1

EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2013-04

(Usability Testing)

2005 VVSG Volume I, Section 3.1.1, 3.2.2.1a, 3.2.2.2a & 3.2.3a

Date: 

June 13, 2013 

Question:

How should voting system manufacturers interpret the somewhat vague requirements 

regarding usability testing contained in Section 3.1.1 of the 2005 VVSG?

Section of Guidelines:

3.1.1 Usability Testing

The vendor shall conduct summative usability tests on the voting system using individuals

representative of the general population. The vendor shall document the testing performed

and report the test results using the Common Industry Format. This documentation shall 

be included in the Technical Data Package submitted to the EAC for national certification.

Discussion: Voting system developers are required to conduct realistic usability tests on

the final product. For the present, vendors can define their own testing protocols. Future 

revisions to the Guidelines will include requirements for usability testing that will provide 

specific performance benchmarks.

3.2.2.1 a Partial Vision

The vendor shall conduct summative usability tests on the voting system using partially sighted 

individuals. The vendor shall document the testing performed and report the test results using the 

Common Industry Format. This documentation shall be included in the Technical Data Package 

submitted to the EAC for national certification.

3.2.2.2 a Blindness

The vendor shall conduct summative usability tests on the voting system using individuals who 

are blind. The vendor shall document the testing performed and report the test results using the 

Common Industry Format. This documentation shall be included in the Technical Data Package 

submitted to the EAC for national certification.
2

3.2.3 a Dexterity

The vendor shall conduct summative usability tests on the voting system using individuals 

lacking fine motor control. The vendor shall document the testing performed and report the test 

results using the Common Industry Format. This documentation shall be included in the 

Technical Data Package submitted to the EAC for national certification.

Discussion:

Summative Usability Test reports submitted to the EAC and included in the Technical Data 

package pursuant to the requirements of Section 3.1.1, 3.2.2.1a, 3.2.2.2a and 3.2.3a of the 

2005 VVSG have generally been inadequate to effectively communicate any true 

determination of the usability of a voting system for the wide variety of abilities 

represented in the general voting population. This RFI provides additional information to 

voting system manufacturers to better interpret and define the phrase “individuals 

representative of the general population.” This document also includes as an attachment the 

NIST modified CIF template for voting system manufacturers. Information contained in 

this RFI was taken from the NIST document “Guidelines on How to Complete the Modified 

CIF Template for Voting Manufacturers.” (Please note that NIST developed the template 

and guidance documents for VVSG 2.0 so the requirement. numbering scheme is different and 

includes requirements for alternative language and pollworker testing. This document is 

provided for guidance purposes only.)

The Modified CIF Template requires voting system manufacturers to list the number and 

types of participants included in the usability test. These participants must provide a 

representative sample of the voting population. To comply with the VVSG requirements 

noted above, this section shall include: 

 Total number of participants tested

 Types of user groups tested: 

o Voters from the general population.

o Voters with low vision.

o Voters who are blind.

o Voters with dexterity disabilities.

 Key characteristics and demographics of the participants. This 

information can be expressed in a table, a bulleted list or even in a 

graph/chart.

After adequately describing the voters who participated in the usability test, it is important 

to note how these users were selected. Manufacturers should describe their recruiting 

strategies and detail any compensation given to participants. Voting system manufacturers 

shall also describe how the voters were selected and their recruiting strategy to find test 

participants matching their target profile. Any differences between the users profiled as 

recruits and the users who participated in the actual study, should be noted as well. 
3

Specific Guidance 

 Voting System Manufacturers shall recruit at least eight test participants within each 

user group, including at least eight general voters, eight voters with low vision, eight 

blind voters, and eight voters with dexterity disabilities. Using fewer than eight 

participants makes it difficult to ascertain issues with the product because of the 

variability between subjects. Recruiting people with disabilities may actually be easier 

than expected because of the high rate of civic engagement within the disability 

community. Places to look for participants with disabilities include the following:

• Organizations for specific disabilities or conditions

• Cross-disability organizations

• Mailing lists

• College and university programs for students with disabilities

• Local disability-related support groups

• Local or regional government rehabilitation or disability services 

departments

• Seniors organizations and local senior centers

• Independent living organizations

 Although a minimum of eight participants is required, it is strongly suggested that test 

administrator(s) consider testing with larger numbers of voters in order to gather 

additional data to support the study’s conclusions. For greater statistical analysis, 

studies with 30 or more users are recommended. In addition, the initial recruitment 

should target at least 10 - 12 participants in order to ensure that at least 8 individuals 

are able to complete the testing sessions. 

 Not only is it important to recruit a sufficient sample size, but it is also crucial to recruit 

as representative a sample as possible. Manufacturers should recruit a mix of voters 

including users of different ages, genders, levels of education, ethnicity, voting 

experience, geography, etc. Detailed tables of participant demographics should be 

included as an appendix to the test report. 

Conclusion:

This RFI is provided to improve the content of the Summative Usability Test Reports 

received by the EAC, to more closely match the intentions of Section 3.1.1, 3.2.2.1a, 3.2.2.2a 

and 3.2.3a of the VVSG and to prepare the voting industry for the more rigorous 

requirements related to usability in future versions of the VVSG. Most importantly, if a 

voting system is not usable by the vast majority of voters, security, accuracy and 

auditibility of the system are also compromised. All future usability test reports submitted 
4

to the EAC shall follow the guidance and interpretation provided in this document and the 

accompanying materials.

Effective Date: 

Effective immediately for all systems without an approved application. 
MODIFIED CIF TEMPLATE FOR VOTING SYSTEM 

MANUFACTURERS 

INTENDED AUDIENCE

This document provides a template for the modified version of ISO/IEC 25062:2006, the Common 

Industry Format (CIF) usability test report. This modified version of the CIF has been specifically tailored 

for voting manufacturers and is intended to be used by voting manufacturers’ usability test 

administrator(s) and data logger(s). 

This template has been created to enable voting manufacturers to effectively communicate the results 

of usability testing. 

In addition to this template, a set of guidelines on how to complete the modified CIF template has been 

created to assist usability test administrator(s) and data logger(s) in developing a usability report. 

