Usability and Accessibility Working Group Report

1. Usability and Accessibility Working Group Report Sharon Laskowski, PhD National Institute of Standards and Technology http://vote.nist.gov TGDC Meeting, July 8-9, 2010

2. U&A Working Group Goals • Identify and prioritize issues related to improving the usability and accessibility of voting systems • Address these issues through research to be performed by NIST and others* resulting in improved VVSG requirements and test methods and recommendations to the Election Assistance Commission • How: Biweekly discussions, collaboration with other WGs, NIST research *e.g, EAC grant programs, academia

3. Focus has been primarily accessibility • Discussions concerning VVSG requirements, interpretation, and testing • Includes discussions of paper/access barriers • TGDC work item for NIST: Examine VVSG 2.0 requirements for accessibility, including voter verification (voter verifiable paper records) • TGDC work item for NIST : Report on “Accessibility and usability considerations for remote electronic UOCAVA voting”

4. Understanding the intention of the req’s and testing important for U&A • VVSG 1.1 and 2.0 test methods • Draft, Validation in progress • Tester qualifications document • Draft, Coordinating with NVLAP • We are in the process of acquiring newer systems for our voting systems lab • Announced in the Federal Register • Now in the process of contacting manufacturers • Under discussion: additional guidance documents for VVSG 1.1 and 2.0 test methods

5. Collaboration with other WG’s and experts is critical • Auditability • Consistency with accessibility requirements • Usability of new approaches, methods • UOCAVA • U&A for pilot tests, and for deployment, should be engineered from the outset • U&A considerations document in draft • (Discussion is part of UOCAVA WG report)

6. Dexterity research continues to be needed to improve voting systems • Universal design can accommodate many disabilities, but not all. • For example, there is a wide range of dexterity disabilities that are accommodated with personal assistive technology (PAT), e.g, sip and puff, jelly, head switches • PAT is not addressed in VVSG 2.0 • Solutions include: • Requirements to allow voters to use their own PAT and requirements setting standard scanning of the ballot to support switches • New approaches such as sound activation rather than physical switches

7. Requirements for low vision and considerations for aging population could be improved • Approach to accommodate low vision is: • Magnification • Audio read back • For paper, this is not optimal • Audio alone or manual magnification can be difficult for older voters or those with cognitive disabilities • Testing with older populations may uncover additional or improved requirements • Further research is needed

8. NIST Research on performance-based usability testing continues • Usability benchmarks validation in progress • Benchmarks set the bar for the accuracy of the voter voting as intended and for successfully casting the ballot • NIST “calibration machine” touch screen built and benchmark values are being collected for it • Will ensure that test labs are performing the usability testing correctly • The usability performance based testing is not feasible for the accessible voting systems • Large numbers of users needed for repeatability

9. Performance-based usability testingfor accessible voting systems will encourage better designs • The “Accessibility throughout the voting session” VVSG 2.0 test method is based on both user performance data and expert analysis of that data • Testing usability with people with disabilities for certification requires additional research • We hypothesize that a combination of some performance data plus expert analysis would produce a feasible test method

10. Paper ballots: manual dexterity • VVSG 1.0 requirement 3.2.3.e was revised by the EAC “to make the capability to submit the ballot mandatory for voters with dexterity limitations.”  • VVSG 1.0 Req. 3.2.3.e If the normal procedure is for voters to submit their own ballots, then the accessible voting station shall provide features that enable voters who lack fine motor control or the use of their hands to perform this submission. • VVSG 1.1 (and 2.0) draft Req 3.3.4.c If the Acc-VS supports ballot submission or voter verification for non-disabled voters, then it shall also provide features that enable voters who lack fine motor control or the use of their hands to perform these actions. (Note: all usability reqs apply to the accessible systems.) 10

11. Paper ballots: visual 11 VVSG 1.0 requirement 7.9.7.b was significantly revised by the EAC “to make it clear that if the paper record either is treated as the official ballot or could be the controlling record used for recount, then visually disabled voters must be able to verify the paper record itself”.   VVSG 1.0 and VVSG 1.1 (and 2.0) drafts Req. 7.9.7.b If the normal voting procedure includes VVPAT, the accessible voting equipment should provide features that enable voters who are visually impaired and voters with an unwritten language to perform this verification. If state statute designates the paper record produced by the VVPAT to be the official ballot or the determinative record on a recount, the accessible voting equipment shall provide features that enable visually impaired voters and voters with an unwritten language to review the paper record. Also, VVSG 1.1 (and 2.0) draft Req 3.3.1e If the Acc-VS generates a paper record (or some other durable, human-readable record) for the purposes of allowing voters to verify their votes, then the system shall provide a means to ensure that the verification record is accessible to all voters with disabilities” (Note: all usability reqs apply to the accessible systems.)

12. 12 Automatic paper handling mechanisms and systems to allow verification of print in alternative formats have yet to be commercially available and deployed to meet these requirements.