Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

1

asdf

Accessibility and Usability 

Considerations for UOCAVA 

Remote Electronic Voting Systems

Approved by the TGDC for transmittal to the EAC on

January 14, 2011
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

2

More information can be found at http://www.vote.nist.gov

This document has been prepared by the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) to present the work of the UOCAVA and Usability and 

Accessibility Working Groups of the Technical Guidelines Development 

Committee. It does not represent a consensus view or recommendation from 

NIST, nor does it represent any policy positions of NIST.

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or material may be identified in the 

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept 

adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or 

endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it 

intended to imply that these entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily 

the best available for the purpose.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

3

Accessibility and Usability Considerations for 

UOCAVA Remote Electronic Voting Systems

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACCESSIBILITY AND USABILITY CONSIDERATIONS FOR 

UOCAVA REMOTE ELECTRONIC VOTING SYSTEMS .................... 3

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................... 7

1.1 Scope and Purposes ............................................................................ 7

1.2 Paper Structure................................................................................. 10

2 UOCAVA VOTERS ............................................................... 11

3 GENERAL ACCESSIBILITY AND USABILITY........................ 15

3.1 Issues and Recommendations........................................................... 16

4 WEB BROWSERS................................................................ 23

4.1 Technology........................................................................................ 23

4.2 Interaction........................................................................................ 24

4.3 Issues & Recommendations .............................................................. 24

5 WEB BALLOT REPOSITORIES............................................. 27

5.1 Technology........................................................................................ 27

5.2 Interaction........................................................................................ 27

5.3 Issue & Recommendation ................................................................. 27

6 ONLINE BALLOT MARKERS/ELECTRONIC FORM FILLERS... 28
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

4

6.1 Technology........................................................................................ 28

6.2 Interaction........................................................................................ 28

6.3 Issue & Recommendation ................................................................. 29

7 E-MAIL .............................................................................. 29

7.1 Technology........................................................................................ 29

7.2 Interaction........................................................................................ 29

7.3 Issue and Recommendations ............................................................ 30

8 KIOSKS ............................................................................. 30

8.1 Technology........................................................................................ 31

8.2 Interaction........................................................................................ 31

8.3 Issue and Recommendation .............................................................. 31

9 TELEPHONE-BASED INTERFACES....................................... 32

9.1 Technology........................................................................................ 32

9.2 Interaction........................................................................................ 32

9.3 Issues and Recommendations........................................................... 33

10 FAX MACHINES ............................................................... 35

10.1 Technology .................................................................................... 35

10.2 Interaction..................................................................................... 35

10.3 Issues and Recommendations........................................................ 36

11 NEXT STEPS .................................................................... 37

12 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 38

13 REFERENCES ................................................................... 38
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

5

APPENDIX: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS...................... 42

General Accessibility and Usability Recommendations ............................... 42

Web Browser Recommendations................................................................ 43

Web Ballot Repository Recommendation.................................................... 43

Online Ballot Marker/Electronic Form Filler Recommendation ................... 44

e-Mail Recommendations ........................................................................... 44

Kiosk Recommendations ............................................................................ 44

Telephone-Based Interface Recommendations .......................................... 44

Fax Machine Recommendations ................................................................. 45
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

6

[This page intentionally left blank.]
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

7

1 Introduction

The Technical Guidance Development Committee (TGDC) of the 

Election Assistance Commission (EAC) has requested that the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conduct a short-term 

(several months) research study on accessibility and usability 

considerations for remote electronic Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 

Absentee Voting Rights Act (UOCAVA) [19] voting. The requested 

result of the study is this white paper1

This white paper describes findings from the research NIST performed 

in accordance with the TGDC request. It identifies issues pertaining to 

accessibility and usability for UOCAVA voters using the most common 

approaches to remote voting systems including Web browsers, Web 

ballot repositories, online ballot markers/electronic form fillers, e-mail, 

kiosks, telephone-based interfaces and fax machines. The Appendix

summarizes recommendations to resolve the issues. The audience of 

this paper is members of the TGDC, the EAC, election officials, the 

Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) 

.

[4], and parties involved in 

the implementation and deployment of UOCAVA systems.

1.1 Scope and Purposes

This paper limits its scope to accessibility and usability topics that 

impact UOCAVA voting. This paper uses the following definitions of 

accessibility and usability.

Usability is a measure of the efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction 

achieved by a specified set of users performing specified tasks with a 

given product [10]. 

Accessibility is a set of measurable characteristics that indicate the 

degree to which a system is available to, and usable by, individuals 

with disabilities. [13]

 

1 Note: this paper parallels “Security Considerations for Remote Electronic UOCAVA 

Voting” [6], although for UOCAVA usability and accessibility concerns.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

8

Some consider accessibility to be the end of the usability spectrum. 

However, the intention behind accessibility is rooted in civil rights. 

Accessibility design requirements provide an assurance of 

technological non-discrimination. 

The Rehabilitation Act [16], also called Section 508, requires federal 

agencies that develop, procure, maintain or use electronic and 

information technology to make that technology accessible. The Help 

America Vote Act (HAVA) [7] specifies human factors, accessibility and 

usability among the principal concerns to address in voting [7]. The

Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Recommendations to the Election 

Assistance Commission, also known as VVSG 2.0 [23], addresses

usability for all voters and poll workers and accessibility for voters with 

physical (visual, auditory, mobility, dexterity, speech) and cognitive

and learning disabilities. UOCAVA does not specifically address human 

factors, accessibility and usability; the intention of this paper is to 

raise awareness of the applicability of human factors, accessibility and 

usability for remote UOCAVA voting.

The primary purposes of this paper are to:

• Identify important accessibility and usability issues pertaining to 

UOCAVA voting

• Recommend steps to make UOCAVA remote electronic voting 

platforms more usable by all voters and accessible to voters with 

disabilities to allow them to vote independently

Issues and guidelines discussed herein were identified through an 

assessment of voters’ needs within the context of remote voting tasks,

hardware environments and software technologies. Environment and 

technology descriptions were derived from Security Considerations for 

Remote Electronic Voting [6] and A Threat Analysis on UOCAVA Voting 

Systems [15]. Readers are referred to these documents for more 

detailed discussions of remote voting hardware environments and 

software technologies.

These remote voting environments and technologies were examined to 

identify human factors related accessibility and usability issues

relevant to UOCAVA voters. These human factors pertain to voter 

characteristics that are physical (e.g., manipulation of a ballot and 

manipulation of a voting device), behavioral (e.g., memory limitations) 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

9

and demographic (e.g., age and familiarity with electronic devices such 

as those used for voting, including computers and kiosks). 

Recommendations to resolve the issues reflect accessibility and 

usability requirements and practices from the following:

• Chapter 3 of VVSG 2.0 [23]

• Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 [26], 

developed by the World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility 

Initiative (W3C/WAI) [25]

• Section 508 Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility 

Standards [17]

• Draft Information and Communications Technology (ICT) 

standards and guidelines [1], also known as the “Section 508 

Refresh”

Further, accessibility and usability recommendations in this paper 

derive from well-established accessibility and usability best practices. 

This paper also offers recommendations for universal design 

approaches drawn from principles commonly followed by accessibility, 

usability and human factors practitioners. Universal design is the 

design of products and environments to be usable by all people, 

including those with disabilities, to the greatest extent possible, 

without the need for adaptation or specialized design. However there is 

no intention to imply that any universal design solution alone resolves 

all the accessibility issues related to any disability or to every kind of 

disability. While universal design resolves some issues pertaining to 

disabilities, other issues require disability-specific accessibility 

solutions. VVSG 2.0 [23], in particular, is based on universal design 

principles that apply to voting in general and extend to UOCAVA 

voting. Examples of specific and universal guidelines are provided at 

usability.gov [21] and WCAG 2.0 [26].

