The document summarizes usability testing done on prototypes for an "Anywhere Ballot" system that would allow voters to vote from any device on any ballot. It describes iterations of paper and digital prototypes that were tested with participants over multiple days, with the goal of designing an accessible election experience. The testing resulted in a responsive digital ballot prototype that is accessible, focuses on ballot marking, can be used on various devices, and produces a verifiable paper ballot to address security concerns.

1. Usability testing
Anywhere Ballot:
before & after
University of Baltimore
Drew Davies
Dana Chisnell
Kathryn Summers
Megan McKeever

2. Premise
Everyone should vote on the same ballot

3. Background
AVTI workshops in 2012

4. How might we design an
accessible election
experience for everyone?
Open IDEO
AVTI workshops in 2012

5. What if you could vote
anywhere, any time, on
any device?

6. Effective Designs for
the Administration of
Elections, 2007
Design for
Democracy

7. NIST IR 7556
Report: Language of
Instructions on
Ballots, 2008
Redish, Chisnell,
Newby,
Laskowski, &
Lowry

8. NIST medium
complexity ballot
modified, slightly
18 pages

9. Paper prototype
18 participants
4 days
16 versions

10. Digital prototype
15 participants
3 days
3-4 versions

11. Iteration 1

12. Iteration 3

13. Instructions to voters

14. Iteration 1

15. Help version,
paper final

16. How to vote,
final digital

17. Straight party voting

18. Iteration 1

19. Iteration 5

20. Final digital

21. Vote for 1

22. Iteration 1, selected state

23. Iteration 4

24. Final digital

25. Supplemental content, iteration 1

26. Supplemental content, iteration 1

27. Supplemental content, iteration 1

28. Supplemental
content,
iteration 2

29. Supplemental
content,
iteration 2

30. Supplemental
content,
digital final

31. Multi-candidate
contests

32. Iteration 1

33. Iteration 1, selected state

34. Iteration 4

35. Iteration 4,
scrolled

36. Digital final

37. Judge retention
contests

38. Iteration 1

39. Iteration 3

40. Digital final

41. Referenda

42. Iteration 1

43. Iteration 4

44. Digital final

45. Ballot measures

46. Iteration 1

47. Iteration 4

48. Digital final

49. Write-ins

50. Iteration 1

51. Iteration 1

52. Iteration 2

53. Iteration 2

54. Supplemental
content,
iteration 1

55. Digital final

56. Reviewing votes

57. Iteration 1

58. Iteration 1, scrolled down (page 2)

59. Iteration 1, scrolled down (page 3)

60. Iteration 1, scrolled to the end

61. Iteration 4,
scrolled down
(page 2)

62. Iteration 4,
scrolled down
(page 3)

63. Supplemental
content,
iteration 1

64. Digital final

65. Digital final

66. Digital final

67. Changing a vote

68. Iteration 1

69. Iteration 2

70. Iteration 3

71. Iteration 4

72. Changing
votes,
digital iteration
1

73. Changing
votes,
digital iteration
2

74. Changing
votes,
digital final

75. Casting the vote

76. Iteration 1

77. Iteration 2

78. Digital final

79. Iteration 1

80. Iteration 2

81. Digital final

82. 2 prototypes
33 participants
7 days
20+ versions

83. Responsive
good for devices
good for UOCAVA
good for accessibility standards

84. Prevents user errors
error management
typed write-in
helps voters see impact of straight-
party voting

85. Focuses on ballot
marking
connect to any EMS
output in an appropriate format

86. Can run on COTS
devices
more accessible (own pointer, own
screen reader)
software independent

87. Not “voting over the
Internet”
assume appropriate election system
can produce printed ballot to cast
logic is local (no trips to the server)

88. Anywhere ballot
designed to be responsive to different formats
works on any device
accessible for voters with disabilities

89. How can it be part of a
secure, verifiable
election system?
Who will it help?
How will it help them?
What voter need does it meet?