The goal of this research was to assess the usability of a voting system designed for current-generation smartphones. Smartphones offer remote participation in elections through the use of pervasive technology and voting on these devices could, among other benefits, increase voter participation while allowing voters to use familiar technology. We developed a mobile voting system for the iPhone and compared its usability with traditional voting platforms. Results showed that the mobile voting system was not as efficient as the other voting methods in total interaction time. However, smartphone owners committed fewer errors on the mobile voting system than on the traditional voting systems. These results, along with others, are discussed along with several important design considerations for voting technology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BangorA.KortumP. T.MillerJ. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24, 574–594.
2.
BraceK. W. (2008). Nation sees drop in use of electronic voting equipment for 2008 election – A first. Manassas, VA: Election Data Services Inc.
3.
BrookeJ. (1996) SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In JordanP. W.ThomasB.WeerdmeesterB. A.McClellandA. L. (Eds.). In Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor and Francis.
4.
BrucherH.BaumbergerP. (2003). Using Mobile Technology to Support eDemocracy. In Proc. 36th International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii.
5.
ByrneM. D.GreeneK. K.EverettS. P. (2007). Usability of voting systems: Baseline data for paper, punch cards, and lever machines. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of CHI 2007, (pp. 171–180). New York: ACM.
6.
CampbellB. A.ByrneM. D. (2009). Now do voters notice review screen anomalies? A look at voting system usability. Proceedings of the Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE ’09), Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association.
7.
ColemanS. (2002). Elections in the 21st century: from paper ballot to e-voting. Report by the Independent Commission on alternative voting methods, London, Electoral Reform Society.
8.
DuchnickyR. L.KolersP.A. (1983). Readability of text scrolled on visual display terminals as a function of window size, Human Factors, 25, 683-692.
9.
EverettS. P.ByrneM. D.GreeneK. K. (2006). Measuring the usability of paper ballots: Efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, (pp. 2547-2551). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
10.
EverettS. P.GreeneK. K.ByrneM. D.WallachD. S.DerrK.SandlerD.TorousT. (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.
11.
GogginS. N. (2008). Usability of election technologies: Effects of political motivation and instruction use. The Rice Cultivator: A Student Journal of Public Policy Research, 1, 30-45.
12.
GreeneK. K. (2008). Usability of New Electronic Voting Systems and Traditional Methods: Comparisons Between Sequential and Direct Access Electronic Voting Interfaces, Paper Ballots, Punch Cards, and Lever Machines (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Rice University, Houston, TX.
13.
GreeneK. K.ByrneM. D.EverettS. P. (2006). A comparison of usability between voting methods. Proceedings of the 2006 USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workshop.
14.
HightonB. (2006). Long Lines, Voting Machine Availability, and Turnout: The Case of Franklin County, Ohio in the 2004 Presidential Election. PS: Political Science and Politics, 39, 65-68.
15.
Kukulska-HulmeA. (2007). Mobile Usability in Educational Contexts: What have we learnt?The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8, 356 – 362.
16.
MatthewsT.PierceJ.TangJ. (2009). No Smart Phone is an Island: The Impact of Places, Situations, and Other Devices on Smart Phone Use. IBM Research Report #RJ10452.
NordenL.KimballD.QuesenberyW.ChenM. (2008). Better ballots. New York, NY: Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
19.
PinerG. E.ByrneM. D. (2010). Baseline usability data for a non-electronic approach to accessible voting. Proceedings of the Electronic Voting Technology Workshop/Workshop on Trustworthy Elections (EVT/WOTE ’10), Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association.
20.
SandlerD. R.DerrK.WallachD. S. (2008). VoteBox: A tamper-evident, verifiable electronic voting system. Proceedings of the 17th USENIX Security Symposium.
21.
SmordalO.GregoryJ. (2005). KNOWMOBILE: Mobile opportunities for medical students. In Kukulska-HulmeA.TraxlerJ. (Eds.) Mobile Learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 99 – 105). London: Routledge.
22.
SpencerD. M.MarkovitzZ. S. (2010). Long Lines at Polling Stations? Observations from an Election Day Field Study. Election Law Journal, 9, 3–17.
23.
TossellC.C.KortumP.ShepardC.W.RahmatiA.ZhongL. (2010). Assessing the Performance of Common Tasks on Handheld Mobile Computers. In Proc. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society (HFES). San Francisco, CA.
24.
WandJ. N.ShottsK. W.SekhonJ. S.MebaneW. R.HerronM. C.BradyH. E. (2001). The butterfly did it: The aberrant vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida. American Political Science Review, 95, 793–810.
25.
WeinsteinM. (2004). Political activity and youth in Britain. In ToddM. J.TaylorG. (eds.). Democracy and Participation. Popular Protest and New Social Movements, London, S. 176-195.