Both issues and recommendations were derived using a user-centered 

perspective. The term user-centered refers to the fact that issues and 

recommendations pertain to the user experience. Therefore, in this 

white paper, the concept of user-centered is synonymous with the 

concept of voter-centered. In the case of UOCAVA remote voting, a 

user-centered perspective places the requirement to provide 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

10

accessibility and usability primarily on the voting system. Voters 

should not encounter obstacles to their using a UOCAVA voting system 

“comfortably, efficiently, and with justified confidence that they have 

cast their votes correctly” [23], Section 3.1.1. The EAC Board of 

Advisors has also recommended that the VVSG include a requirement 

for an industry standard jack to connect a personal assistive 

technology switch to the voting system for those voters with 

disabilities that bring their along their own devices such as manual 

input switches. The use of personal assistive technologies expands the 

range of voters with disabilities that can be accommodated beyond 

what universal design can provide.

This paper does not address the following topics:

• Voter registration, although some of the best practices noted in 

this paper may apply.

• Usability and accessibility for poll workers. Because poll workers 

play a limited role in remote voting, this paper focuses on 

UOCAVA voters. Note that VVSG 2.0 [23] Section 3.2.8 

discusses usability for poll workers, including usability of the 

documentation provided to poll workers for use when setting up, 

operating, and shutting down voting systems. It is possible that 

poll workers may perform these tasks at remote locations where 

US citizens are provided access to voting systems, e.g., U.S. 

embassies.

1.2 Paper Structure

This paper is organized according to relevant voting system 

technology. To establish a user-centered focus, Section 2 describes 

voters. 

Section 3 sets out general issues applicable to all voting system 

technologies. Sections 4 through 10 discuss issues that pertain to 

specific voting system technologies: Web browsers (Section 4), Web 

ballot repositories (Section 5), online ballot markers (Section 6), email (Section 7), kiosks (Section 8), telephone-based interfaces 

(Section 9), and fax machines (Section 10). Each of these sections 

provides a technology description and discusses how a voter interacts 

with the technology. Each identifies issues and offers 

recommendations.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

11

Section 11 presents next steps to begin addressing the accessibility 

and usability issues that pertain to UOCAVA voting. Section 12

contains conclusions. Section 13 references documents cited in this 

paper. The Appendix summarizes all recommendations in this 

document.

2 UOCAVA Voters

UOCAVA [19] allows registration and absentee voting in Federal 

elections by six million US citizens. UOCAVA covers three categories of 

US citizens: 

• Military and merchant marine personnel

• Families of military and merchant marine personnel

• Citizens residing abroad

All three categories of voters are subject to various types of 

accessibility and usability issues. Each category of voters with 

disabilities is served by specific classes of assistive technologies or sets 

of design approaches. Some issues relating to accessible voting remain 

unresolved. For example, accommodating voters with limited manual 

dexterity continues to be a difficult issue for voting systems in general 

and for voting systems on public kiosks in particular. For the UOCAVA 

voters, some of the technologies allow built-in accessibility as well as a 

capability to use personal assistive technologies.

Personal assistive technologies (PAT) are devices used in conjunction 

with technologies such as electronic voting systems. PAT promote 

accessibility for voters that regularly use PAT and can help voters with 

disabilities to vote independently. For example, switches are devices 

used to activate keyboard and mouse functionality. Switches alternate 

between states to enable a voter with a manual dexterity disability to 

navigate a ballot and make selections, for example, by pressing one or 

more large buttons. There are many varieties of switches to 

accommodate a range of disabilities. Such variation is typical of PAT. 

Switches can be activated by a finger, a hand or other body part, e.g., 

a side of a voter’s head or a foot. Switches come in a variety of sizes. 

A common example is the jelly switch or jelly buttons which are 

sensitive to less than two ounces of pressure. A more complex switch 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

12

is the dual switch sip-and-puff device. By exhaling or “puffing” into a 

tube, the voter controls a cursor. The voter inhales or "sips" to select. 

Most switch hardware needs to interface directly to the voting system; 

some switches are wireless. Switches can integrate with other assistive 

devices. Switches can make it possible for soldiers with limb injuries or 

voters with manual dexterity disabilities to vote.

Table 1 gives examples of PAT and the disabilities they address. 

Section 3.3.1-C of VVSG 2.0 [23] states, “It shall not be necessary for 

the accessible voting station to be connected to any personal assistive 

device of the voter in order for the voter to operate it correctly.” 

VVSG 2.0 does not preclude that voting systems can provide interfaces 

to PAT, but it does not provide requirements for those interfaces. 

VVSG 2.0 does not address PAT for a remote voter’s own personal 

computer or computing device. 

Table 1 Examples of disabilities and assistive technologies to make 

computing technologies accessible to people with those disabilities

Disabilities Examples of Assistive 

Technologies

Blindness Screen reader

Visual disabilities such as low 

vision

Screen magnifier

Manual dexterity disabilities Switches

Speech Recognition

There is a wide range of variability for PAT and voters often have 

personal preferences for assistive technologies. Screen readers offer 

an example of these preferences. A screen reader is a software 

application that processes text content displayed on a computing 

device screen or input to a computing device. It passes that content to 

a Braille display or to a speech synthesizer that “reads” it aloud. Out of 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

13

1,121 respondents to a survey on screen reader usage, 74% use JAWS

(Job Access with Speech), 23% use Window-Eyes, 8% use NVDA, 

(NonVisual Desktop Access) and 6% use VoiceOver [22].

A wide variety of disabilities impact the voting experience. Tables 2 

and 3 give examples with design solutions. Some solutions are 

specific; others are universal. Universal design solutions strive to 

accommodate multiple populations. For example, accommodations for 

people with color blindness include providing an additional signal such 

as text labels or shape to distinguish function when an interface uses 

color distinctions. This text can be large, bold font to ensure that the 

text is more legible for voters with poor vision. The operative universal 

design principle in this case is that redundant signals work together to 

produce good design and better usability for a variety of voters. In 

addition to helping voters with color blindness, this solution serves 

soldiers with eye injuries that require accommodations.

Table 2 Examples of disabilities and design accommodations to make 

computing technologies accessible to people with those disabilities

Disabilities Examples of Accessible Design 

Accommodations

Blindness Speed control of audio output

Cognitive disabilities Clear instructions 

Functionality to replay instructions

Color blindness No distinctions that rely solely on 

color-coding

Hearing disabilities Compatibility with hearing devices

Mobility disabilities Controls that are reachable from a 

wheelchair
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

14

Speech disabilities An alternative to speech input

The number of UOCAVA voters who are senior citizens is rising. These 

voters often have one or more of the physical and cognitive disabilities 

discussed in Table 2. One universal design solution is consistent 

navigation that helps all voters to move through a ballot in an 

expected sequence. This strategy helps to reduce errors for everyone, 

but, in particular, also helps voters who have diminished short-term 

memory due to old age and voters who are under stress.

Table 3 Examples of causes of lack of reading proficiency and assistive 

devices and design remedies that address a lack of reading proficiency

Causes of Lack of Reading 

Proficiency

Examples of Assistive 

Technologies & Design 

Remedies

English learned as a foreign 

language

Plain language

Dyslexia Synchronized audio and visual 

content presentation

Cognitive disability Clear instructions

Plain language

UOCAVA voters will vote from a variety of locations. The VVSG does 

not set out requirements for PAT and compatibility with PAT at official 

polling locations in the United States. The VVSG does include 

requirements for universal design and built-in assistive technology for 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

15

accessibility at these traditional polling locations. For UOCAVA voters 

with disabilities, there are at least five voting location scenarios, each 

with its own accessibility implications. This introduces the question of 

how to include built-in accessibility while designing for the use of PAT 

or compatibility of PAT at all possible UOCAVA voting locations.

