design cited as an issue
 Accessibility became a clearer issue

10. The Butterfly Did It: The Aberrant Vote for
Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida
July 2, 2001
 Jonathan N. Wand
 Kenneth W. Shotts
 Jasjeet S. Sekhon
 Walter R. Mebane, Jr.
 Michael C. Herron
 Henry E. Brady

11. The Butterfly Did It
“We show that the
butterfly ballot used in
Palm Beach County
(PBC), Florida, in the
2000 presidential
election caused more
than 2,200 Democratic
voters to vote by mistake
for Reform candidate Pat
Buchanan—a number
larger than George W.
Bush’s certified margin
of victory in Florida. “

12. 2000 Presidential Election
 Design errors caused confusion
 Hanging Chads

13. Hanging Chads

14. Ballot Design
 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did not Cast the
Deciding Vote by Ford Fessenden and John M. Broder, published
New York Times, November 12, 2001.
 Review by independent consortium, looking at the broader group of
rejected ballots, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts
had ordered a statewide recount of all the rejected ballots
 “In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints
of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach
County, who said in interviews at the the election that confusing
ballot designs may have led them to split their ballots by voting for
more then one candidate.”

15. Help America Vote Act

16. Help America Vote Act
 Human Factors

17. Design for Democracy
 http://www.aiga.org/design-for-democracy/

18. Ballot Design
Information needs to be clear and presented in an intuitive way. Confused voters are
prone to making mistakes and ruining their vote so it won’t be counted.

19. MIT-CalTech Voting Technology Project
 2001 Began researching issues with Voting
Technology
 Built on question of human factors impacting voters
intent
 Understanding voters intent included looking at
cognitive load, visual design, interface with
technology, election officials human factors

20. Electronic Voting

22. Verified Voting

23. Verifying Votes

24. VVPAT

25. Voting Methodology

26. Voting Methodology
 Testing Voter Verified Paper Trail in a Simulated
Real World Environment –off election season
 Real Poll Workers
 Arlington Town Hall- real polling place

27. Voters with Disabilities
 Visual impairment
 Audio impairment
 Learning disabilities

28. Accessible Voting

29. No Consistency at Polling Places

30. Voting Methodology
 Findings
 History of voting technology has only recently included human
factors considerations, these need to take into consideration all
forms of human factors issues
 Although voting systems are regulated, there is not enough
consistency to assure standards are met throughout system
 Key Takeaway
 Ballot Design makes a difference
 Poll Workers and Polling Places need
consistency
 Accessible Voting must be improved
and made available

31. NIST Voting HF Guidelines
 Testing methodology for testing voting machines
 Validate methodology
 Test for accessibility

32. NIST Voting HF Guidelines
 Human Factors Test Suites for Voting Systems
 http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/systemtesting.cfm

33. Center for Civic Design
 http://centerforcivicdesign.org/

34. Testing Voters’ Guides
 Voters’ Guides provide the voter information about ballot
questions
 Should be written in plain English
 Testing whether they are understandable and effective

35. Voter Guides Study
 Upcoming testing on paper guides in Portland,
Oregon
 Upcoming testing on paper guides in Denver,
Colorado

36. What’s Next
 You can be involved
 Become a Poll Worker, write about what you see
 Connect with Voting Projects mentioned
in the presentation

37. UX of Voting
 How does UX effect Voting
 History of design problems in voting systems
 Range of projects have been started since 2000
 Progress is being made, but slowly.