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

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorByrne, Michael D.en_US
dc.contributor.committeeMemberKortum, Philipen_US
dc.contributor.committeeMemberLane, David M.en_US
dc.contributor.committeeMemberWallach, Dan S.en_US
dc.creatorPiner, Gillian E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-16T16:08:08Zen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-09-16T16:08:11Zen_US
dc.date.available2013-09-16T16:08:08Zen_US
dc.date.available2013-09-16T16:08:11Zen_US
dc.date.created2013-05en_US
dc.date.issued2013-09-16en_US
dc.date.submittedMay 2013en_US
dc.date.updated2013-09-16T16:08:11Zen_US
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.en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_US
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>.en_US
dc.identifier.slug123456789/ETD-2013-05-432en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1911/72022en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
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.en_US
dc.subjectVotingen_US
dc.subjectAccessibilityen_US
dc.subjectUsabilityen_US
dc.subjectVisually impaireden_US
dc.subjectBlinden_US
dc.subjectDisabilityen_US
dc.titleCHILVote: The design and assessment of an accessible audio voting systemen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.type.materialTexten_US
thesis.degree.departmentPsychologyen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineSocial Sciencesen_US
thesis.degree.grantorRice Universityen_US
thesis.degree.levelDoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.nameDoctor of Philosophyen_US
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 Theses and Dissertations