UOCAVA voters may vote at the following:

1. Home, using their own equipment which may be integrated with 

their own PAT 

2. Public places such as an embassy or military base that provide 

voting equipment which could include built-in accessibility as 

described in the VVSG 

3. Their workplaces using equipment and PAT provided by their 

employers 

4. Public places such as an Internet café, library, or a public phone 

where there is no PAT provided and where equipment may or 

may not accommodate their own PAT. (Some public libraries 

may provide PAT).

5. Private equipment owned by people other than themselves which 

may or may not accommodate their own PAT

However, it is not possible to ascertain the availability of PAT or 

compatibility with PAT at all possible UOCAVA voting locations.

3 General Accessibility and Usability

This section discusses the principal accessibility and usability issues 

pertaining to UOCAVA voting systems. A principal challenge is to 

provide UOCAVA voters with voting systems that they can use 

comfortably, efficiently, independently, privately and with confidence 

that they have completed all voting tasks correctly. For example, 

human error constitutes a risk to successful UOCAVA voting. Usercentered design and performance testing recommendations focus on 

minimizing the potential for human error. In worst case scenarios for 

inaccessibility, a UOCAVA voter with a disability may not be able to 

vote remotely at all because the available technology does not 

interface with PAT or provide built-in accommodations. Examples of 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

16

this include a kiosk that does not provide high contrast and large fonts 

and a web site accessed by a personal computer that is incompatible 

with screen readers. It should be noted that applying WCAG 2.0 and 

Section 508 standards (where required by law) provide a minimum 

accessibility. An open issue is the degree to which built-in 

accessibility, such as magnification and screen reading without the 

need for PAT should be required. 

3.1 Issues and Recommendations

Issue: There is a need to systematically apply accessibility and 

usability best practices and guidelines to design and testing of 

all UOCAVA voting systems. 

For example, voting systems should be designed according to 

universal design principles and tested against these principles. This will 

help a wide range of UOCAVA voters to achieve efficiency, 

effectiveness and satisfaction while using remote voting systems to

request, receive, complete, cast and return ballots. During design and 

testing, attention should be given to interoperability with PAT to 

resolve accessibility issues. For example, design and testing should 

aim to make voting errors easy to correct for all voters, including 

voters using PAT. 

Recommendation: Follow VVSG 2.0 accessibility and usability 

guidelines and test methods.

VVSG 2.0 [23] requirements are built on accessibility and usability 

best practices. Use the NIST tests to verify that the VVSG 

requirements are met. These include performance tests, which are 

usability tests with voters. The VVSG also requires that voting system 

developers perform usability tests and report the results in the 

Common Industry Format (CIF), ISO/IEC 25062:2006 [11]. VVSG 

requirements include testing with voters who are blind, have limited 

vision, manual dexterity disabilities and mobility disabilities.

It is also essential to test UOCAVA voting designs for at-home use and 

unstaffed use by voters. It is essential that accessibility testing of 

UOCAVA voting designs include voters who have the full range of 

disabilities discussed in the VVSG. It is essential that the voters test 

the voting designs while using PAT. Without involving voters with 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

17

disabilities in testing, it is impossible to determine whether UOCAVA 

voters accomplish voting goals. 

People who have been involved in development of the voting system 

should never participate in testing as voters because of their familiarity 

with the voting system and its operation.

Recommendation: Test for accessibility with voters who have 

disabilities performing voting tasks in environments like the 

ones where they will actually perform UOCAVA voting.

In particular, the assistive technology used during the test must 

pertain to the disability of the voters who participate in that test. Test 

for accessibility to voters with the full range of each disability 

discussed in the VVSG. If the expectation is that the voting will be 

performed without a poll worker available to assist, testing should 

reflect this.

It is essential that accessibility and usability experts who are 

experienced in user-centered testing perform the accessibility and 

usability testing. Start testing early in the design and development 

lifecycles and continue throughout these lifecycles. Perform product 

conformance testing against accessibility and usability requirements. 

Issue: Accessibility standards do not specifically address Webbased voting systems.

VVSG 2.0 does not address Web-based voting systems or PAT for 

Web-based voting systems. Web-based voting systems present issues 

that do not pertain to other electronic voting systems.

Recommendation: Develop requirements based on existing 

Web-based standards. 

There is a need to develop requirements based on universal Web-page 

design solutions and accessibility design guidelines. Use existing web 

accessibility standards modified as needed for voting systems. Sources 

to inform accessibility and usability standards for Web-based voting 

systems include WCAG 2.0 [26], Section 508 [17] and the Section 508 

Refresh [1]. 

Issue: Voting system design does not always consider voter 

privacy and voters’ need to vote independently. 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

18

All voters must be able to vote privately and independently. However, 

designers sometimes assume that a caregiver will assist the voter.

Recommendation: Follow VVSG 2.0 requirements for privacy

and independence. 

The VVSG sets independence for voters with accessibility as a high 

level goal that is served by factors such as privacy. Section 3.2.3 of 

VVSG 2.0 [23] contains the relevant requirements. These are designed 

to assure that bystanders cannot discover voters’ choices. For UOCAVA 

remote voting, these requirements also apply to kiosk-based 

architectures. For architectures designed to support any part of the 

process of voting from a personal computing device, privacy cannot be 

strictly enforced. However, features that support voting independently 

at least provide some measure of privacy. 

Issue: To improve accessibility for all remote voters, UOCAVA 

voting systems should be designed to interface with PAT.

Some voters with disabilities require PAT for UOCAVA voting, for 

example, those using personal computers at home.

Recommendation: To make UOCAVA voting accessible, provide 

options that interface with PAT. 

Voters with disabilities using their own equipment will have their own 

computing environment set up to include their own PAT. For any part 

of the voting process that will occur in this personal computing 

environment, remote voting applications should be designed to be 

compatible with the PAT. Kiosks, telephone-based interfaces and fax 

machines purchased by the Federal Government must comply with 

accessibility legislation such as Section 508 [16]. Ideally, either the 

device itself must be accessible, or it must interface with PAT. 

Unfortunately, it is impossible to ensure this in many remote 

computing environments. Avoid options when it is known that these 

options diminish or exclude interoperability with PAT where possible.

Issue: There is a need to consider security policy, privacy 

policy, accessibility, and usability as four integral factors 

during requirements analysis for UOCAVA voting systems. 

There is a need to consider all four factors from the very beginning of 

UOCAVA voting system design.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

19

Recommendation: The design team and the security team need 

to work together from the beginning of the design process. 

Policy decisions should consider usability, accessibility,

security, and privacy as a whole.

There must be open dialog about the tradeoffs, for example, between 

security and usability. This dialog is especially important during 

requirements analysis and design.

Recommendation: When implementing security technologies, 

follow user-centered practices.

Verify that security technology implementations are usable and 

accessible through accessibility and usability testing. 

Hastings, Peralta, Popoveniuc, and Regenscheid [6] discuss security 

strategies. § 1194.21 (b) of the Section 508 Standards [17]

Specifically, “Applications shall not disrupt or disable activated features 

of other products that are identified as accessibility features, where 

those features are developed and documented according to industry 

standards.”

Issue: Some authentication approaches conflict with 

accessibility and usability best practices. 

For example, CAPTCHAs (Completely Automated Public Turing test to 

tell Computers and Humans Apart) [3] often violate accessibility best 

practices. CAPTCHAs are randomly generated images of words or 

letters. The display of a CAPTCHA is distorted to prevent software from 

making sense of it. Users type the displayed CAPTCHA to authenticate 

that they are human.

