Improving U.S. Voting Systems

VVSG 2.0 draft requirements:Improving the accessibility and usability of voting Part 2: Updates to best practices and new

technologies for voting systems

1

The National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Center for hosted by the Center for Technology and Civic LifeSeptember 25, 2019
2

Hello, there!

Whitney QuCenter for Civwhitney@civicde

Sharon LaskowskiNISTsharon.laskowski@nist.govKurt SampselCenter for Technology and Civic Lifekurt@techandciviclife.org
3

The 2002 Help America Vote Act has given NIST a ke

helping to realize nationwide improvements in votin

including assisting the Election Assistance Commiss

development of voluntary voting system guidelines

vote.nist.gov
4

The Center for Technoloand Civic LifeUsing technology to improve how local goveand communities interact@helloCTCLwww.techandciviclife.org
5

The Center for Civic Des

Democracy is a design problem! We work to ensure 

intent through design.

@CivicDesignwww.civicdesign.orgcivicdesign.org/projects/roadmap/
6

Housekeeping• Use chat to communicate• Update your screen name• Mute your audio if you aren’t speaking
7

What we will cover in these webinarsAn introduction to the VVSG 2.0 draft requirements to improve th

accessibility and usability of voting systems.

Part 1: Introducing the human factors requirements

and the process used to create them

Part 2: Updates to best practices and new technologies for votin

with examples of why and how the requirements were u
About the Voluntary Voting

System Guidelines (VVSG)

The Help America Vote Act directs the Electio

Assistance Commission to create voting systeguidelines and defines the process.
9

HAVA includes basic requirements for accessibHAVA includes requirements that voting systems:

 Are accessible for individuals with disabilities with same oppor

participation (including privacy and independence) as other vot

 Provide voters an opportunity to verify their choices, and chang

or correct any error before the ballot is cast and counted, in a p

independent manner.

 Provide alternative language accessibility pursuant to Section 2

Voting Rights Act.

Section 
10

VVSG 2.0 Principles for accessibility and usability

1: High quality design

2: High quality implementation3: Transparent4: Interoperable5: Equivalent and consistent voter access

6: Voter privacy

7: Marked, verified, and cast as intended

8: Robust, safe, usable, and accessible

9: Auditable10: Ballot secre

11: Access cont

12: Physical sec

13: Data protec

14: System inte15: Detection a
11

Goals for the accessibility and usability update Address issues that voters still encounter with accessible voting 

 Catch up to current best practices in election systems

 Catch up to best practices in user interface design and usability

 Cover new technologies now in common use

 Match updated laws and standards

 Write clear, testable requirements
12

What we will cover in the this webinar

Part 2: Examples of updates to best practices 

technologies for voting systems

1. Addressing Federal accessibility regulations2. Text size and contrast

3. Plain language requirements4. Gestures and scrolling5. Ballot selections review

6. Voter control of ballot selection
Examples of updated requirem
14

1.Addressing federal accessibility regulationGoals for the update

• Match updated laws and standards

• Cover new technologies now in common use
15

Why the requirements needed updatingFederal accessibility guidelines in “Section 508” have changed sin

 New rules accommodate larger motorized wheelchairs Rules for web and other documents incorporate the internatio

Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1)

Voting systems often include functions beyond a polling place mar

 Web pages to check if a ballot was counted

 Remote accessible voting systems

 Pre‐marking systems
16

Updating guidelines for voters using wheelchairs

Federal regulations cover:

• Floor space needed for physical access

• Room for a personal attendant• Distance a voter can reach to touch a c

the voting system

Updated requirements:• Reference the federal standards

• Link to U. S. Access Board guidance

• Add guidance notes on use in voting sy

Sample “reach and

touch” diagram
17

Updating the VVSG to include federal accessibility law

Federal regulations cover:

• Any information or computer technolo

• Section 508 was “refreshed” in 2008

Updated requirements:• Added tags to identify requirements ba

source in Section 508/WCAG

• Added specific references where need

• Added a requirement to explicitly inclu

Section 508 for the entire voting system
18

2.Text size and contrastGoals for the update

• Address issues reported by voters and research evidence

• Make ballots and other materials easier for voters to read
19

Why the requirements needed updatingThere was strong evidence that the text sizes available in current v

were not large enough in either the default or large size ranges.

Evidence included:

 Anecdotal evidence from voter feedback

 Research at the University of Baltimore with voters with low lit

 Research from an EAC Accessible Voting Technology Initiative g

that voting systems were not including the largest text sizes in 

ranges

 Usability testing from other voting system research
20

Making the text presentation more helpful to Updated requirements for text size:

• Increase the default text size to 4.8mm

• Added for discrete text sizes• Allowed continuous text scaling as an option

• Allowed horizontal scrolling or panning at text sizes over 200% 

Updated requirements for text color and contrast:

• Specified the options more precisely• Added colors for those who need low contrast
21

Comparing the text sizes in 1.1 and 2.0The two sizes in 1.1 left a gap in the middle that included the most 

sizes for many voters

1.0 and 1.1 have 2 text size ranges:

3.0‐4.5 mm ‐ default6.3‐9.0mm

2.0 has 4 text size ranges:

3.5‐4.2 mm

4.5‐5.6 mm – default

6.4‐7.1 mm

8.5‐9.0 mm
22

Sample color contrast settingsContrast samples

included in

guidance notes to

show combinationsthat meet the

requirements

Grey scale samples at 3:1 to 21:1High contrast examples at 16.1:1 to 21:1Low contrast examples at 4.8:1 to 7.86:1
23

3.Plain language requirementsGoal for the update• Write clear, testable requirements
24

Why the requirements needed updatingThe core requirement remains the same, but we changed the approac

was written to: Make it more testable, even with requirements that are hard to m

 Give manufacturers and testers better tools to meet the requirem

 Make it easier to apply to all requirements for instructions, notices

and general usability for voters

Would even one use of

passive voice fail a syste
25

What we learned in the gap analysis

• There is better appreciation of plain lang

important for voting systems.

