A User Interface Usability Evaluation of the ElectronicBallot Box used in the 2014

Brazilian Election

Mauro C. Pichiliani (pichilia@ita.br)

Talita C. P. Britto (talita.cpb@gmail.com)

Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica - Department of Computer Science

Federal University of São Carlos - Department of Computer Science

Introduction Since 1996 all voters use an eletronic ballot box

Same UI from 2004 to 2014

The 2014 election: One federal president One state governor One state senator Two state congress members

Roughly 115 milion people with differente literacy levels, ages, technology skills or disabilities

Our goal is to evaluate the usability and accessibility of the ballot box’s user

interface and its elements

Related work

Eletronic vote benefits: less frauds, faster process, reduced logistics and costs

Security, privacy, transparency and confidentially are the main concerns

Tradicional HCI research do not adreess national voting scenarios

Related work [10] is a decade old and evaluated: Ergononics Lack of visual feedback Dificulty to understanding vote correction/confirmation

[10] Michael, G., Cybis, W., Brangier, É. Electoral Ergonomic Guidelines to Solve the Interference of new Technologies and the Dangers of their Broader use in Computerized Voting. In: Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on e-Government, p. 337-348 (2007)

Brazilian electronic electoral process

The UE2013 eletronic ballot box Mandatory vote: ages 18 to 70 First and second round Statistics of the 2014 election:

429,000 eletronic ballot boxes (27 states) 26,000 political candidates (1,600 public offices) 142,000,000 registered users (115 mil. voted)

Brazil demographics: 45,000,000 have some disability 7,000,000 voters are illiterate 17,000,000 don’t have formal education

Evaluation methodology (1) Heuristic evaluation via a usability inspection method Identify issues in the UI though the official online simulator

Evaluation methodology (2) Scope: aesthetical design, accssibility of the UI, layout aspects of

physical elements

Evaluation based on the usability heuristics for electronic ballot boxes [10] and guidelines for the Accessibility Management Platform [12]

Scope Heuristic Evidence

Voting machineusability

Knowledge of computers

Users shouldn’t be assumed to knowhow to operate computers to vote

Voting machineUsability

User friendly Clear and detailed information, preciselabels and instructions

Voting machineUsability

Delimitation of vote modules

Display clear information concerningthe start and the end of a vote module

Voting machineUsability

Feedback General summary of what was done,give opportunity to cancel everything

and restart the votes

Voting machineUsability

Attention focus Information display and entry devicesshould be placed as close as possible

to concentrate attention

Voting machineUsability

Special legibility Functions to enhance legibility forpeople with low vision or elderly

Voting machineUsability

Electoral language Use terms that are common to users and that contextualize them of actions

Accessibility Non-animationMode

When animation is displayed, theinformation shall be displayable in atleast one non-animated presentation

mode at the option of the user

Accessibility Color coding Information that do not require the user to note or distinguish specific colors

Results (1) - Usability Compatibility with knowledge: no help instructions

User friendly and reinforced guidance: no reinforced guidance

Clear delimitation of vote modules: progress bar confusion

Local and global feedback control: no vote review options

Attention focusing: thin border and discrete flashing caret

Intuitive errors correction: button errase all typed numbers

Compatibility with voter’s objetive: no information about party vote

Modal flexibility: low resolution pictures, no illiterate options

Special legibility: screen far from the user’s head and eyes

Electoral language: no explanation for party vote

Results (2) - Accessibility Contrast and color selections:

No contrast function This option benifts people with visual impairment and eldery

Non-animation mode No animations Discrete fades enhance usability

Color coding: change the confirmation text

"Press the key: GREEN to CONFIRM this vote; ORANGE to RESTART this vote“

"Press the key: CONFIRM (GREEN) to CONFIRM this vote; CORRECT (ORANGE) to RESTART this vote"

Discussion Adaptation from paper-based to computer-based process

Brazil has a diverse voter’s population

Improvements over time: Braile keys Option to plug earphones/headphones Appointment to use a special voting session

Some issues still persist: Low color contrast Absence of final confirmation screen Possibility to return to previous voting modules Content organization General usability for illiterate, elderly or people with

disabilities

Redesign proposal

Conclusion & Future work Eletronic ballot boxes facilitates election

Brazil has a large and diverse voter’s population

Previous studies focused on usability and accessibility

Issues for voter’s still persist

Simple UI changes have the potential to: Reduce voter’s confusion Descrease the number of errors Make voters understand better the process and their

choices

Future work: Implementation of the UI modifications Testing and validation with users Evaluation the impact on voting process