Recommendation: Design authentication to be usable and 

accessible. 

Do not build barriers that make authentication inaccessible to voters 

with disabilities. For example, if CAPTCHAs must be used to request a 

ballot or accept ballot delivery, follow accessibility design guidelines. 

Examples of accessible CAPTCHA design guidelines include providing 

readouts for the text; making CAPTCHAs resizable; adequately 

contrasting the CAPTCHA from its background; and not using shadows. 

See [18] for an example of additional information on CAPTCHA 

accessibility.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

20

Issue: Some approaches to acquiring Personally Identifiable 

Information (PII) conflict with accessibility and usability best 

practices. 

When a voter requests or returns a ballot electronically, PII, e.g., a 

voter identification number, may be required to verify that the voter is 

registered or to assure that the ballot is for the appropriate 

jurisdiction. Examples of accessibility and usability best practices that 

apply to provision of PII are 

• Ease of use

• Assuring voters that they are in control of the provision of their PII

• Assuring voters that their PII will not be compromised

• Never requiring voters to supply unnecessary PII

Recommendation: When PII disclosure is required, provide a 

secure and easy-to-use way for the voters to provide PII 

directly to the voting authority and give voters obvious 

assurance that the means they use to supply PII is secure.

For example, if the voter will provide PII over the Web, provide an 

obvious notice on the Web page that the page is secure. Provide 

voters with verification that their PII has been received by the 

appropriate authorities. An authentication mechanism that requires PII 

should not require disclosure of sensitive information to a third party.

Recommendation: Never require voters to supply unnecessary 

PII. Only ask voters to supply the required PII.

Issue: There is a need to integrate PAT with voting system 

architectures, including complex architectures. 

It is important to assure that there are no interoperability problems 

when PAT is integrated with voting systems. For example, there is 

variation among switches. Some solutions require a single switch, 

others more than one switch. The architecture must accommodate all 

commonly used switch configurations.

Recommendation: Design and test voting system components 

against standards and guidelines for interoperability and test 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

21

all likely configurations.

The variety of system components which must run simultaneously 

include hardware, operating systems, browsers, voting software and 

PAT. Design must address and assure their interoperability. For 

example, a web application must display properly with any of the Web 

browsers and screen readers in common use. All testers and voters 

involved in testing with PAT must be familiar with using the PAT. 

Issue: Sometimes ballots are designed without regard to the 

accessibility issues that make them legible for voters with 

vision disabilities. 

For example, ballots may be in the form of a .pdf document. Voters 

with limited vision disabilities have no way of enlarging the font in the 

printout of a .pdf. 

Recommendation: If the ballot is a .pdf intended to be printed, 

consider the use of form filling online so that the voter doesn’t 

need to fill out a paper blank ballot by hand.

See Section 6, for a discussion of electronic form filling. This allows the 

voter to make use of built-in magnification or audio screen reading or 

the use of PAT to fill out the ballot prior to printing. 

Issue: Voters will need to view ballots onscreen, including 

ballots created as .pdf documents.

Some voters with low vision disabilities will need to view the .pdf 

document onscreen at an enlarged size.

Recommendation: Create .pdf documents that contain text 

rather than images of text. 

With this solution, voters can enlarge fonts onscreen without pixilation 

by using the zoom function. The tradeoff is that after zooming, some 

content may not fit on screen, causing the voter to repeatedly 

navigate horizontally to view the width of the .pdf document page. A 

benefit is that using text rather than images of text in a .pdf makes 

content accessible to screen readers.

Recommendation: To support onscreen legibility for voters with 

low-vision disabilities, test to ensure that the Adobe Reader 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

22

reflow feature performs properly for displaying .pdf documents 

to be used with UOCAVA voting systems. 

This entails testing with voters who have low-vision disabilities to 

ensure that they can comfortably read the voting .pdf documents 

onscreen.

Issue: When ballot choices are represented in a printout as 

filled-in bubbles, text-to-speech (TTS) technology cannot read 

out the voter’s choices.

This issue applies also to filled in arrows or other designated areas 

such as the area between two lines. Voters may print ballots to verify 

that their intended choices are represented on the ballot. Blind voters 

may “read” the printout using TTS for paper. An example of such a 

system is the Kurzweil reading machine which scans and recognizes 

text on paper, then converts it to sound. This issue pertains to printing 

out ballots for checking that the intended votes are being cast. It does 

not apply to printing out ballots to send to the voting jurisdiction.

Recommendation: For printing ballots, offer the option to print 

only the choices. 

If a blind voter wants to process a printout with TTS technology, the 

TTS reader will not recognize filled-in bubbles. However, TTS will read 

out text containing the voter’s choices. This recommendation pertains 

to printing out ballots for checking that the intended votes are being 

cast. It does not apply to printing out ballots to send to the voting 

jurisdiction.

Recommendation: Avoid the problem of unreadable voter 

choices by offering an option that is readable by a TTS. 

This recommendation requires using a .pdf ballot and filling in the 

fillable area using a printable character such as the letter “X”. 

Alternatively, a printable character could be added to the electronic 

ballot. The TTS would read out the entire ballot, reading an “X” with 

each selection the voter has made. This recommendation pertains to 

printing out ballots for checking that the intended votes are being cast. 

It does not apply to printing out ballots to send to the voting 

jurisdiction.

Recommendation: If the ballot is a .pdf intended to be printed 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

23

and must be completed on paper, provide a large print ballot 

format for voters with low vision disabilities. 

Voters may need to print out a ballot that they have received from a 

Web ballot repository. They will have to print out ballots that they 

intend to return by fax, postal mail or courier service. This is 

analogous to States providing large print ballots at the polls.

Issue: When a printed .pdf is to be faxed, mailed or sent by 

courier to the election jurisdiction, the voters’ choices may 

have to be re-entered manually by an election official. This can 

result in a loss of privacy for the voter.

Manual entry is necessary when the printout paper is inappropriate for 

optical scanning. Scanner vendors recommend paper weights ranging 

from 60 to 100 pounds. This paper is much heavier than paper 

generally used for printing and faxing. This issue pertains both to 

paper used by voters and paper used by election officials. There is no 

usability recommendation for this issue.

4 Web Browsers

A Web browser is software used for information presentation on a Web 

site and for human interaction with the content of a Web page. The 

most commonly used browsers are Internet Explorer and Firefox [24].

4.1 Technology

Voters access a UOCAVA provider Web site by using a Web browser. 

The technology is highly interoperable and accessible if designed 

properly.

Voting Web sites will provide a variety of applications for voting tasks. 

For example, there may be a Web form to collect authentication 

information about the voter.

The owner of the server where a Web site resides may grant different 

voters access to different information. Web sites with restricted 

content, such as sites that house a State’s voting ballot, usually 

require the voter to log-in using authentication such as a user name 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

24

and password to access that subset of the site’s information which the 

voter has permission to access. 

4.2 Interaction 

UOCAVA voters can use personal computers or other computing 

devices that run Web applications to request blank ballots and receive 

blank ballots. Using a Web browser, a voter accesses the pages of an 

election-official-operated Web site. Voter options for accessing a ballot 

include using an interactive form on a Web page or using a printer to 

print out a ballot. Voters may also receive a ballot by postal mail or 

courier service.

Using a personal computer or mobile device that runs Web 

applications, UOCAVA voters can complete ballots on an electionofficial-operated Web site and can submit completed ballots. Upon 

logging on to a voting Web site, the voter will only have access to 

information for which he or she has access permission. For example, a 

voter will be able to see a ballot for his or her own voting district, but 

not another district.