INTENDED PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This template has been prepared to help voting manufacturers meet the Voluntary Voting System 

Guidelines (VVSG) developed by the Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC). 

These guidelines require that voting manufactures conduct usability testing with: 

 Voters from the general population (Section 3.2.1.2)

 Voters who need alternative languages (Section 3.2.7-A.4)

 Voters with low vision (Section 3.3.2-A)

 Voters who are blind (Section 3.3.3-A)

 Voters with dexterity disabilities (Section 3.3.4-A) 

 Poll Workers (Section 3.2.8.1-B)

NOTE: This template is an example of the study conducted with voters from the general population 

(Section 3.2.1.2). It must be tailored to report the results of the studies for other participant groups. 
Usability Test Results 2 [Product Name]

In addition, the VVSG requires that “manufacturers conduct summative usability testing on the voting 

system using individuals who are representative” of the population being tested and that results shall be 

reported using the Common Industry Format (CIF).1” 

This document provides a modified version of the CIF to assist voting manufactures in meeting this 

requirement. 

STRUCTURE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This template includes sample content for each section of the modified CIF (and any related 

subsections). The content provided in this document is just a sample. This template includes the 

following sections: 

1.0 Executive Summary

2.0 Introduction

3.0 Method

4.0 Results

5.0 Conclusion

6.0 Appendices

In addition to these sections, the modified CIF shall also include a title page. A sample title page has 

been included on the following page. 

HOW TO USE THIS DOCUMENT

This document is based on ISO/IEC 25062:2006 Common Industry Format (CIF), a format used to report 

the results of summative usability testing. Before using this document, you must become familiar with 

this standard. ISO/IEC 25062:2006 can be purchased from: 

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=43046. 

It is important to note that the numbering format included in this template is identical to the numbering 

used in “Guidelines on How to Complete the Modified CIF Template for Voting Manufacturers” 

document that provides guidelines and instructions for completing the modified CIF template for voting 

manufacturers. 

When completing the modified CIF template, it is highly recommended that voting manufacturers, their 

usability test administrator(s) and their data logger(s) refer to the instructions and guidance in order to 

properly complete this template. 

 

1

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Recommendations to the Election Assistance Commission, Aug. 2007
Usability Test Results 3 [Product Name]

The data sample provided in this template is an example or placeholder of the types of content that 

may be useful in completing the modified CIF template. Gray background text (bounded in square 

brackets) needs to be replaced by the manufacturer’s supplied information. For detailed information 

about how to complete this template, please refer to the “Guidance on How to Complete the Modified 

CIF Template for Voting Manufacturers”. 
Usability Test Results 4 [Product Name]

USABILITY TEST REPORT OF [Name of product and 

version tested] with [XXXX PARTICIPANTS FOR 

REQUIREMENT XXXXXX]

REPORT BASED ON ISO/IEC 25062:2006 COMMON INDUSTRY FORMAT FOR USABILITY TEST REPORTS

[FULL NAME OF PRODUCT AND VERSION TESTED]

DATE OF USABILITY TEST: [DATE USABILITY TEST WAS CONDUCTED]

DATE OF REPORT: [DATE REPORT WAS PREPARED]

REPORT PREPARED BY: [SUPPLIER COMPANY NAME]

[SUPPLIER CONTACT PERSON]

[SUPPLIER'S PHONE NUMBER]

[SUPPLIER'S EMAIL ADDRESS]

[SUPPLIER'S MAILING ADDRESS]

REPORT PREPARED FOR: [CUSTOMER COMPANY NAME]

[CUSTOMER COMPANY CONTACT PERSON]

[CUSTOMER'S PHONE NUMBER]

[CUSTOMER'S EMAIL ADDRESS]

[CUSTOMER'S MAILING ADDRESS]
Usability Test Results 5 [Product Name]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................6

2.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................7

2.1 Full Product Description..............................................................................................................................7

2.2 Test Objectives............................................................................................................................................8

3.0 Method...........................................................................................................................................................8

3.1 Participants .................................................................................................................................................8

3.2 Context of Use in the Test.........................................................................................................................11

3.2.1 Tasks...................................................................................................................................................11

3.2.2 Test Location ......................................................................................................................................11

3.2.3 Voting Environment ...........................................................................................................................12

3.2.4 Test Administrator Tools....................................................................................................................12

3.3 Experimental Design .................................................................................................................................13

3.3.1 Procedure...........................................................................................................................................13

3.3.2 Participant General Instructions ........................................................................................................14

3.3.3 Participant Task Instructions..............................................................................................................14

3.4 Usability Metrics .......................................................................................................................................14

3.4.1 Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................................14

3.4.2 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................15

3.4.3 Satisfaction.........................................................................................................................................15

4.0 Results..........................................................................................................................................................16

4.1 Data Analysis.............................................................................................................................................16

4.2 Presentation of the Results.......................................................................................................................16

4.2.1 Performance Results..........................................................................................................................16

4.2.2 Satisfaction Results ............................................................................................................................17

5.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................17

Appendix A: Participant Demographics.....................................................................................................18

Appendix B: Test Ballot Specification........................................................................................................19

Appendix C: Informed Consent .................................................................................................................28

Appendix D: Instructions for Participants .................................................................................................29

Appendix E: Post-Test Satisfaction Questionnaire ....................................................................................32

Appendix F: Results...................................................................................................................................35
Usability Test Results 6 [Product Name]

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A usability test of [name of product and its version] was conducted on [date] in [location] by [company]. 

The purpose of this test was to fulfill [the requirements] of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 

(VVSG). 

During the usability test, [XX] voters from the general population used the [product] in a simulated 

election. The election consisted of [one] test ballot with [20] contests, including:

 Federal, state and local contests 

 Partisan and nonpartisan contests

 Single member and multimember contests

 Retention races

 Constitutional amendments

 Referenda and ballot initiatives 

The test ballot developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), was used to 

simulate the tasks that users will be asked to perform during the usability tests conducted by the Voting 

System Test Laboratory. 

