Abstract
Electronic voting interfaces present particular challenges for voters with low literacy. Research has found that individuals with low literacy typically encounter problems in electronic interfaces related to their tendencies to read every word, act on every word, interpret words literally, skip text, become distracted, and stop reading too soon. Based on a growing body of research about the experiences of low-literacy voters in electronic interfaces, this paper presents eleven principles to address these challenges. It also translates those principles into specific best practice recommendations related to language, navigation, visual design, and interaction in electronic voting interfaces.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Low literacy
- Electronic interfaces
- Interaction design
- Voting
- Ballot design
- Plain language
- Plain interaction
- Usability
1 Introduction
Key goals for any electronic ballot interface include the following:
-
Allow voters to cast their votes as intended, and to verify that their votes were cast as intended
-
Provide an easy, non-frustrating voting experience
-
Enable voters to vote with minimal assistance, while preserving privacy and confidentiality
These goals are more difficult to achieve for voters with low literacy. This is particularly true of voters who also lack computer expertise, which is the case with many low-literacy voters.
This paper describes current best practices for designing electronic ballot interfaces that will achieve these goals for low-literacy voters, in light of what is known about the behavior of low-literacy readers in general with electronic interfaces and more specifically when using electronic ballots.
1.1 Understanding Low Literacy
What is Low Literacy? Low literacy among adults is difficulty at reading and processing written information at the level that is expected of adults in modern society.
Literacy has multiple dimensions. The National Assessment of Adult Literacy measures three types of literacy: prose, document, and quantitative literacy. Of these, document literacy—the previous knowledge and skills required to perform tasks like filling out applications and understanding maps, tables, or drug labels—relates most directly to the voting experience [1].
Low literacy doesn’t necessarily mean an inability to read. Rather, it means being weak in skills such as word recognition, understanding sentence structure, being able to locate a piece of information in text, drawing inferences, applying the information that has been read to the reader’s own situation, and being able to connect one piece of information to another. Voters with low literacy may read slowly, with great effort, and may come away with an incomplete or incorrect understanding of what they’ve read.
Who has Low Literacy? In some cases, low literacy is related to lower education levels. More often in the United States, it is related to other circumstances that prevent people from reading well. These may include:
-
Learning disabilities
-
Mild cognitive impairment
-
Decrease in reading capability due to aging
-
Limited proficiency in English
-
Other conditions that can interfere with reading
Literacy issues affect 43 % of the adult population in the United States, based on the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Low literacy skills tend to correlate with lower income, higher rates of chronic health challenges, and lower rates of participation in voting activities. Only 53 % of adult citizens with below basic prose literacy reported voting in the 2000 presidential election; only 62 % of voters with basic prose literacy skills voted in 2000. In contrast, 84 % of voters with proficient literacy skills reported voting in 2000 [1].
1.2 Low-Literacy Behaviors
Researchers have observed several characteristic reading strategies and behaviors that are likely to affect voters when interacting with electronic ballot interfaces:
Read every word—Competent readers typically focus on the key information that is relevant to them. In contrast, low-literacy readers often read every word in an effort to make sure they don’t miss the information they are looking for [2].
Act on every word—When low-literacy readers see language that implies an action, they often will act immediately on it without reading further or considering what they are reading in context. For example, if the instruction say to touch the screen, they are likely to immediately touch the screen, even if they are on a help screen [3].
Interpret words literally—Low-literacy readers have difficulty making inferences, and interpret words and sentences literally.
Skip—Because reading can require a lot of cognitive effort for people with low literacy skills, they may try to do as little reading as possible by skipping instructions, hard words, or even whole sections of dense text [2, 4, 5].
Get distracted—Readers with low literacy skills can easily be distracted from reading. In the case of voting, extraneous information or visual design elements can divert cognitive resources away from reading, reducing voters’ success in casting their votes as intended [2, 6].
Stop reading too soon—Both competent readers and low-literacy readers typically read only as much as they think they need to know before taking action. However, low-literacy readers often stop reading too soon. In a voting context, this can lead either to undervotes or to random or semi-random choices [4].