4.3 Issues & Recommendations 

Issue: Election Web sites and their applications must be 

compatible with a variety of browsers and a variety of versions 

of a browser.

Many voters will have a need or personal preference for a specific 

browser or browser version. For example, some voters with disabilities 

will need to use a specific browser because it works best with their 

own PAT. Some organizations providing public voting systems for 

UOCAVA voting will require that certain browsers be used. Workplaces 

where UOCAVA voters may vote may also have such requirements.

It is essential that voters be able to perform voting tasks using a Web 

browser and Web applications with which voters are familiar and 

comfortable. Voters must not be restricted to certain browsers because 

an election site is not compatible with the browser the voter needs or 

chooses to use. Election sites must also be compatible with browsers 

that are required by organizations providing public voting systems for 

UOCAVA voting or workplace computers that will be used for UOCAVA 

voting.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

25

Recommendation: Test to make sure that the Web site and its 

applications are compatible with at least the most commonly 

used versions of the most commonly used browsers.

Commonly used browsers include Internet Explorer and Firefox. Not all 

voters will choose to use the most recent version of a browser. Not all

voters will be able to use the most recent version of a browser. 

Compatibility includes both accessibility and usability. For example, 

blind voters must be able to easily and confidently navigate the Web 

site and use its functionality while using a screen reader. When testing 

for compatibility with browsers, also test with commonly used PAT 

such as commonly used screen readers. Involve users with disabilities 

in tests with PAT.

Issue: Voters need voting Web sites that are designed 

according to universal and disability-specific ease of use and 

learnability design best practices. 

Not all voters are highly Web literate. They do not access the voting 

sites often, so they cannot be expected to remember how to 

accomplish voting tasks from visit to visit.

Recommendation: To accommodate the widest range of 

computer literacy, ensure that the voting Web site conforms to 

universal design principles. 

Universal design principles will help all voters to accomplish their Webbased UOCAVA voting tasks. These principles include using plain 

language. For example, voters may have to download an application to 

receive or fill in a ballot. Provide information in plain language on how 

to initiate and complete the download process. Notify the voter in plain 

language when the download is complete. 

In addition to VVSG 2.0 [23], for research-based Web accessibility and 

usability design guidelines see [20]. For information about plain 

language, see [13]. Many WAI [25] guidelines derive from universal 

design principles. 

Issue: Innovative combinations of Web technologies are 

currently emerging and will continue to do so in the future. 

Because they are innovative, sometimes they do not meet voters’ 

expectations for interaction. For example, Asynchronous JavaScript 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

26

and eXtensible Markup Language (AJAX) [5] asynchronously enables 

dynamic client-server interactions within Web applications. AJAX is 

used with common Web technologies such as HTML/XHTML and 

Cascading Style Sheets (CSS). AJAX requires that JavaScript be turned 

on. Although one benefit is faster interaction, there are tradeoffs [5]. 

Contrary to voters’ expectations, AJAX quickly and incrementally 

updates content of a Web page without reloading the entire page. For 

voters using screen readers, the effects can be serious. Screen readers 

“read” content that is in focus. AJAX updates may appear on a part of 

the page that is not in focus. If the screen reader automatically resets 

focus to the location of the update and then reads the update, the 

voter workflow will be interrupted each time the focus shifts to a part 

of the ballot where the voter no longer intended to work. These 

interruptions and unexpected movement through the screen could 

cause the voter to become disoriented. Voting is done infrequently, 

and ballots have different content from election to election. Therefore, 

voters cannot be expected to remember content presentation order 

from election to election. They need a frame of reference. AJAX could 

deprive the blind voter of the needed frame of reference for navigation 

by making it impossible to navigate sequentially through the ballot.

Even the most experienced screen reader users could experience 

negative impacts.

Conversely, if the screen reader works linearly, it may be unaware of a 

change in another part of the interface that is out of focus. The result 

is that the screen reader will not read the change. If the screen reader 

is unaware of dynamic changes, it cannot inform the voter about 

them. 

In the case of Java applets, when focus shifts to the applet, e.g. to 

exit, keyboard commands no longer work; this disables screen 

readers. Some browsers do not run JAVA applets, making their 

functionality unavailable to voters.

Recommendation: Follow best practices for implementation of 

new technologies and new combinations of technologies such 

as AJAX. 

For example, use best practices such as the WCAG 2.0, W3C protocols,

and WAI-ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications). When it is 

necessary to use a technology that may cause the browser to act in a 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

27

way that a voter may not expect, inform the voters in plain language, 

in the instructions, that this may happen. For example, if there is a 

possibility that keyboard commands will no longer work, state this in 

the voting instructions using plain language. Provide a remedy for the 

voter. If there is no remedy possible, the implementation is not 

acceptable.

5 Web Ballot Repositories

Jurisdictions may post blank ballots on Web sites. These storage areas 

on the Web are called Web ballot repositories.

5.1 Technology

Web ballot repositories offer a security benefit over e-mail due to 

widely used technologies that protect the confidentiality and integrity 

of information in transit. It is also important that the ballot itself is 

constructed to be secure. For example, an effective means to protect 

ballot secrecy is to construct the printable ballot using software that 

runs solely on the voters’ computers.

5.2 Interaction

Voters access Web ballot repositories to download ballots. Voters 

provide information about themselves to show the ballot providers that 

they have requested the correct ballot. For example, the voter may be 

asked to provide home address information. Voter authentication is 

not necessarily required for downloads if voters are permitted to 

download their ballots more than once. However, authentication is 

required in circumstances where voters will receive return 

identification information that will be used as a secondary voter 

authentication mechanism when returned ballots are processed.

5.3 Issue & Recommendation 

Issue: The process of interacting with a Web ballot repository 

is not always based on accessibility and usability best 

practices.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

28

For example, voters may have to provide information that is not 

readily on hand, such as the number of a voting district. How to find 

this information on the Web may be unclear to the voter, especially if 

it requires navigating to a different Web page. 

Recommendation: Lead voters through the steps of requesting 

a ballot in a logical manner that simplifies the process.

Explain the voting process clearly in plain language that leads the 

voter through the process step by step. An example of explaining the 

process clearly is telling voters where to find a voting district number. 

An example of simplifying the process is to provide functionality 

whereby the system identifies a voting district when a voter inputs a 

home address or voter identification number. The system must notify 

the voter when the ballot is completely downloaded. Section 3.1 of this 

white paper discusses accessibility of downloading ballots, related 

authentication issues and related PII issues.

6 Online Ballot Markers/Electronic Form Fillers

The terms online ballot marker and electronic form filler refer to any 

technology that a voter uses to electronically enter information into a 

form on a Web site.

6.1 Technology 

Online ballot markers and electronic form fillers are Web applications 

that run in a Web browser, usually using a client-side scripting 

language in addition to standard HTML.

6.2 Interaction

A voter uses an online ballot marker or electronic form filler to fill in an 

electronic ballot on a Web site in a browser window. An alternative to 

using an online ballot marker is to download and fill in a .pdf document 

using an electronic form filler.

In either case, voters print the completed ballot form and then return

it by fax, US mail or courier service. 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

29

6.3 Issue & Recommendation 

Issue: Voters with disabilities cannot use online ballot markers 

or electronic form fillers on forms that are not accessible.

This is a form design issue. For example, Section 4.3 of this white 

paper discusses Web pages that use AJAX. When those Web pages 

contain forms, the navigation problems discussed in Section 4.3 apply 

to using an online ballot marker or electronic form filler. 

Recommendation: To make online ballot markers and electronic 

form fillers accessible to people with disabilities, follow Section 

508 Standards and WCAG 2.0 on designing forms that are 

accessible.