This ballot includes [28] tasks that model typical ballots from around the country, including: 

 Voting for names at various locations within a list of names

 Voting a partial slate in a multimember contest

 Skipping elements of a ballot

 Write-in votes

During the usability test, participants worked alone and were [not] provided assistance or help by the 

test administrators. 

Following the conclusion of the testing, the results were analyzed to determine participants’ 

effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction using the [product]. 

During the usability test, the testing team collected and analyzed the following types of data: 

 [Number of ballots successfully submitted/completed]

 [Percent of tasks completed without any errors]

 [Count of assists provided]

 [Time to complete the voting session]

 [Voters’ confidence that they had used the system correctly]

 [Voters’ satisfaction with the system]
Usability Test Results 7 [Product Name]

Below is a high-level summary of the results: 

Measure Description Usability

Test Results

Successful completion Average success rate of the [28] tasks performed by 

voters from the general population. 

[XX%]

Number of ballots cast 

without any errors

Count of the number of voters who were able to submit 

their ballot without any errors. 

[X] of [XX]

ballots

Count of assists provided Count of the number of assists provided to voters during 

the usability test. 

[X] Number 

of Assists

Average Session Time Mean time taken per test participant to complete the 

process of activating, filing out and casting the ballot. 

[X] Minutes

Average Voter 

Confidence

Mean confidence level expressed by voters that they 

believed they voted correctly and the system successfully 

recorded their votes.

[X]

Confidence 

Level

Average Voter 

Satisfaction

Mean satisfaction level expressed by voters in response to 

a [10-question post-test satisfaction questionnaire]. 

[X]

Satisfaction 

Level

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 FULL PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

During the usability test, the [name of product and its version] was evaluated. [This 

version is the same version that will be provided to the Voting System Test Laboratory]. 

Designed to present ballots to voters throughout the U.S. and collect voter responses, 

the [product] consists of [description of product and how it is used]. 

The [product] is typically used in federal, state and local elections and is set up in 

designated voting locations. The usability testing attempted to simulate these 

environmental conditions and users’ real-world context of use. 

The usability test specifically focused on [product features]. 
Usability Test Results 8 [Product Name]

2.2 TEST OBJECTIVES

The usability test objectives include: 

 [To assess the effectiveness of the [product] by measuring the abilities of users 

to successfully complete and submit a ballot.] 

 [To assess the efficiency of the product by measuring the average time to 

complete a voting session.]

 [To assess the user satisfaction of the system by measuring average voter 

confidence.] 

3.0 METHOD

3.1 PARTICIPANTS

A total of [XX] general voters, with a varying mix of backgrounds and demographic 

characteristics, were selected to participate in the usability test. 

Participants were recruited by [insert description of how participants were recruited and 

whether or not participants were compensated for their time]. 

All participants were over the age of 18, eligible to vote in the U.S., and fluent in English. The 

following tables show additional participant demographics. 

Gender

Men [X]

Women [X]

TOTAL (participants) [X]

Age

18-24 [X]

25-34 [X]

35-44 [X]

45-54 [X]

55+ [X]

TOTAL (participants) [X]

Education

High School [X]

Some College [X]

College Degree [X]

Graduate Degree [X]

TOTAL (participants) [X]
Usability Test Results 9 [Product Name]

Race: 

African American [X]

Caucasian [X]

Hispanic [X]

TOTAL (participants) [X]

Geographic Distribution: 

[Area] [X]

[Area] [X]

[Area] [X]

TOTAL (participants) [X]

Years of Voting Experience: 

None [X]

Less than 2 Years [X]

2-5 Years [X]

6-10 Years [X]

11-20 Years [X]

More than 20 Years [X]

TOTAL (participants) [X]

Number of Local, State or Federal 

Elections Voted in Last 2 Years: 

0 [X]

1-2 [X]

3-5 [X]

More than 6 [X]

TOTAL (participants) [X]

Following is a graphical presentation of participant characteristics: 
Usability Test Results 10 [Product Name]

Please see Appendix [A] for a full spreadsheet of participant demographics. 
Usability Test Results 11 [Product Name]

3.2 CONTEXT OF USE IN THE TEST

3.2.1 TASKS

During the usability test, participants were instructed to vote in a simulated election consisting 

of [one] test ballot with [20] contests, including:

 Federal, state and local contests 

 Partisan and nonpartisan contests

 Single member and multimember contests

 Retention races

 Constitutional amendments

 Referenda and ballot initiatives 

[Our usability testing team chose to use the test ballot created by NIST, same ballot in order to 

simulate the tasks that users will be asked to perform during the usability tests conducted by 

the Voting System Test Laboratory]. 

Using this ballot, participants were asked to perform [28] tasks that were selected to model 

typical ballots from around the country, as well as to thoroughly test the voting system’s 

capabilities and usability, including: 

 [Voting for names at various locations within a list of names

 Voting a partial slate in a multimember contest

 Skipping elements of a ballot

 Write-in votes]

Participants were instructed on how to vote and were asked to perform the tasks without 

assistance. A task was considered successful if the participant was able to cast a vote in a way 

that matched the instructions. 

Data was collected for each task, including [successful completions, time to complete each task, 

number of errors, number and type of assists provided, and voter confidence for each task]. 

Please see Appendix [B] for the test ballot. 

3.2.2 TEST LOCATION

The [product] is intended to be used at designated polling locations across the U.S., including 

schools, libraries, churches and other public facilities large enough to house multiple voting 

stations. 
Usability Test Results 12 [Product Name]

In order to simulate this environment, the test was conducted at [insert location and description 

of location]. 

3.2.3 Voting Environment

During an actual election, voters are expected to use the voting system provided at the polling 

location. Voters may have experience with a wide-range of systems or may only have 

experience with one type of system. 

During the usability test, all participants were instructed to use [product and release or version]

just as if this system was implemented at their local polling location. 

3.2.3.1 DISPLAY DEVICES

The [product] uses [insert description of the display including, but not limited to, screen size, 

resolution and color settings, etc. If print-based, include the media size and print 

resolution.]

3.2.3.2 AUDIO DEVICES

The [product] uses [insert description of audible cues if provided by the system.]

