Vote-by-Phone: An Investigation of a Usable and Accessible IVR Voting System
Keywords:voting, accessible, usability, IVR, universal design
AbstractOne of the main goals of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was to ensure that voters with disabilities could vote privately and independently. However, the current state of most voting methods does not allow for private and independent voting for everyone. In response to this issue, we tested a remote IVR voting system developed by Author 1 and Author 2 (2013), with an added audio speed adjustment feature and synthetic voice to increase usability and accessibility, especially for visually impaired voters (Pinter, 2011). The focus of this research was to examine the viability and usability of the IVR voting system as an accessible voting platform for visually impaired voters. The system was tested by users with and without visual impairments, and usability was measured using the three ISO 9241-11 usability metrics (ISO 9241-11, 1998) of efficiency (time to complete a ballot), effectiveness (accuracy), and satisfaction (subjective usability). Results indicate that the IVR voting system could be a viable voting alternative to other established voting methods, with similar performance among sighted and visually impaired users.
Asakawa, C., Takagi, H., & Ino, S., Ifukube, T. (2003). Maximum listening speeds for the blind. Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference on Auditory Display. Boston, MA.
Author, Author 2, & Author (2009).
Brandt, J. (2008). Interactive voice response interfaces. In P. Author 2 (Ed.), HCI beyond the GUI: Design for haptic, speech, olfactory, and other nontraditional interfaces (pp. 229-266). Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufman Publishers.
Brault, M. W. (2012). Americans with disabilities: 2010. Retrieved December 2015, from Census.gov: http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70-131.pdf
Brooke, J. (1996) SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester & A. L. McClelland (Eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis.
Bundy, H. (2003). Election reform, polling place accessibility, and the voting rights of the disabled. Election Law Journal, 2(2), 217-240.
Burg, F., Kantonides, J., & Russell, L. (2009). U.S. Patent No. 7,522,715. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Byrne, M. D., Greene, K. K., & Everett, S. P. (2007). Usability of voting systems: Baseline data for paper, punch cards, and lever machines. In Human Factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of CHI 2007, (pp.171-180). New York: ACM.
Campbell, B., Tossell, C., Author 2, P., & Byrne (2010). Voting on a Smartphone: Evaluating the Usability of an Optimized Voting System for Handheld Mobile Devices. (Unpublished manuscript). Rice University, Houston, TX.
Cross II, E. V., Dawkins, S., McClendon, J., Sullivan, T., Rogers, G., Erete, A., & Gilbert, J. E. (2009). Everyone counts: Voting accessibility. Universal Access in Human-ComputerInteraction.Applications and Services (pp. 324-332). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Ellis, A., Navarro, C., Morales, I., Gratschew, M., & Braun, N. (2007). Voting from abroad: The internatinal IDEA handbook. Stockholm, Sweden:International IDEA.Everett, S. P. (2007). The usability of electronic voting machines and how votes can be changed without detection (Doctoral dissertation, Rice University).
Everett, S. P., Byrne, M. D., & Greene, K. K. (2006). Measuring the usability of paper ballots: Efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Everett, S. P., Greene, K. K., Byrne, M. D., Wallach, D. S., Derr, K., Sandler, D., & Torous, T. (2008). Electronic voting machines versus traditional methods: Improved preference, similar performance. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of CHI 2008 (pp. 883-892). New York: ACM.
Greene, K. K., Byrne, M. D., & Everett, S. P. (2006). A comparison of usability between voting methods. In Proceedings of the 2006 USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop. Vancouver, BC.
Herrnson, P. S., Niemi, R. G., Hanmer, M. J., Bederson, B. B., Conrad, F. G., & Traugott, M. (2006). The Importance of Usability Testing of Voting Systems. EVT, 6, 3-3.
Author 1 & Author 2 (2013)
Houtenville, A. J., Brucker, D. L., & Lauer, E. A. (2014). Annual compendium of disability: 2014. University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability, Durham, NH. Retrieved November 2015, from Annual Disability Statistics Compendium: http://www.disabilitycompendium.org/docs/default-source/2014- compendium/2014_compendium.pdf
ISO 9241-11 (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability (ISO 9241-11(E)). Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
Killam, B., & Autry, M. (2000). Human factors guidelines for interactive voice response systems. IEA 2000 Congress Proceedings, 1, pp. 391-394.
Laskowski, S. J., Autry, M., Cugini, J., Killam, W., & Yen, J. (2004). mproving the usability and accessibility of voting systems and products. NIST Special Publication, 500-256.
Mazurick, M., & Melanson, D. A. (2004). US Patent No. 20,040,248,552. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Norden, L., Creelan, J., Munoz, A., & Quesenbery, W. (2006). The machinery of democracy: Voting system security, accessibility, usability and cost. New York: The Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/machinery-democracy
Piner, G. (2011). A usability and real world perspective on accessible voting. Master’s Thesis, Rice University, Houston, TX.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1973), 29 U.S.C. § 701 (1973).
Schumacher, R., Hardzinski, M., & Schwartz, A. (1995). Increasing the usability of interactive voice response systems: Research and guidelines for phone-based interfaces. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 27(2), 251-264.
Schur, L. (2013). Reducing obstacles to voting for people with disabilities. Retrieved January 2016, from The Presidential Commision on Election Administration: https://www.supportthevoter.gov/files/2013/08/Disability-and- Voting-White-Paper-for-Presidential-Commission-Schur.docx_.pdf
Theofanos, M. F., & Redish, J. J. (2003). Bridging the gap: Between accessibility and usability. Interactions, 10(6), 36-51.
Tokaji, D., & Colker, R. (2007). Absentee voting by people with disabilities: Promoting access and integrity. McGeorge Law Review, 38, 1015-1061.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2009). Voters with disabilities: More polling places had no potential impediments than in 2000, but challenges remain. Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office.
United States Government, 47th Congress. (2002). Help America Vote Act of 2002. Public Law 47-252. Washington, D.C.
United States Government, 98th Congress. (1984). Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act. Public Law 98-435. Washington , D.C.
How to Cite
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share or adapt the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Use of the work for commercial purposes are not allowed.
- Authors are able to publish the journal's published version of the work in other media (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as far as they inform the Journal of Accessibility and Design for All of that fact. When publishing their work in other sources, authors must mention the name of the Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, its ISSN, the number and issue in which the article was published and a link to the main page of the Journal of Accessibility and Design for All. Optionally, they can also include a link to the article published in the Journal of Accessibility and Design for All.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website), as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.