CHILVote: The design and assessment of an accessible audio voting system

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorByrne, Michael D.
dc.contributor.committeeMemberKortum, Philip
dc.contributor.committeeMemberLane, David M.
dc.contributor.committeeMemberWallach, Dan S.
dc.creatorPiner, Gillian E.
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-16T16:08:08Z
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-16T16:08:11Z
dc.date.available2013-09-16T16:08:08Z
dc.date.available2013-09-16T16:08:11Z
dc.date.created2013-05
dc.date.issued2013-09-16
dc.date.submittedMay 2013
dc.date.updated2013-09-16T16:08:11Z
dc.description.abstractThe Help America Vote Act, passed into law in 2002, mandated that all polling places provide privacy and independence to all voters. Given this, many jurisdictions have been forced into making a choice between providing traditional voting methods (such as paper ballots) and offering newer electronic voting systems. Electronic voting machines have been seen as the solution to many usability and accessibility problems, but very little literature exists to indicate whether this is the case among specific populations such as disabled, elderly, and non-English speaking voters. An audio accessible voting interface for visually disabled voters (CHILVote) was designed using specifications from both the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines and a largescale survey of blind individuals conducted by Piner and Byrne [in proceedings of The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting, pp. 1686-1690 (2011)]. CHILVote’s interface utilizes the given design guidelines and includes use of a male text-to-speech voice, a flexible navigation structure, adjustable speed and volume, and an optional review section. Relatively low error rates (M=1.7%) and high SUS scores (M=89.5) among blind subjects are consistent with previous findings. Error rates and satisfaction are not significantly different than those of sighted voters using both paper and DRE, and blind voters using a non-electronic interface. CHILVote significantly reduced the time it takes for blind subjects to vote, from 25.2 minutes (VotePAD) to 17.1 minutes (CHILVote). This is an improvement, but still over 2.5 times slower than sighted subjects voting on an identical ballot. The integration of accessibility into mainstream technology often has benefits beyond allowing more of the population access to a system. This research provides a comparison point and guidelines for future studies of accessibility solutions.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.citationPiner, Gillian E.. "CHILVote: The design and assessment of an accessible audio voting system." (2013) Diss., Rice University. <a href="https://hdl.handle.net/1911/72022">https://hdl.handle.net/1911/72022</a>.
dc.identifier.slug123456789/ETD-2013-05-432
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/72022
dc.language.isoeng
dc.rightsCopyright is held by the author, unless otherwise indicated. Permission to reuse, publish, or reproduce the work beyond the bounds of fair use or other exemptions to copyright law must be obtained from the copyright holder.
dc.subjectVoting
dc.subjectAccessibility
dc.subjectUsability
dc.subjectVisually impaired
dc.subjectBlind
dc.subjectDisability
dc.titleCHILVote: The design and assessment of an accessible audio voting system
dc.typeThesis
dc.type.materialText
thesis.degree.departmentPsychology
thesis.degree.disciplineSocial Sciences
thesis.degree.grantorRice University
thesis.degree.levelDoctoral
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophy
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
PINER-THESIS.pdf
Size:
1.94 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.61 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Rice University Electronic Theses and Dissertations