3.2.3.3 INPUT DEVICES

During the test, participants used [insert description of any input devices, including but not 

limited to, assistive technology devices to accommodate voters with disabilities]. 

3.2.4 TEST ADMINISTRATOR TOOLS

During the usability test, various tools were used to facilitate the test sessions, including: 

 [Informed Consent (See Appendix [C])]

 [Instructions for Participants (See Appendix [D])]

 [Post-test Satisfaction Questionnaire (See Appendix [E])]

Participants’ votes were recorded by the system, similar to a real-world election. Test 

facilitators used a [stopwatch] to time voter sessions. 
Usability Test Results 13 [Product Name]

3.3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

During the usability test, participants interacted with only one voting system, the [product]. 

Each participant used the system in the same location and was provided with the same ballot 

and instructions. 

The system was evaluated for effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction. To evaluate these 

factors, the usability team collected data on: 

 [Number of ballots successfully submitted/completed]

 [Percent of tasks completed without any errors]

 [Count of assists provided]

 [Time to complete the voting session]

 [Voters’ confidence that they had used the system correctly]

 [Voters’ satisfaction with the system]

Additional information about the various measures and associated metrics can be found in the 

section on Usability Metrics. 

3.3.1 PROCEDURE

Upon arrival, participants were greeted and asked to complete a [Pre-Test Questionnaire (See 

Appendix [E])] to ensure that they qualified for the test. Participants who did not meet the 

qualifications were thanked for their time. 

Participants meeting the qualifications were asked to review and sign an [Informed Consent (See 

Appendix [C])], which described their rights during the study. Participants were than escorted to 

a voting system and given the following instructions: 

[“Please attempt to vote exactly as described on the following pages. 

Once you start, we will not be able to help you. Please do the best you 

can. If you are stuck and cannot continue, please inform the 

administrator.”]

During the usability test, test facilitators observed users’ interactions [(from a distance)] and 

monitored each test session with a [stop watch]. Once the user finished the test, he/she was 

asked to complete a [Post-Test Questionnaire (See Appendix [E])]. 

At the conclusion of the test, participants were thanked for their time and compensated $[XX]. 

[Two] staff members participated in this test, a [usability test administrator] and a [data logger]. 

[One person greeted each participant as they arrived, administered the Pre-Test Questionnaire 

and gave the participant the voting instructions. A second person escorted participants to the 

voting system, timed the participant during the session, and then escorted the person back to 

the greeter, who gave users the Post-Test Questionnaire, compensated users for their time, and 

thanked each individual for their participation.] 
Usability Test Results 14 [Product Name]

3.3.2 PARTICIPANT GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

During the usability sessions, the participants were instructed that they should [work alone and 

that the test facilitator would not be able to assist or answer any questions during the study]. 

3.3.3 PARTICIPANT TASK INSTRUCTIONS

Participants were also provided with written instructions on how to vote in the mock election. 

These instructions were provided to users on three sheets of paper and are included in 

Appendix [D]. 

3.4 USABILITY METRICS

The usability test collected various metrics for effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction. 

3.4.1 EFFECTIVENESS

To measure the effectiveness of the [product], the testing team measured [voters’ completion 

rate, errors encountered and assists provided]. 

3.4.1.1 COMPLETION RATE

To measure voters’ completion rate, the testing team analyzed the [number of ballots 

successfully submitted/completed]. 

Measure Description

Ballots successfully 

submitted/completed

Percentage of test participants who were able to complete 

the process of voting and cast their ballots so that their 

ballot choices were recorded by the system. Failure to cast a 

ballot might involve problems such as a voter simply “giving 

up” during the voting session because of an inability to 

operate the system, or a mistaken belief that the casting has 

been successful. 

3.4.1.2 ERRORS

To measure voters’ error rate, the testing team calculated the [percent of tasks completed 

without any errors]. 

Measure Description

Tasks completed without any 

errors

Percentage of tasks that were completed without any errors. 

An error might involve a voter selecting the wrong candidate 

or failing to successfully add a write-in candidate, where 

instructed to do so. 
Usability Test Results 15 [Product Name]

3.4.1.3 ASSISTS

To measure voters’ abilities to successfully use the [product] without assistance, the testing 

team recorded the [type of assistance provided]. 

Measure Description

Count of assists provided Count of the number of times assistance was given to 

participants. Each assist was also categorized into one of 

three categories: 

- Technical assistance to help voters recover from a 

system error or bug

- Instructional assistance to provide clarification on 

the test or task instructions

- Task assistance to help voters a complete a task 

Tasks that were completed with the assistance of the test 

facilitator were recorded as a failure. 

3.4.2 EFFICIENCY

To measure the efficiency of the [product], the testing team measured [voters’ average time to 

complete the testing session]. 

3.4.2.1 TIME ON TASK

To measure voters’ efficiency with the [product], the testing team analyzed the [time it took 

participants to complete the testing session]. 

Measure Description

Average session time Mean time taken per test participant to complete the 

process of activating, filing out and casting the ballot. 

3.4.3 SATISFACTION

To measure voters’ satisfaction with the [product], the testing team measured [voters’ 

confidence that they had used the system correctly and voters’ satisfaction with the system]. 

3.4.3.1 SATISFACTION RATING

To measure voters’ satisfaction with the [product], the testing team analyzed [average voter 

satisfaction and average voter confidence]. 

Measure Description

Average voter satisfaction Mean satisfaction level expressed by voters in response to a 

[10-question post-test satisfaction questionnaire]. 

Average voter confidence Mean confidence level expressed by voters that they 

believed they voted correctly and the system successfully 
Usability Test Results 16 [Product Name]

Measure Description

recorded their votes.

4.0 RESULTS

4.1 DATA ANALYSIS

To analyze the data, each ballot was scored for [completeness, accuracy, errors, number of 

assists and time to complete. Errors included missing votes, incorrect votes and unintended 

votes (votes in contests where the participants were instructed not to vote). For single member 

elections, retention races, constitutional amendments and ballot initiatives, only one error per 

task was counted. For multimember elections, the maximum number of errors was set to the 

number of candidates in the slate. Therefore, an incorrect vote in a multimember contest was 

counted as a single error (as opposed to being counted as two errors – one for failing to vote as 

intended and one for voting an unintended vote).] 