Section 508 Standards [17] ] require electronic form accessibility. § 

1194.21 states, “(l) When electronic forms are used, the form shall 

allow people using assistive technology to access the information, field 

elements, and functionality required for completion and submission of 

the form, including all directions and cues.” § 1194.22 repeats this 

requirement specifically for on-line forms. WCAG 2.0 provides 

guidelines for web content accessibility. Test with screen readers.

7 E-Mail

Electronic Mail (e-Mail) is software that transmits text and/or files from 

one computer to another over the Internet.

7.1 Technology 

e-Mail is transmitted from a sender’s computer to his or her e-mail 

server which is often operated by an Internet Service Provider (ISP). 

E-mail is then routed through a series of intermediate servers before 

delivery to the recipient’s e-mail server, which is often operated by an 

ISP, workplace or commercial e-mail provider.

7.2 Interaction 

UOCAVA voters can use e-mail to request a blank ballot. If the ballot 

arrives as an e-mail attachment, the UOCAVA voter can receive a 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

30

ballot to print out, fill in and return by fax, postal service or courier 

service.

Voters may receive an electronic ballot as an e-mail attachment. This 

ballot is accessible for completion on a computer using an electronic 

form filler. The voter then prints out the ballot and returns it. 

Instead of an attachment, the e-mail can contain a link to a ballot on 

the Internet. Such a ballot can be a .pdf or a scanned .pdf. The voter 

can complete the ballot on a computer and print it out for returning. 

Alternatively, the voter may print out the ballot, complete it by hand 

and return it. 

The e-mail can contain a link to a Web form to complete, print and 

return. Section 6 of this white paper discusses issues pertaining to 

using a Web form.

7.3 Issue and Recommendations

Issue: e-Mail ballot delivery may be marked as spam or blocked 

as spam. 

Recommendation: In instructions for e-mail voting, inform 

voters that they need to check to see if e-mail containing the 

ballot or a link to a ballot is treated as spam by their e-mail 

provider. 

Voters will require additional instructions in plain language on how to 

remedy this problem. For example, give voters keywords to use when 

consulting their email software help on setting spam parameters. 

Recommendation: Jurisdictions should send emails to test 

accounts set up with common e-mail providers to verify that 

the e-mail is not treated as spam.

8 Kiosks

Kiosks are interactive computers intended for public use. A kiosk may 

be a Web application running on a personal computer inserted into a 

kiosk housing. Alternatively, it may be an ATM-like kiosk.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

31

8.1 Technology

The principal difference between kiosks and electronic voting systems 

used at polling places is that kiosks typically have an application that 

runs on a browser. 

8.2 Interaction

Voting kiosks are usually located in a public place other than the 

polling place. Kiosks may or not be monitored by a human facilitator. 

The UOCAVA voter interacts with a kiosk using a touch screen, dials 

and buttons, voice input (when voice input does not violate privacy), 

or through a PAT such as a switch device. Voters with some low vision 

disabilities may also use earphones to hear audio output of the ballot.

8.3 Issue and Recommendation

Issue: Kiosk design inherits most of the same issues addressed 

in the VVSG for electronic voting systems because kiosks have 

characteristics of electronic voting systems. 

Some of these issues can be addressed by universal design and others 

require disability-specific design solutions.

Recommendation: In all aspects where kiosks have the 

characteristics of electronic voting systems, conform their 

design to VVSG Chapter 3 guidelines for usability, accessibility, 

voter independence and voter privacy. 

For example, to be accessible, kiosks need built-in accessibility such as 

audio ballots. They may need interfaces to earphones. Configure 

kiosks to accommodate a voter sitting in a wheelchair.

Recommendation: Where possible, design to include 

interoperability with PAT. 

As mentioned earlier in this paper, it is an open issue as to what level 

of accessibility needs to be built-in versus accessible by PAT. It is a 

safe assumption for a kiosk to follow VVSG 2.0 and also include an 

industry standard jack for PAT and provide the associated software 

interoperability.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

32

9 Telephone-Based Interfaces

Telephone-based interfaces use a telephone and a telephone network

for information exchange.

9.1 Technology

The Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) provides two-way 

communication between telephones. The PSTN is a global circuitswitched network consisting of a digital communications backbone with 

automated telephone exchanges that route calls to their destinations. 

In most cases, there is an analog bridge from the backbone to users’ 

telephones. Information can be communicated over the telephone 

network either orally or by entering numbers on a touch-tone dial pad.

9.2 Interaction

A voter can request a blank ballot orally or by pressing keys on a 

telephone keypad. It is possible that there may be human-to-human 

interaction in requesting a blank ballot. Otherwise, in both ballot 

requesting and ballot execution, the voter hears recorded or machinegenerated spoken prompts and responds by saying commands or by 

pressing keys on the telephone keypad. 

Using a telephone keypad to vote, a voter follows a menu to enter or 

modify voting choices, to verify that the desired choices have been 

registered and to submit a completed ballot. This menu is sometimes 

called a telephone prompt tree because of its hierarchical structure. 

Telephone-based voting systems can impose memory burdens and 

therefore may not be appropriate for voters with cognitive disabilities. 

At the time this paper is written, telephone voting is not robust enough 

to provide a reasonable range of access features for UOCAVA voters 

with disabilities. For example, using a telephone-based interface 

requires the ability to hear the prompts. Senior citizens may have 

more difficulty understanding synthetic speech prompts than human 

digitized speech. To use the telephone keypad, some voters need

manual dexterity or assistive devices and an adaptive telephone that 

interfaces with these devices. These requirements make telephonebased interfaces inappropriate for some voters with hearing disabilities 

and others with manual dexterity disabilities. 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

33

Usability guidelines for interactive voice responses are available at 

[12] . Many of these guidelines are based on universal design 

principles.

9.3 Issues and Recommendations

Issue: Using a telephone-based interface without a screen 

requires the ability to hear the prompts, but there is no 

standard to address this need. 

Voters with hearing disabilities may not be able to hear the prompts. 

This issue is accommodated in VVSG 2.0 [23] for voting systems by 

requiring an additional visual prompt, but a visual prompt is not 

possible for telephones without screens. 

Note: In the future, this may become less of an issue as phones with 

visual interfaces become more common.

Recommendation: Develop a standard that provides that sound 

prompts must be clear and loud enough to be heard. In writing 

the standard, accommodate the fact that hearing may be 

diminished at higher frequencies.

Recommendation: Require non-auditory alternatives to 

telephone-based interfaces for people with hearing loss. These 

include both tactile and visual alternatives.

Recommendation: Require non-manual alternatives to 

telephone-based interfaces for voters with manual dexterity 

disabilities. These include auditory alternatives.

Issue: Telephone-based interfaces must be compatible with 

hearing aids. 

Voters who normally use a hearing aid may require the hearing aid to 

interact with a telephone-based interface for voting.

Recommendation: Follow VVSG 2.0 Section 3.3.3-C.2 

requirement for T-Coil coupling.

VVSG 2.0 [23] states, “When a voting system utilizes a telephone style 

handset or headphone to provide audio information, it SHALL provide a 

wireless T-Coil coupling for assistive hearing devices so as to provide 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

34

access to that information for voters with partial hearing. That 

coupling SHALL achieve at least a category T4 rating as defined by the 

American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of 

Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices and Hearing 

Aids, ANSI C63.19.” [2]

Issue: Telephone prompt trees are not always designed 

according to usability best practices; voter confusion and 

frustration can result. 

This is a universal design issue.

Recommendation: Design prompt trees so that voters always 

feel in control of the UOCAVA telephone-based voting session. 

