In the 2006 U.S. election, it was estimated that over 66 million people would be voting on direct recording electronic (DRE) systems in 34% of the nation's counties [8]. Although these computer-based voting systems have been widely adopted, they have not been empirically proven to be more usable than their predecessors. The series of studies reported here compares usability data from a DRE with those from more traditional voting technologies (paper ballots, punch cards, and lever machines). Results indicate that there were little differences between the DRE and these older methods in efficiency or effectiveness. However, in terms of user satisfaction, the DRE was significantly better than the older methods. Paper ballots also perform well, but participants were much more satisfied with their experiences voting on the DRE. The disconnect between subjective and objective usability has potential policy ramifications.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 secured funding for improvements to election administration. Improvements include upgrading older voting systems to meet new guidelines. To determine whether the new voting systems are improvements over existing voting systems, information is needed on the usability of the older, traditional systems. This study was designed as a first step in addressing the need for usability data on existing voting systems. Three traditional paper ballots were empirically evaluated to collect baseline data that can later be compared to newer, electronic voting systems. Usability was evaluated using the thee International Organization for Standardization (ISO) metrics suggested by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. All three ballot types (bubble, arrow, and open response) produced reasonable levels of efficiency. The three ballot types did not produce different levels of effectiveness, but the overall error rate was higher than would be expected. On satisfaction, voters were clearly more satisfied with their experience with the bubble ballot.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 secured funding for improvements to election administration. Improvements include upgrading older voting systems to meet new guidelines. To determine whether the new voting systems are improvements over existing voting systems, information is needed on the usability of the older, traditional systems. This study was designed as a first step in addressing the need for usability data on existing voting systems. Three traditional paper ballots were empirically evaluated to collect baseline data that can later be compared to newer, electronic voting systems. Usability was evaluated using the thee International Organization for Standardization (ISO) metrics suggested by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. All three ballot types (bubble, arrow, and open response) produced reasonable levels of efficiency. The three ballot types did not produce different levels of effectiveness, but the overall error rate was higher than would be expected. On satisfaction, voters were clearly more satisfied with their experience with the bubble ballot.

No abstract

No abstract