In addition, the test team analyzed [voters’ satisfaction and confidence using various post-test 

questionnaires]. 

4.2 PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS

This section shall detail the performance results for [effectiveness (completion rate, errors, 

assists), efficiency (time on task) and satisfaction (satisfaction and confidence rating)]. 

Specifically, this section will include: 

 [Number of ballots successfully submitted/completed]

 [Percent of tasks completed without any errors]

 [Count of assists provided]

 [Time to complete the voting session]

 [Voters’ confidence that they had used the system correctly]

 [Voters’ satisfaction with the system]

4.2.1 PERFORMANCE RESULTS

Of the [XX] participants included in the test, [XX] were able to successfully cast their ballot. Of 

the [28] tasks that could have been completed, [XX%] were successfully completed without 

errors. 

During the testing, a total of [XX] errors were made by the participants, while [XX] ballots were 

cast with no errors. 
Usability Test Results 17 [Product Name]

[XX] assists were provided during the usability testing; of these assists, [XX] were technical or 

system recovery assistance, [XX] were instructional assistance, and [XX] were task assistance. 

The average session time was [XX] seconds. 

More detailed results can be found in Appendix [F]. 

4.2.2 SATISFACTION RESULTS

Following the completion of the usability tasks, voters completed a [10-question satisfaction 

questionnaire (See Appendix [E])]. Based on voters’ responses to these questions, a satisfaction 

rating, ranging from [0 to 100], was calculated. The average satisfaction rating of the [product] 

was [XX].

[In addition, voters gave the system a confidence rating of [XX].] 

More detailed results can be found in Appendix [F]. 

5.0 CONCLUSION

[Based on the results of the testing, various usability issues were uncovered and a series of 

performance-based findings and recommendations were developed. The product development team is 

currently in the process of implementing the system improvements in order to resolve the usability 

issues uncovered and to help improve voters’ overall success and satisfaction using [product]. ]

NOTE: Voting Manufacturers are not required to include a copy of their usability findings and 

recommendations, nor it is required by the CIF. Manufacturers, their test administrator(s) or data 

logger(s) may choose to include this information, at their discretion.
Usability Test Results 18 [Product Name]

APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS

Following is a full list of participant demographics: [NOTE: These demographics are just a sample set of 

demographics and are not meant to imply any requirements or guidelines.]

Demographics

Participant Gender Race Education Age Years Voting

Number 

Elections 

Voted

Types of 

Voting 

Machines

Vote in 

Non-gov't 

Elections

1 Female African 

American

Some 

College 25-34 None 0 Never No

2 Female Caucasian College 

Graduate 25-34 2-5 years 1 to 2 Mechanical No

3 Male Caucasian College 

Graduate 45-54 6-10 years 3 to 5 Touch Yes

4 Female Hispanic Post 

Graduate 45-54 6-10 years 6 or more

Touch Yes

5 Female Caucasian High School 25-34 2-5 years 1 to 2 Optical 

Scan No

6 Male Hispanic Some 

College 45-54 11-20 years 6 or more

Optical 

Scan Yes

7 Male Caucasian Post 

Graduate 55+ 6-10 years 6 or more

Touch No

8 Male African 

American

College 

Graduate 45-54 6-10 years 6 or more

Optical 

Scan Yes
Usability Test Results 19 [Product Name]

APPENDIX B: TEST BALLOT SPECIFICATION 

[NOTE: Voting Manufacturers are not required to use this ballot and may use any ballot, at their 

discretion.]

INFORMATION APPLICABLE TO WHOLE BALLOT

Date and Time 2004-nov-02, 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM 

State Maryland 

County Madison 

Party Line Voting Method Enabled for partisan contests 

INFORMATION APPLICABLE TO EVERY CONTEST

Full-term or partial-term election Full-term 

Voting Method Simple vote for N candidate(s) - (i.e. no ranked voting) 

CONTEST #0:

Title of Contest Straight Party Vote 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 1 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 0 

 Option #0.1: Blue 

 Option #0.2: Yellow 

 Option #0.3: Purple 

 Option #0.4: Orange 

 Option #0.5: Pink 

 Option #0.6: Gold 

 Option #0.7: Gray 

 Option #0.8: Aqua 

 Option #0.9: Brown 
Usability Test Results 20 [Product Name]

CONTEST #1:

Title of Office President and Vice-President of the United States 

District of Office United States 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 1 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 0 

 Candidate #1.1: Joseph Barchi and Joseph Hallaren / Blue 

 Candidate #1.2: Adam Cramer and Greg Vuocolo / Yellow 

 Candidate #1.3: Daniel Court and Amy Blumhardt / Purple 

 Candidate #1.4: Alvin Boone and James Lian / Orange 

 Candidate #1.5: Austin Hildebrand-MacDougall and James Garritty / Pink 

 Candidate #1.6: Martin Patterson and Clay Lariviere / Gold 

 Candidate #1.7: Elizabeth Harp and Antoine Jefferson / Gray 

 Candidate #1.8: Charles Layne and Andrew Kowalski / Aqua 

 Candidate #1.9: Marzena Pazgier and Welton Phelps / Brown

CONTEST #2:

Title of Office US Senate 

District of Office Statewide 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 1 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 1 

 Candidate #2.1: Dennis Weiford / Blue 

 Candidate #2.2: Lloyd Garriss / Yellow 

 Candidate #2.3: Sylvia Wentworth-Farthington / Purple 

 Candidate #2.4: John Hewetson / Orange 

 Candidate #2.5: Victor Martinez / Pink 

 Candidate #2.6: Heather Portier / Gold 

 Candidate #2.7: David Platt / Gray 

CONTEST #3:

Title of Office US Representative 

District of Office 6th Congressional District 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 1 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 1 

 Candidate #3.1: Brad Plunkard / Blue 

 Candidate #3.2: Bruce Reeder / Yellow 

 Candidate #3.3: Brad Schott / Purple 

 Candidate #3.4: Glen Tawney / Orange 

 Candidate #3.5: Carroll Forrest / Pink 
Usability Test Results 21 [Product Name]