For example, voters must have control over navigation through the 

phone tree, moving back up or down the tree as desired and pausing 

at will. Voters need confirmation that they have succeeded in casting 

their votes as desired. Examples of usability design standards for 

interactive voice response systems include ANSI/HFES 200:4 [8] and 

ISO/IEC 13714:1995 [9].

Issue: Some voters may have difficulty understanding speech 

in interactive voice response systems.

For example, some voters have difficulty hearing synthetic speech 

prompts. This is a universal design issue.

Recommendation: Follow best practice guidelines and test with 

voters who have a range of hearing disabilities to ensure that 

speech in interactive voice response systems is intelligible.

This is a universal design solution that can help voters with a range of

hearing disabilities. Test with voters who have a range of hearing 

disabilities to verify that voters can hear the speech prompts. VVSG 

2.0 [23] sets out standards for audio features and characteristics in 

Section 3.3.3-C. In particular, VVSG 2.0 Section 3.3.3-C.7 addresses 

intelligible audio.

Issue: Features supporting accessibility within the U.S. 

telephone infrastructure may not exist in other telephone 

infrastructures.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

35

For example, technologies supporting accessibility may not exist in all 

telephone infrastructures around the world. While Section 255 of 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 (http://www.accessboard.gov/about/laws/telecomm.htm) requires telecommunications 

products and services to be accessible to people with disabilities in the 

U.S., this would not necessarily be the case for overseas voters using 

phone-based equipment. There is no accessibility recommendation for 

this issue.

10 Fax Machines

A fax machine is a device that transmits and receives signals over 

telephone lines. A fax machine encodes paper representations as 

electronic representations.

10.1 Technology

A fax machine scans a document and transmits an encoded 

representation of it over the telephone network to another fax 

machine. The receiving fax machine decodes the information and 

prints a copy of the scanned document. Some fax machines create an 

analog representation of the document in a manner similar to analog 

television; others create a digital representation. The digital or analog 

representation is sent to a telephone network using analog signals. 

10.2 Interaction

A UOCAVA voter can request, receive or submit a ballot using a fax 

machine. The voter can vote their requested ballot by hand or 

electronically. Before using a fax machine to fax a completed electronic 

ballot, the voter must print the ballot.

As an alternative to requesting, receiving, or sending a ballot using a 

fax machine, a voter may fax and receive a fax using a computer. 

Using a computer that interfaces with PAT can avoid accessibility 

problems related to using fax machines. Accessibility issues that 

impact on voting using a fax machine include the need to handle paper 

and the need to verify the content of a printed ballot before faxing in 

addition to the use of the fax machine itself.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

36

The voter may be required to provide a signature for validation by the 

election authorities. The voter who returns the ballot by US mail or 

courier service inserts the voted ballot into an envelope and signs the 

envelope. If faxing, the voter may be required to fax an image of the 

signed envelope. Upon receiving the ballot, election officials verify the 

voter’s signature on the envelope before counting the vote. Election 

officials verify the signature by comparing it to a signature they have 

on file from the voter. 

10.3 Issues and Recommendations

Issue: It is possible that usability, accessibility, and privacy 

issues will arise when ballots are faxed. 

There is a possibility of voter error with fax dialing. This, in turn, opens 

the possibility of faxing one’s private ballot to a destination other than 

the intended destination. Voters need verification that a ballot has 

arrived at the intended, authorized fax destination.

Recommendation: Follow accessibility and usability best 

practices and VVSG guidelines to ensure privacy when sending 

ballots by fax.

For example, the receiving fax machine must provide immediate 

feedback, such as a confirmation sheet, to inform voters when they 

have successfully transmitted a fax to the appropriate authorities at 

the intended destination. An automatic response will provide 

immediate notification. Warn voters ahead of time, in plain language, 

to dial carefully. Make the fax number notification obvious and large 

enough to be read by voters with limited vision by presenting it in 

bolded font where no capital letter is smaller than 3.0 mm (VVSG 2.0, 

[23], Section 3.2.5-D Minimum Font Size) and where the font is a sans 

serif font (VVSG 2.0, [23], Section 3.2.5-F Use of Sans Serif Font).

Issue: Voters may be required to take unexpected extra steps 

to use a fax. 

For example, some fax machines cannot accommodate documents 

smaller than letter-size. A copy of a voters’ registration card may be 

required when requesting a blank ballot. A copy of a signed envelope 

may be required for ballot submission. Such cases will necessitate 
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

37

scanning or photocopying a document onto letter-sized paper before 

faxing it.

Recommendation: Explain to voters in plain language how to 

carry out any unexpected extra steps. 

For example, explain in plain language that if they are faxing paper, 

they must use letter-sized paper.

Issue: Accessibility and usability issues related to faxing 

include accessibility of the fax machine used for voting. 

Fax machines procured by the Federal Government must comply with 

Section 508 of the Amended Rehabilitation Act of 1998 [16]. However, 

the Section 508 requirements for standalone machines do not 

completely address accessibility. Further, voters may use a fax 

machine in a setting other than a Federal government location.

Recommendation: If voters are to use fax machines procured 

by the Federal Government, verify that the fax machines are in 

compliance with the Section 508 requirements.

This recommendation provides only partial assurance of accessibility.

11 Next Steps

This paper has presented issues that impact UOCAVA remote voting. It 

has offered solutions. Within these issues and recommendations there 

are trends that point to the steps that should be taken next.

There is a high priority need for accessibility and usability standards 

for UOCAVA voting systems. For example, there is a need for usercentered standards to address Web-based voting systems and PAT for 

Web-based voting systems.

There is an immediate need for a general requirement that the design 

of UOCAVA voting systems must follow accessibility and usability best 

practices. For example, voters need voting Web sites that are designed 

according to universal and disability-specific ease of use and 

learnability design best practices.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

38

There is an immediate need for a general requirement for testing 

conformance to accessibility and usability best practices. It is most 

important to involve voters in usability testing and voters with 

disabilities in accessibility testing. Testing with voters who have the 

range of disabilities stated in the VVSG test methods is critical for both 

the user interface and for interoperability because interoperability 

supports accessibility and usability. Testing of UOCAVA voting systems 

must include testing of all system components against standards and 

guidelines for interoperability. All likely configurations must be tested, 

including configurations that integrate PAT.

It is also important to test authentication approaches because 

authentication often conflicts with accessibility and usability best 

practices. Accessibility testing must address PAT. 

12 Conclusions

This paper has addressed some of the critical accessibility and usability 

issues related to UOCAVA voting. Remote electronic voting, using the 

technologies described in this paper, inherits all the accessibility and 

usability issues related to voting at the polls; it adds new issues 

related to the technologies that enable remote electronic voting. 

Accessibility and usability of remote electronic voting systems present 

complex challenges that must be resolved to ensure voter efficiency, 

effectiveness, satisfaction, privacy and independence when voting 

remotely.

13 References

[1] Access Board (United States Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board). Draft information and 

communication technology (ICT) standards and guidelines. 

http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/draft-rule.htm

[2] American National Standard for Methods of Measurement of 

Compatibility between Wireless Communications Devices and 

Hearing Aids, ANSI C63.19. 

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4233252&

tag=1
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

39

[3] CAPTCHA: Telling Humans and Computers Apart Automatically. 

Carnegie Mellon University. http://www.captcha.net/

[4] Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP). 

http://www.fvap.gov/

[5] Gibson, V. AJAX accessibility overview. http://www03.ibm.com/able/resources/ajaxaccessibility.html

[6] Hastings, N., Peralta, R., Popoveniuc, S. & Regenscheid, A. 

Security considerations for remote electronic voting. NIST white 

paper for the TGDC.

[7] Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. Public Law 107-252. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ252/contentdetail.html

[8] Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. ANSI/HFES 200:4. 

