Smart Voting Joystick for Accessible Voting Machines
Sarah J. Swierenga
Graham L. Pierce
Stephen Blosser
Jennifer Ismirle
James E. Jackson
Robert Decloniemaclennan
Aditya Mathew
 
Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting
Michigan State University
sswieren@msu.edu 

NIST AVT Webinar
January 10, 2014

Project Team
•	Sarah Swierenga, Director, MSU UARC (PI)
•	Graham Pierce, Jennifer Ismirle, James Jackson, and Robert Decloniemaclennan, User Experience Researchers, MSU UARC
•	Stephen Blosser and Aditya Mathew, MSU Resource Center for Persons with Disabilities
•	Engineering Design Capstone Team:
–	Yangyi Chen, Tyler Dennis, Graham Pence, 
Behdad Rashidian, Joy Yang
•	Introductory engineering student teams
Accessible Voting Systems
•	Existing electronic voting systems are inadequate
–	Many individuals with disabilities cannot use them at all
–	Take a very long time and are painful to use, even with no major disabilities
•	Project funded by ITIF/AVTI to create “Smart Voting Joystick”
•	Other MSU Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting (UARC) voting projects (http://usability.msu.edu/research/projects)
–	Enhancement of Accessible Mobile Voting System Standards
•	Ongoing, funded by NIST
–	Design of Accessible Mobile Voting System Standards
•	Complete, funded by NIST
–	Testing Usability Performance of Accessible Voting Systems
•	Complete, funded by NIST
Standard Electronic Voting System Controls
•	Touchscreen requires hand, arm, and shoulder strength and accuracy.
•	Button panel requires finger/hand strength and accuracy.

•	Neither can be used by individuals with significant hand/arm/shoulder disabilities.

•	Most controls cannot be moved.
–	Many individuals (including those in wheelchairs) cannot reach them.
Alternative Electronic Voting System Controls
•	Two-button switch is painful/impossible with hand/arm problems.
–	Requires up to 1200 button-presses to complete the NIST Standard Test Ballot with no mistakes.
–	Every change or mistake can take 100+ button-presses to modify/fix.
•	Sip/puff is only used by individuals with no hand/arm control.
–	Same drawbacks.

Smart Voting Joystick – Project Overview
•	Goal: Create smart joystick to plug into electronic voting systems.
•	Obtain feedback from users with dexterity and mobility limitations.
•	MSU Electrical and Computer Engineering capstone design team created initial prototype.

Smart Voting Joystick – Final Prototype
•	Final prototype includes Smart Joystick and three buttons
•	Provides haptic feedback to users
•	Can be customized via software

Mounting Options Design Challenge
•	MSU Engineering student teams asked to design universal mounting devices for alternative inputs.
•	Goals: 
–	Easy to set up
–	Quick mounting
•	Several designs:
–	Table mount
–	Chair mount (with/without armrests)
–	Wheelchair mount
–	Free-standing mount
Usability Evaluation Setup
•	Joystick attached to PC and interactive sample ballot.
•	Participants recruited from MSU and mid-Michigan
(sample of convenience).
•	Conducted in UARC lab.

Usability Participants and Protocol
•	Six participants with mobility/dexterity disabilities with voting experience.

•	Protocol
–	Task instructions, voting task, post-study questionnaire

•	Usability metrics:
–	Effectiveness: Percentage of votes completed accurately.
–	Efficiency: Average time to complete voting.
–	Satisfaction: Post-study questionnaire, written feedback, and comments made during the session.
Usability Results
•	Moderate Disability Group:
–	4 of 4 users completed the voting task.
–	3 of 4 users voted the ballot exactly as instructed.
–	Average time to complete the ballot: ~ 9 ½ minutes.
•	 Average time to change a vote was 30 seconds.
•	Severe Disability Group:
–	1 of 2 users completed the voting task.
–	Neither user voted the ballot exactly as instructed.
–	Time to complete the ballot: ~ 29 ½ minutes.
•	 Average time to change a vote was 5 ½ minutes.
•	Post-study Questionnaire:
–	Most gave positive ratings and comments about the Smart Joystick

Design Recommendations
•	Ability to adjust amount of feedback and return-to-center force for the joystick is essential.
•	Provide single- vs. dual-axis choice up front.
•	Joystick should be shorter and thicker, and potentially more spherical, to allow for easier usage when grasping or pulling it.
•	Sufficient arm support needs to be provided.
Future Research Directions
•	Joystick characteristics, e.g., adjustable feedback and return-to-center force settings, optimal debounce time, and stem/knob dimensions
•	Implementation and testing of universal mounting systems
•	Real-world testing of joystick (in an election)
•	Explore ballot user interface components, such as requiring users to choose to advance to the next contest

Implications for Real-world Voting Systems
•	The Smart Voting Joystick has demonstrated tremendous potential to enable voters with physical impairments to vote privately and independently—without significant discomfort and within a reasonable amount of time. 
•	Initial reactions from the public have also been positive, with interest from election officials and media. 
•	The Smart Voting Joystick has strong potential for commercial development after further refinement .

Contact Information
Sarah Swierenga, PhD, CPE
Usability/Accessibility Research and Consulting
	Michigan State University
Phone: 517-353-8977
E-mail: sswieren@msu.edu 
Web: usability.msu.edu