CONTEST #4:

Title of Office Governor 

District of Office Statewide 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 1 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 1 

 Candidate #4.1: Charlene Franz / Blue 

 Candidate #4.2: Gerard Harris / Yellow 

 Candidate #4.3: Linda Bargmann / Purple 

 Candidate #4.4: Barbara Adcock / Orange 

 Candidate #4.5: Carrie Steel-Loy / Pink 

 Candidate #4.6: Frederick Sharp / Gold 

 Candidate #4.7: Alex Wallace /Gray

 Candidate #4.8: Barbara Williams / Aqua 

 Candidate #4.9: Althea Sharp / Brown

 Candidate #4.10: Douglas Alpern / Independent

 Candidate #4.11: Ann Windbeck / Independent 

 Candidate #4.12: Mike Greher / Independent 

 Candidate #4.13: Patricia Alexander / Independent 

 Candidate #4.14: Kenneth Mitchell / Independent 

 Candidate #4.15: Stan Lee / Independent

 Candidate #4.16: Henry Ash / Independent 

 Candidate #4.17: Karen Kennedy / Independent 

 Candidate #4.18: Van Jackson / Independent 

 Candidate #4.19: Debbie Brown / Independent 

 Candidate #4.20: Joseph Teller / Independent 

 Candidate #4.21: Greg Ward / Independent

 Candidate #4.22: Lou Murphy / Independent 

 Candidate #4.23: Jane Newman / Independent 

 Candidate #4.24: Jack Callanann / Independent 

 Candidate #4.25: Esther York / Independent

 Candidate #4.26: Glen Chandler / Independent 

 Candidate #4.27: Marcia Colgate / Independent 

 Candidate #4.28: Leslie Porter / Independent

 Candidate #4.29: Molly Dalton / Independent 

 Candidate #4.30: David Davis / Independent 

 Candidate #4.31: May Peterson / Independent 

 Candidate #4.32: Patricia Dawkins / Independent 

 Candidate #4.33: Suzanne Adams / Independent 

 Candidate #4.34: Mary Miller / Independent 

 Candidate #4.35: Rosalind Leigh / Independent 

 Candidate #4.36: Elaine Henry / Independent 

 Candidate #4.37: Gail Moses / Independent 

 Candidate #4.38: Daniel Jones / Independent 

 Candidate #4.39: Don Maybee / Independent 

 Candidate #4.40: Lillian Cohen / Independent 

 Candidate #4.41: Richard Mitchell / Independent 

 Candidate #4.42: Pat York / Independent 

 Candidate #4.43: Linda Rappaport / Independent 

 Candidate #4.44: Mike Porter / Independent 

 Candidate #4.45: Margaret Sharp / Independent 

 Candidate #4.46: Cathy Steele / Independent 

 Candidate #4.47: Lawrence Smith / Independent 

 Candidate #4.48: Bill Kendrick / Independent 

 Candidate #4.49: Fred Stein / Independent 

 Candidate #4.50: Jerry Cole / Independent
Usability Test Results 22 [Product Name]

CONTEST #5:

Title of Office Lieutenant-Governor 

District of Office Statewide 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 1 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 1 

 Candidate #5.1: Chris Norberg / Blue 

 Candidate #5.2: Anthony Parks / Yellow 

 Candidate #5.3: Luis Garcia / Purple 

 Candidate #5.4: Charles Qualey / Orange 

 Candidate #5.5: George Hovis / Pink 

 Candidate #5.6: Burt Zirkle / Gold 

 Candidate #5.7: Brenda Davis / Gray 

 Candidate #5.8: Edward Freeman / Aqua 

 Candidate #5.9: Paul Swan / Brown

CONTEST #6:

Title of Office Registrar of Deeds 

District of Office Countywide 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 1 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 1 

 Candidate #6.1: Laila Shamsi / Yellow

CONTEST #7:

Title of Office State Senator 

District of Office 31st District 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 1 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 1 

 Candidate #7.1: Edward Shiplett / Blue 

 Candidate #7.2: Marty Talarico / Yellow 
Usability Test Results 23 [Product Name]

CONTEST #8:

Title of Office State Assemblyman

District of Office 54th District 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 1 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 1 

 Candidate #8.1: Andrea Solis / Blue 

 Candidate #8.2: Amos Keller / Yellow 

CONTEST #9:

Title of Office County Commissioners 

District of Office Countywide 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 5 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 5 

 Candidate #9.1: Camille Argent / Blue 

 Candidate #9.2: Chloe Witherspoon / Blue 

 Candidate #9.3: Clayton Bainbridge / Blue 

 Candidate #9.4: Amanda Marracini / Yellow 

 Candidate #9.5: Charlene Hennessey / Yellow 

 Candidate #9.6: Eric Savoy / Yellow 

 Candidate #9.7: Sheila Moskowitz / Purple 

 Candidate #9.8: Mary Tawa / Purple 

 Candidate #9.9: Damian Rangel / Purple 

 Candidate #9.10: Valarie Altman / Orange 

 Candidate #9.11: Helen Moore / Orange 

 Candidate #9.12: John White / Orange 

 Candidate #9.13: Joe Lee / Pink 

 Candidate #9.14: Joe Barry / Pink

 Candidate #9.15 Martin Schreiner / Gray 
Usability Test Results 24 [Product Name]

CONTEST #10:

Title of Office Court of Appeals Judge 

District of Office Statewide, 4th seat 

Partisanship Non-partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 1 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 1 

 Candidate #10.1: Michael Marchesani 

CONTEST #11:

Title of Office Water Commissioners 

District of Office City of Springfield 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 2 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 2 

 Candidate #11.1: Orville White / Blue 

 Candidate #11.2: Gregory Seldon / Yellow 

CONTEST #12:

Title of Office City Council 

District of Office City of Springfield 

Partisanship Partisan 

Minimum Votes Allowed 0 

Maximum Votes Allowed 4 

Maximum Write-in Votes Allowed 4 

 Candidate #12.1: Harvey Eagle / Blue 

 Candidate #12.2: Randall Rupp / Blue 

 Candidate #12.3: Carroll Shry / Blue

 Candidate #12.4: Beverly Barker / Yellow 

 Candidate #12.5: Donald Davis / Yellow 

 Candidate #12.6: Hugh Smith / Yellow 

 Candidate #12.7: Reid Feister / Yellow 
Usability Test Results 25 [Product Name]

RETENTION QUESTION #1:

Wording of Question Retain Robert Demergue as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? 

