This study sought to understand if voting equipment layouts impacted anticipated voting system usability. Thirty-five participants viewed photorealistic rendered images of twelve different voting system configurations within a polling station. After viewing each condition, participants completed a survey to assess anticipated system usability and related measures. Results showed that spatial configurations of voting machines inside a polling station impacted all subjective ratings. Anticipated usability was highest when the voting systems had dividers around the interface, there was space between units, and polling booths were arranged in the room such that voters did not face one another. This study demonstrates that environmental variables might need to be considered when configuring polling stations in order to maximize subjective assessments, like anticipated usability, that could impact future system use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AcemyanC.Z.KortumP. (2012). The relationship between trust and usability in systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting, USA, 56(1), 1842-1846.
2.
AlbersM.J. (2011). Design and usability: Beginner interactions with complex software. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 41(3), 271-287.
3.
BangorAKortumPMillerJ. (2009). Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies, 4(3), 114-123.
4.
BernardinJ.H.CookeD.K.VillanovaP. (2000). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as predictors of rating leniency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 232-234.
5.
BevanN. (2009). What is the difference between the purpose of usability and user experience evaluation methods? In Proceedings of the Workshop UXEM, 9, 1-4.
6.
BrookeJ. (1986). Usability engineering in office product development. In Proceedings of the Second Conference of the British Computer Society, Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group On People and Computers: Designing for usability (pp. 249–259). Cambridge University Press.
7.
BrookeJ. (1996). SUS: a ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In JordanP.W.ThomasB.WeerdmeesterB.A.McClellandI.L. (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189-194). London, England: Taylor and Francis.
8.
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, USA, 171-180.
HassenzahlM.TractinskyN. (2006). User experience-a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91-97.
11.
ISO. (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminal (VDT’s)–Part 11: Guidance on usability (ISO 9241-11(E)). Geneva, Switzerland.
12.
ISO. (2010). Ergonomics of human system interaction-Part 210: Human-centered design for interactive systems. (ISO 9241-210). Geneva, Switzerland.
13.
JordanP. W. (1997). Human factors for pleasure in product use. Applied Ergonomics, 29(1), 25-33.
14.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York, NY: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
15.
KortumP.BangorA. (2012). Usability ratings for everyday products measured with the System Usability Scale (SUS). International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction.
16.
SauroJ. (2011). A practical guide to the system usability scale. Denver, CO: CreateSpace.
17.
ScharffL.F.V.KortumP. (2009). When links change: How additions and deletions of single navigation links affect user performance. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(1), 8-20.
18.
SondereggerA.SauerJ. (2010). The influence of design aesthetics in usability testing: Effects on user performance and perceived usability. Applied Ergonomics, 41, 403-410.
19.
SuzukiS.BellottiV.YeeN.JohnB.E.NakaoY.AsahiT.FukuzumiS. (2011). Variation in importance of time-on-task with familiarity with mobile phone models. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Proceedings of CHI 2007, USA, 2551-2554.
20.
ThompsonD.V.HamiltonR.W.RustR.T. (2005). Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 431-442.
21.
ToshiyaY.NoboruN.TomokoM. (2011). Extraction of user interaction patterns for low-usability web pages. In KurosuM. (Ed.), Human centered design: Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 144-152). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
22.
WoodsonW.E.TillmanP.TillmanB. (1992). Human Factors Design Handbook. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.
23.
ZhangP.LiN. (2004). Love at first sight or sustained effect? The role of perceived affective quality on user’s cognitive reactions to information technology. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), 283–295.