• NIST research still useful for voting system

• There are tools that can help guide writin

• It’s important for cognitive disabilities an

literacy or English proficiency

Updated requirements:• Single broad requirement

• Specifically includes administrative interf

• Specific elements listed in discussion not

7.3‐PInformation and

instructions forvoters and election

workers must be

written clearly,following the best

practices for plain

language.
26

We reviewed plain language evaluation tools

We reviewed tools that can ev

texts against plain language p

as:

• Sentence and word length

• Passive verbs and hidden verb

• Words easily misused

• Complex phrases or jargon

• Duplicate or unnecessary worWe found several free or low‐that are useful for both writin

evaluation

Sample review results from 3 tools
27

Plain language of the requirements

One of our long‐time goals has been plain langu

requirements. Practicing what we preach, we als

on making the requirements themselves clear.

The new requirements (for all principles) include

• “Must” (not “shall”) following guidance in Fe

Register

• Active voice that establishes what aspects of 

system are responsible
28

4Gestures and scrollingGoal for the update• Cover new technologies in common use
29

Why the requirements needed updatingVVSG 1.1 did not allow scrolling within a contest because of conce

the digital divide and accessibility of conventional scroll bars.

 A contest may not fit on a single screen because:

 The list of candidates or ballot question text is long

 The voting system or marking device has a small screen

 The voter has increased the text size

 Using separate pages adds navigational complexity and relianc

understanding the boundaries of the contest.

 Voting system logic had problems handling the interaction accu
30

There are alternatives to scroll bars

Scroll bars are just one way to m

a list, so other designs can be all

alternative.Updated requirements:• Allow pagination or scrolling 

• Fixed header/footer for ori

• Cues that there are more it

• Option to sync audio and v

• Works in all interaction mode

Single‐touch buttons can beused to move within a long list

or text.
31

Allowing simple gesture meets voter expectations

Voters often expect to be able to swipe 

Updated requirements allow common g

optional alternative that:• Does not allow navigation off the cu

• Does not create accidental activatio

• Work consistently across the entire 

• Do not require sequential, timed, or 

actions

What’s a simple,common gesture?• Tap• Pinch or spread

fingers to zoom

• Swipe to scroll

• Press and hold to

drag

‐ analysis of style guides for

commercial platforms
32

5.Ballot selections reviewGoals for the update

• Catch up to best practices in election systems

• Address issues that voters still encounter with accessible v

systems

• Cover new technologies now in common use
33

Why the requirements needed updatingHAVA requires an opportunity to:

 Review selections before printing or casting

 Be notified of overvotes

 Make changes

All current voting systems include a review screen

 Bring current practice and common features into the VVSG as a 

 Leave room for innovation and design
34

There are a lot of small variations in design

 We don’t have a lot of evidence about what works better

 The interactions between design elements is complex

Collection of review screen images
35

6.Voter control of ballot selectionsGoals for the update

• Catch up to best practices in election systems

• Address issues that voters still encounter with accessible v
36

Why the requirements needed updatingThe voting system should not take control of selections away from 

 When a contest does not fit on one screen, system actions may 

visible on the screen.

 Clear feedback helps voters understand the rules for each cont

Voter control is especially important for accessibility.

 Feedback in the audio format helps voters understand the curr

and what will happen as a result of their answer

 Large text modes are more likely to have some candidates out 
37

The draft requirement puts the voter in controAn electronic ballot interface must give voters direct control over 

changing vote selections within a contest.

It allows

 Vote‐for‐one: An immediate change from one choice to anothe

 Vote‐for‐multiple: No automatic deselections, notification to vo

options if they attempt to select more than allowed

 Re‐ordering candidates in preferential voting only when reques

 Clear feedback for group selections, such as straight‐party voti
38

Updating to modern technology conventioTechnology has changed a lot since 2004‐2009, when the cur

voting system standards were written.

Guidance papers with the research evidence and rationale fo

changes will help everyone understand how to design and im

voting systems using the new requirements.
39

The goalVoting systems that meet the principles in the VVSG and are 

implemented, and evaluated using best practices for user‐cen

design, usability, and accessibility.
40

Group discussion questions

What resonated with you today?

What did we cover that you have questions abou

Is there some thing we didn’t discuss today that 

curious about?
41

Resources

Human Factors Public Working Grouphttps://collaborate.nist.gov/voting/bin/view/Voting/HumanFactorsVVSG 2.0 Draft Requirementshttps://collaborate.nist.gov/voting/bin/view/Voting/VVSG20DraftRequNIST and the Help America Vote Acthttps://vote.nist.govA Roadmap for Usability and Accessibility of Electionshttps://civicdesign.org/projects/roadmap/
42

Find these webinars online?VVSG 2.0 draft requirements:Improving the accessibility and usability of voting sysPart 1: Introducing the human factors requirementsPart 2: Updates to best practices and new technologies for votinWe will post the webinars when they are captioned and appro