RETENTION QUESTION #2:

Wording of Question Retain Elmer Hull as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court? 

REFERENDUM #1:

Title of 

proposition 

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT C 

Wording of 

proposition 

Shall there be amendments to the State constitution intended to have the collective effect of 

ensuring the separation of governmental power among the three branches of state government: 

the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch? 

a. Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows: 

Section 6. Holding of offices under other governments. - Senators and representatives not to hold 

other appointed offices under state government. --No person holding any office under the 

government of the United States, or of any other state or country, shall act as a general officer or 

as a member of the general assembly, unless at the time of taking such engagement that person 

shall have resigned the office under such government; and if any general officer, senator, 

representative, or judge shall, after election and engagement, accept any appointment under any 

other government, the office under this shall be immediately vacated; but this restriction shall not 

apply to any person appointed to take deposition or acknowledgement of deeds, or other legal 

instruments, by the authority of any other state or country. 

No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he or she was elected, be appointed 

to any state office, board, commission or other state or quasi-public entity exercising executive 

power under the laws of this state, and no person holding any executive office or serving as a 

member of any board, commission or other state or quasi-public entity exercising executive 

power under the laws of this state shall be a member of the senate or the house of 

representatives during his or her continuance in such office. 

b. Article V of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows: The powers of the 

government shall be distributed into three (3) separate and distinct departments: the legislative, 

the executive and the judicial. 

c. Article VI, Section 10 of the Constitution shall be deleted in its entirety. 

d. Article IX, Section 5 of the Constitution shall be amended to read as follows: 

Section 5. Powers of appointment.- The governor shall, by and with the advice and consent of the 

senate, appoint all officers of the state whose appointment is not herein otherwise provided for 

and all members of any board, commission or other state or quasi-public entity which exercises 

executive power under the laws of this state; but the general assembly may by law vest the 

appointment of such inferior officers, as they deem proper, in the governor, or within their 

respective departments in the other general officers, the judiciary or in the heads of departments.
Usability Test Results 26 [Product Name]

REFERENDUM #2:

Title of 

proposition 

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT D 

Wording of 

proposition 

Shall there be an amendment to the State constitution concerning recovery of damages relating 

to construction of real property improvements, and, in connection therewith, prohibiting laws 

that limit or impair a property owner's right to recover damages caused by a failure to construct 

an improvement in a good and workmanlike manner; defining "good and workmanlike manner" 

to include construction that is suitable for its intended purposes; and permitting exceptions for 

laws that limit punitive damages, afford governmental immunity, or impose time limits of 

specified minimum lengths on filing lawsuits? 

REFERENDUM #3:

Title of 

proposition 

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT H 

Wording of 

proposition 

Shall there be an amendment to the State constitution allowing the State legislature to enact laws 

limiting the amount of damages for noneconomic loss that could be awarded for injury or death 

caused by a health care provider? "Noneconomic loss" generally includes, but is not limited to, 

losses such as pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of capacity for enjoyment 

of life, loss of consortium, and other losses the claimant is entitled to recover as damages under 

general law. 

This amendment will not in any way affect the recovery of damages for ecomonic loss under State 

law. "Economic loss" generally includes, but is not limited to, monetary losses such as past and 

future medical expenses, loss of past and future earnings, loss of use of property, costs of repair 

or replacement, the economic value of domestic services, loss of employment or business 

opportunities. This amendment will not in any way affect the recovery of any additional damages 

known under State law as exemplary or punitive damages, which are damages allowed by law to 

punish a defendant and to deter persons from engaging in similar conduct in the future. 

REFERENDUM #4:

Title of 

proposition 

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT K 

Wording of 

proposition 

Shall there be an amendment to the State constitution authorizing Madison and Fromwit Counties 

to hold referenda on whether to authorize slot machines in existing, licensed parimutuel facilities 

(thoroughbred and harness racing, greyhound racing, and jai alai) that have conducted live racing 

or games in that county during each of the last two calendar years before effective date of this 

amendment? The Legislature may tax slot machine revenues, and any such taxes shall supplement 

public education funding statewide. Requires implementing legislation. 

This amendment alone has no fiscal impact on government. If slot machines are authorized in 

Madison or Fromwit counties, governmental costs associated with additional gambling will 

increase by an unknown amount and local sales tax-related revenues will be reduced by $5 million 

to $8 million annually. If the Legislature also chooses to tax slot machine revenues, state tax 

revenues from Madison and Fromwit counties combined would range from $200 million to $500 

million annually. 
Usability Test Results 27 [Product Name]

REFERENDUM #5

Title of 

proposition 

BALLOT MEASURE 101: Open Primaries 

Wording of 

proposition 

Requires primary elections where voters may vote for any state or federal candidate regardless of 

party registration of voter or candidate. The two primary-election candidates receiving most votes 

for an office, whether they are candidates with no party or members of same or different party, 

would be listed on general election ballot. Exempts presidential nominations. Fiscal Impact: No 

significant net fiscal effect on state and local governments. 

REFERENDUM #6:

Title of 

proposition 

BALLOT MEASURE 106: Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws 

Wording of 

proposition 

Allows individual or class action "unfair business" lawsuits only if actual loss suffered; only 

government officials may enforce these laws on public's behalf. Fiscal Impact: Unknown state 

fiscal impact depending on whether the measure increases or decreases court workload and the 

extent to which diverted funds are replaced. Unknown potential costs to local governments, 

depending on the extent to which diverted funds are replaced. 