Human factors engineering of software user interfaces part 4: 

Interactive voice response (IVR) and telephony. 

http://www.hfes.org/PublicationMaintenance/FeaturedDocument

s/76/ANSI-HFES_200-Part4_TOC.pdf

[9] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/IEC 

13714:1995. Information technology – Document processing 

and related communication – User interface to telephone-based 

services – Voice messaging services. 

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_de

tail.htm?csnumber=22721

[10] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (1998). 

ISO 9241-11:1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with 

visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability.

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_de

tail.htm?csnumber=16883

[11] International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO/IEC 

25062:2006. Software engineering -- Software product quality 

requirements and evaluation (SQuaRE) -- Common industry 

format (CIF) for usability test reports.

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_de

tail.htm?csnumber=43046
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

40

[12] IVRS World Usability guidelines of IVR systems. 

http://www.ivrsworld.com/advanced-ivrs/usability-guidelines-ofivr-systems/

[13] Laskowski, S., Autry, M., Cugini, J., Killam, W., and Yen, J. 

Improving the Usability and Accessibility of Voting Systems and 

Products. NIST Special Publication 500-256, May 2004. 

http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/upload/FinalHumanFactorsReport5-

04.pdf

[14] PlainLanguage.gov. Improving communication from the Federal 

Government to the public. Accessed June 28, 2010 at 

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/index.cfm

[15] Regenscheid, A. & Hastings, N. A threat analysis on UOCAVA 

voting systems. NIST IR 7551. National Institute of Standards 

and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. 2008. 

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publicationsearch.cfm?pub_id=901171

[16] Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d). 

Section 508. (1998). 

http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?fuseAction=1998Amend

[17] Section 508 Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility 

Standards. http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/standards.htm

[18] Thatcher, Jim. CAPTCHAs, CAPTCHAs everywhere. 

http://jimthatcher.com/captchas.htm

[19] Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act 

(UOCAVA), (as modified by the National Defense Authorization 

Act for FY 2005). 

[20] Usability.gov. Research-based Web design and usability 

guidelines. 

http://www.fvap.gov/resources/media/uocavalaw.pdf

http://www.usability.gov/guidelines/guidelines_book.pdf

[21] Usability.gov. Your guide to developing usable & useful Web 

sites. http://www.usability.gov/
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

41

[22] Utah State University Center for Persons with Disabilities 

WebAIM. Survey of preferences of screen readers users. 

http://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey/#demographics

[23] Voluntary Voting System Guidelines Recommendations to the 

Election Assistance Commission. Draft – August 7, 2007 (VVSG 

2.0). http://vote.nist.gov/VVSG-0807/VVSG-Draft-08072007.pdf

[24] w3Schools. Browser statistics, 2010. 

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

[25] W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). WAI guidelines and 

techniques. http://www.w3.org/WAI/

[26] W3C/WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

42

Appendix: Summary of Recommendations

General Accessibility and Usability 

Recommendations

• Recommendation: Follow VVSG 2.0 accessibility and usability 

guidelines and test methods.

• Recommendation: Test for accessibility with voters who have 

disabilities performing voting tasks in environments like the ones 

where they will actually perform UOCAVA voting.

• Recommendation: Develop requirements based on existing Webbased standards.

• Recommendation: Follow VVSG 2.0 requirements for privacy and 

independence.

• Recommendation: To make UOCAVA voting accessible, provide 

options that interface with PAT. 

• Recommendation: The design team and the security team need to 

work together from the beginning of the design process. Policy 

decisions should consider usability, accessibility, security, and 

privacy as a whole.

• Recommendation: When implementing security technologies, follow 

user-centered practices.

• Recommendation: Design authentication to be usable and 

accessible.

• Recommendation: When PII disclosure is required, provide a secure 

and easy-to-use way for the voters to provide PII directly to the 

voting authority and give voters obvious assurance that the means 

they use to supply PII is secure.

• Recommendation: Never require voters to supply unnecessary PII. 

Only ask voters to supply the required PII.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

43

• Recommendation: Design and test voting system components 

against standards and guidelines for interoperability and test all 

likely configurations.

• Recommendation: If the ballot is a .pdf intended to be printed, 

consider the use of form filling online so that the voter doesn’t need 

to fill out a paper blank ballot by hand.

• Recommendation: Create .pdf documents that contain text rather 

than images of text.

• Recommendation: To support onscreen legibility for voters with 

low-vision disabilities, test to ensure that the Adobe Reader reflow 

feature performs properly for displaying .pdf documents to be used 

with UOCAVA voting systems. 

• Recommendation: For printing ballots, offer the option to print only 

the choices.

• Recommendation: Avoid the problem of unreadable voter choices 

by offering an option that is readable by a TTS.

• Recommendation: If the ballot is a .pdf intended to be printed and 

must be completed on paper, provide a large print ballot format for 

voters with low vision disabilities. 

Web Browser Recommendations

• Recommendation: Test to make sure that the Web site and its 

applications are compatible with at least the most commonly used 

versions of the most commonly used browsers.

• Recommendation: To accommodate the widest range of computer 

literacy, ensure that the voting Web site conforms to universal 

design principles.

• Recommendation: Follow best practices for implementation of new 

technologies and new combinations of technologies such as AJAX.

Web Ballot Repository Recommendation

• Recommendation: Lead voters through the steps of requesting a 

ballot in a logical manner that simplifies the process.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

44

Online Ballot Marker/Electronic Form Filler 

Recommendation

• Recommendation: To make online ballot markers and electronic 

form fillers accessible to people with disabilities, follow Section 508 

Standards and WCAG 2.0 on designing forms that are accessible.

e-Mail Recommendations

• Recommendation: In instructions for e-mail voting, inform voters 

that they need to check to see if e-mail containing the ballot or a 

link to a ballot is treated as spam by their e-mail provider.

• Recommendation: Jurisdictions should send emails to test accounts 

set up with common e-mail providers to verify that the e-mail is not 

treated as spam.

Kiosk Recommendations

• Recommendation: In all aspects where kiosks have the 

characteristics of electronic voting systems, conform their design to 

VVSG Chapter 3 guidelines for usability, accessibility, voter 

independence and voter privacy.

• Recommendation: To make online ballot markers and electronic 

form fillers accessible to people with disabilities, follow Section 508 

Standards and WCAG 2.0 on designing forms that are accessible.

Telephone-Based Interface 

Recommendations

• Recommendation: Develop a standard that provides that sound 

prompts must be clear and loud enough to be heard. In writing the 

standard, accommodate the fact that hearing may be diminished at 

higher frequencies.

• Recommendation: Require non-auditory alternatives to telephonebased interfaces for people with hearing loss. These include both 

tactile and visual alternatives.
Accessibility and Usability Considerations for Remote Voting Systems

45

• Recommendation: Require non-manual alternatives to telephonebased interfaces for voters with manual dexterity disabilities. These 

include auditory alternatives.

• Recommendation: Follow VVSG Section 3.3.3-C.2 requirement for 

T-Coil coupling.

• Recommendation: Design prompt trees so that voters always feel in 

control of the UOCAVA telephone-based voting session.

• Recommendation: Follow best practice guidelines and test with 

voters who have a range of hearing disabilities to ensure that 

speech in interactive voice response systems is intelligible.

Fax Machine Recommendations

• Recommendation: Follow accessibility and usability best practices 

and VVSG guidelines to ensure privacy when sending ballots by fax.

• Recommendation: Explain to voters in plain language how to carry 

out any unexpected extra steps.

• Recommendation: If voters are to use fax machines procured by 

the Federal Government, verify that the fax machines are in 

compliance with the Section 508 requirements.