No abstract

Objective To describe user-centered voting systems that would support the safe conduct of voting in a pandemic environment. Background The COVID-19 pandemic has complicated our democratic processes. Voters and poll workers feel threatened by the potential dangers of voting in business-as-usual polling stations. Indeed, significant problems were encountered in the recent 2020 primary elections in Wisconsin, where the National Guard had to be mobilized because so few poll workers reported to work, and more than 90% of polling places had to remain closed. Method We describe a number of possible user-centered solutions that would help protect voters and poll workers in times of pandemic, and also report the results of a survey that asked voters and poll workers about what kinds of systems might make them willing to vote. Results Political as well as safety considerations will need to be considered as these safer voting solutions are designed since, surprisingly, the kinds of solutions preferred depend on the political affiliation of the voters. Conclusion Human factors professionals have a large role to play in realizing the safe, successful implementation of these user-centered systems. Good human factors analysis can help minimize the risk to voters and poll workers. Moreover, human factors methods can help safeguard democracy by creating safe and well-engineered environments that are conducive to voting in the age of pandemics. Application Creating safe and effective voting solutions that protect voters and poll workers during pandemic outbreaks is crucial to the preservation of democracy.

No abstract

Computer security experts recommend that people use two-factor authentication (2FA) on password protected systems to help keep hackers out. Providing two pieces of information to verify a person’s identity adds extra security to an account. However, it is not clear if the added security and procedures impact system usability. This paper aims to answer this question by assessing per ISO 9241-11’s suggested measurements the usability of Google’s optional 2FA methods. We found few differences across four different 2FA methods when comparing efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction measures—illustrating that one method is not necessarily more or less usable then another. Overall, the measures indicated that the systems’ usability needed to be improved, especially with regard to the initial setup of 2FA. In conclusion, developers need to focus more attention on making 2FA easier and faster to use, especially since it is often optional for password users, yet makes accounts significantly more secure.

Objective: The goal of the research presented in this paper was to determine if the positively worded System Usability Scale (SUS) can be used in place of the positively and negatively worded standard SUS instrument for the subjective assessment of usability, and whether the results found here replicate those of Sauro and Lewis. Background: Sauro and Lewis’ previous study found no evidence that responses to SUS items differed across the standard SUS and the modified, positively worded version of the SUS when participants assessed websites. This study replicates and extends this work by examining a large number of different systems with larger sample sizes to add to the generalizability of previous findings. Methods: So that participants could retrospectively assess 20 products, the standard SUS was administered to 268 participants and the positive SUS to 698 participants. SUS scores were computed and the data analyzed using psychometric methods to explore how the two versions of the SUS differed. Results: The standard and positive versions of the SUS yielded similar SUS scores. In addition, both versions of the scale demonstrated evidence in support of reliability and validity. Conclusion: Either version of the SUS can be used with confidence to measure subjective usability. Furthermore, the scores generated from both versions of the SUS can be directly compared. Applications: In situations where cognitive load, participants’ spoken language, or item consistency with other surveys being given may be a factor, the positive SUS is a viable alternative to the standard SUS.