2 Principles of Electronic Ballot Design for Low-Literacy Voters
Effective ballot design for low-literacy users requires that ballots and supporting messages and instructions must be written in plain language [7, 8]. Additionally, electronic interfaces for low-literacy users must employ plain interaction: i.e., interaction that is designed to help the user clearly understand the information presented to them, the actions expected of them, and the results of their actions [9].
In general, research confirms that electronic design that supports low-literacy readers also improves the experience of voters in general. Similarly, electronic ballot design for low-literacy voters can help improve the experience of voters with other disabilities and voting challenges by decreasing the mental and physical processing that is needed in order to complete the ballot.
Principle #1: Make language simple and easy to understand. Use of plain language improves the experience of all voters [10, 11], but is crucially important for low-literacy voters. Plain language in electronic ballots is also important for voters who may be less comfortable or less familiar with electronic interfaces—which includes many low-literacy voters.
Principle #2: Make it look easy to read. Effective use of visual layout and cues can help readers process text more easily by indicating main points, signalling transitions, and making the text look less intimidating [12]. These cues are useful for all voters, but particularly important for voters with low literacy.
Principle #3: Create a linear flow. It’s important not to split the attention of low-literacy readers. A logical, linear flow of information helps voters to focus their attention on one thing at a time, reduces possible anxiety and the need for decisions about what to do next, and helps to guarantee that voters have the information they need before they are asked to make a decision [5].
Principle #4: Support a narrow field of view. Readers who have difficulty processing text—including low-literacy readers—are less likely to notice content above, below, or to the sides of their focus of attention. This means they are less able to pay attention to cues about what might be coming up and may not remember where they have previously been. They also are less likely to notice page interaction that is “in the margins” [9].
Principle #5: Prompt voter actions and choices. People process information better when they know what they are expected to do. This is particularly true of low-literacy readers. Low-literacy readers also have difficulty making inferences. They are likely to be confused by directions that indirectly suggest actions they can take without making those actions explicit.
Principle #6: Support immediate action. Because low-literacy readers voters tend to act on every word, it is important to integrate instructions with the interface so that voters can take action at the same time and in the same space where the information is provided [9].
Principle #7: Support users’ preferred actions. Voters expect to be able to carry out certain actions in an electronic interface, based on prior experiences, assumptions from print documents, and the needs of the moment. As much as possible, the interface should behave how voters expect [9].
Principle #8: Communicate the results of voters’ actions through immediate feedback. Voters need opportunities to make sure that what they did was what they intended to do. This kind of feedback is much easier to process right after voters have taken the action, and provides opportunities for them to take immediate additional action (e.g., adding a vote for another candidate). Immediate feedback is also reassuring—something that is particularly important for low-literacy voters. Immediate feedback includes not only written feedback, but also visual changes to the interface (e.g., immediately showing that a choice has been selected) [3].
Principle #9: Make it easy to fix errors. Low-literacy voters tend to have much more difficulty in seeing and understanding the errors they make, and then in figuring out how to fix them [5]. Messages need to explain clearly and specifically what they need to change and how to change it, without causing anxiety or embarrassment.
Principle #10: Provide a simple and intuitive experience for all voters. Best practices for improving the experience of low-literacy voters incorporate and expand on language and design recommendations for making the voting experience simple and intuitive for voters in general. In general, research confirms that electronic design that supports low-literacy readers also improves the experience of voters in general [ 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14].
Principle #11: Test to ensure usability. Low-literacy voters do not always react to design elements in ways that designers and researchers expect. This is particularly true of low-literacy voters who also lack computer expertise. The only way to be sure electronic ballots work for low-literacy voters is to test the design with low-literacy voters.
3 Language
The general principle related to language in electronic ballots for low-literacy voters is to make language simple and easy to understand. This applies not only to the language of the ballot itself (ballot questions, explanations, etc.), but also to instructions, feedback, and any other text voters may see.
Text Content and Structure.
Guideline: Don’t require voters to remember information.
Explanation: Requiring voters to remember something they read elsewhere—even in a previous paragraph—makes it harder for them to process what they are reading. In many cases, low-literacy voters simply won’t remember such information. Each paragraph, piece of instructions, and feedback messages should include the information voters need in order to understand what they are being told.