End of logical specification for Test Ballot Specification. 
Usability Test Results 28 [Product Name]

APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT

[NOTE: Voting Manufacturers are not required to use the following Informed Consent form and may use 

a combination of forms, including informed consent and non-disclosure forms, etc.]

RESEARCH DESCRIPTION: The [name of company] is conducting a study to determine how easy it is for voters 

to use voting systems. Usability will be measured by determining the time it takes a voter to vote, the number 

of errors when the vote is cast, and voter satisfaction. 

You will receive written instructions on how you as a voter “want to vote”. You will be asked to vote as the 

paper instructs on a specific voting system. In addition to collecting your votes, there may be a camera 

focused on the system and your hands, but your face will not be photographed. After you cast your ballot, you 

will be asked for your opinion about the voting system and your voting experience. You will also be asked for 

demographic data to include age, gender, education level, and other experiences related to voting. This 

process should take you no more than 30 minutes. 

CONFIDENTIALITY: All the data collected will be anonymous. The data will be used by [name of company] to 

evaluate the usability of the [product]. The data will not be associated with any particular individual. All of the 

time and error data, demographic data, and voter experience and satisfaction data will be anonymous. All of 

the data will only be identified and linked together by a number, and will not be linked back to an individual in 

any way. 

You are free to withdraw from the study at any time during the experiment. In total, we expect to have 

approximately [XX]subjects complete the experiment.

There are no risks involved in participating in this study, nor are there any immediate benefits. The long term 

benefits of this study should be improved voting systems. 

CONTACT INFORMATION: For questions regarding this study, please contact [Contact name, phone number 

and email address]. 

"I have read the above description of this research project. I have also spoken to the usability test facilitator 

who answered any questions I had about this project. I acknowledge that I have received a personal copy of 

this form. I agree to participate in this research and I understand that I may withdraw at any time.” 

Signature: _________________________________ Date: _______________

Usability Researcher: _________________________________________

Signature of Usability Researcher: _______________________________

Date: ____________________________________

Witness: _____________________________________

Witness Signature: ____________________________________ Date: _________
Usability Test Results 29 [Product Name]

APPENDIX D: INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS

[NOTE: Voting Manufacturers are not required to use these instructions and may use any instructions, 

at their discretion.]

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PARTICIPANTS

In our mock election, we will be using fake names for candidates and colors for political 

party names. For example, you might see this:

Joe Jones/Yellow Party

Any similarity between names of candidates and real people or colors and real parties is 

purely coincidental.

Please attempt to vote exactly as described on the following pages

Once you start, we will not be able to help you.

Please do the best you can. If you are stuck and cannot continue, inform the 

administrator.

Thank you.
Usability Test Results 30 [Product Name]

For President and Vice President of the United States, vote for

Adam Cramer and Greg Vuocolo 

For Senator, vote for

David Platt

For Congress, vote for

Brad Schott 

For Governor, vote for

Cathy Steele 

Do not cast a vote for

Lieutenant Governor 

For Registrar of Deeds, write in a vote for

Christopher Christopher 

For State Senator, vote for

Edward Shiplett 

For State Assemblyman, vote for

Amos Keller 

For County Commissioners, vote for the following candidates:

Camille Argent

Mary Tawa 

Joe Barry

and enter write in votes for:

Dorothy Johns 

Charles Blank

For Court of Appeals Judge, vote for

Michael Marchesani 
Usability Test Results 31 [Product Name]

For Water Commissioner, vote for

Orville White 

Gregory Seldon 

For City Council, vote for the following candidates:

Randall Rupp

Carroll Shry

Donald Davis

For Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Vote to keep Robert Demergue in office

For the question of retaining Justice of the Supreme Court Elmer Hull

Do not vote

For Proposed Constitutional Amendment C

Vote for this amendment

For Proposed Constitutional Amendment D

Vote for this amendment

For Proposed Constitutional Amendment H

Vote against this amendment

For Proposed Constitutional Amendment K

Vote against this amendment

For Ballot Measure 101: Open Primaries

Do not vote 

For Ballot Measure 106: Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition 

Laws

Vote for the measure

Cast your ballot
Usability Test Results 32 [Product Name]

APPENDIX E: POST TEST SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE

[NOTE: Voting Manufacturers are not required to use this post-test satisfaction questionnaire and may 

use set of questions, at their discretion.]

Please complete the following questionnaire

1. To the best of my ability, I followed the instructions telling me how to vote

Yes

No

2. I am confident I was able to vote this ballot exactly as instructed

Agree

Disagree

Don’t Know

3. 

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly 

Agree

1 2 3 4 5

I found that voting on this 

machine was unnecessarily 

difficult

I felt confident that I used this 

voting machine correctly

I think that I would need support 

to be able to use this voting 

machine

I think that most people would 

learn to use this voting machine 

very quickly

I thought this voting machine 

was easy to use

I found using this voting 

machine very awkward
Usability Test Results 33 [Product Name]

4. How many years of voting experience do you have?

None 

Less than 2 years

2-5 years

5-10 years

10-20 years

More than 20 years

5. What number of elections did you vote in the past 2 years?

0

1-2

3-5

6 or more

6. Different areas in the US have used various types of voting systems over the years. Which, if any, of 

the following types of machines have you used?

I have never used any voting system 

Mechanical lever –where the voter sets switches and pulls big lever

Punch card–where the voter uses a device that punches holes in a voting card 

Touch screen/DRE–an electronic voting system where the voter touches a screen to record a 

vote

Optical scan –a paper where the voter fills in a circle or oval to indicate a vote and which is 

checked by machine

Paper and pencil –a paper where marks are made that are then checked by a human 

Other, please describe 

7. Besides governmental elections, have you ever used any of these voting machines in other types of 

elections?

Yes

No 

If yes, describe the types of elections in which you voted using a voting machine.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

________________

8. Which of the following items do you regularly use? 

ATM machine

Computer

Device to record from your TV (DVD recorder, VHS recorder, other)

Digital Camera

Cell phone

Self checkout at grocery or other stores
Usability Test Results 34 [Product Name]
Usability Test Results 35 [Product Name]

APPENDIX F: RESULTS

[Insert detailed results from spreadsheet]