1 / 20

Maryland 2002 Election Usability

Maryland 2002 Election Usability. Benjamin B. Bederson Computer Science Department Human-Computer Interaction Lab University of Maryland, College Park Reporting results from work with Paul Herrnson Owen Abbe Dept. of Government and Politics. www.cs.umd.edu/~bederson/voting.

mae
Download Presentation

Maryland 2002 Election Usability

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. Maryland 2002 Election Usability Benjamin B. Bederson Computer Science Department Human-Computer Interaction Lab University of Maryland, College Park Reporting results from work with Paul Herrnson Owen Abbe Dept. of Government and Politics www.cs.umd.edu/~bederson/voting

  2. 2002 Election Exit PollMontgomery & Prince George’s Counties • Administered broad exit poll • questionnaire • 1,276 respondents • 22 precincts in two counties • response rate was 74.6% • Summary: • Majority like new system • But significant minority have concerns

  3. Diebold AccuVote-TSDeployed at 2002 General Election

  4. Voter Acceptance • The voting system was easy 94% • I was comfortable using the system 93% • Characters on the screen were easyto read 94% • Terminology on screen was precise 93% • Correcting my mistakes was easy 91% • I am confident that my vote wasaccurately recorded 90%

  5. Voter Trust • Previously, voters had used punch cards or mechanical lever systems. • I trust the previous voting machine 71% • I trust the touch screen voting machine 91%

  6. Problems Using the System • Asked for help using the machine 9% • Received help using the machine 17% • Experienced technical problems 3% • Election officials are pro-active • Most technical problems are with cards • Navigation was troublesome – sometimes jumping multiple screens • Couldn’t change language after selection • Ballot review with scrollbar was difficult

  7. Usability and Assistanceby Computer Use

  8. Assistance by Education

  9. Assistance and Trustby Race

  10. Assistance and Trust by Sex

  11. Assistance by Age

  12. Information Visualization • Visualization helps users see patterns and detect outliers in large data sets • A ballot is a large dataset • Most DREs show less than 4 races per screen • How do voters understand how they voted? • Show more than fits on the screen by: • Good, dense information design • Overview+detail • Abstracted representations • Simple navigation mechanisms

  13. Navigating Large Spaces • Imagine driving from NY to CA with only street maps. • You need abstracted overview maps – that show states and highways. • We have the same problem with voting systems: • How do you get an overview of the state of your ballot?

  14. A Motivating Example • Zoomable User Interface (ZUI) • Single screen interface • Overview + Detail • Natural navigation and progress indication

  15. Conclusion • Studies leave us optimistic, but concerned • With elections called by 1%, leaving 10% unconfident voters is a problem • The requirements of DREs are unique, but the design issues aren’t • Typical of public access information systems • Need closer work with HCI professionals • Need qualitative and quantitative user studies • Need further field studies www.cs.umd.edu/~bederson/voting

More Related