Guideline: Don’t provide information voters don’t need.
Explanation: Unnecessary information isn’t just distracting; it also takes up mental processing resources that low-literacy voters need in order to focus on the essentials. There’s an important balance between providing information that voters will find useful (such as a candidate’s party affiliation) and information that is likely to prove distracting (such as non-essential instructions or a link to a candidate’s position statement).
Guideline: Use headings to provide context.
Explanation: Headings can help orient readers within text. Such cues are particularly important for low-literacy readers. Headings should make sense independently: i.e., without needing to take into account the context of the existing page or information that was read earlier. Example: Instead of “What to Do Next,” use “How to Vote.”
Guideline: Use short paragraphs that make sense independently.
Explanation: Even remembering information from one paragraph to the next can cause difficulties for low-literacy voters.
Vocabulary and Tone.
Guideline: Use simple and familiar words. Use the same words throughout the ballot for the same actions or concepts.
Explanation: Voters perform better with instructions that use plain language instead of technical voting terminology [13].
Guideline: Avoid possible misunderstandings.
Explanation: This includes not only avoiding words and phrases with ambiguous meanings, but also avoiding words and phrases that may be clear to most voters but that low-literacy readers have been shown to misinterpret. For example, low-literacy voters often have a hard time with the word choices, misinterpreting it as either choose or chose. This can be solved by rewording: e.g., changing “You have 2 choices left” to “You can choose 2 more” [9].
Guideline: Avoid language that could be read as disapproving or scary. Keep the tone positive with a focus on reducing anxiety [9, 13].
Explanation: Low-literacy voters who lack confidence may read unintended meanings into messages. For example, “Are you sure you have finished voting?” could be interpreted as a hint that they have not yet done everything that was expected of them.
Writing Effective Instructions.
Guideline: Place instructions where they are needed and where voters can act on them—not all at the beginning.
Explanation: Instructions generally make more sense in the context where they are needed. Low-literacy voters in particular are unlikely to remember instructions provided ahead of time.
Guideline: Make instructions clear but short.
Explanation: Voters need to know their options, but thorough, complete instructions can cause problems for low-literacy voters. Whenever possible, make interfaces simple enough that they need little explanation [9]. Then provide the minimal amount of help right where the voter can act on the instruction.
Guideline: Write instructions directly to the voter as positive statements.
Explanation: For example, instead of “If you want to vote straight party, you can touch the party name,” write “To vote straight party, touch the party name.”
Guideline: Put the purpose before the action.
Explanation: For example, instead of “Touch here to vote for someone,” write “To vote for someone, touch here.”
For additional guidelines related to writing clear voter instructions, see the Guidelines for Writing Clear Instructions and Messages for Poll Workers [13].
4 Navigation
Guideline: Provide a separate page for each race, ballot measure, or other voting interaction. Do not split a race, ballot measure, or other voting interaction over multiple pages.
Explanation: This signals voters when each separate race begins and when they are being offered an opportunity to vote on an issue or set of candidates.
Guideline: Provide persistent navigation on each page that shows current location and allows voters to move to any of the main pages in the ballot. Include a Next and Back button, or equivalent, on every page.
Explanation: Persistent navigation allows voting in whatever order voters prefer. It also communicates the overall structure of the ballot and tells voters how far they have to go. This is particularly important for lengthy or complex ballots.
5 Visual Design
5.1 General Guidelines
Guideline: Create a consistent visual design.
Explanation: Low-literacy voters are particularly reliant on consistent visual cues, and are likely to become confused by inconsistency.
Guideline: Use a visual design that shows a clear visual hierarchy.
Explanation: This includes elements such as the following:
-
Consistent and clearly distinguishable heading levels
-
Closer spacing between related elements
-
Strategic use of indentation
5.2 Page Layout
Guideline: Present the ballot in a single active column [2].
Explanation: Multiple active columns can confuse voters.
-
Instructions, active area, and feedback should all be in a single column.
-
Candidates should be listed in a single column.
-
Navigation can be included to the left of the active column.
Guideline: Use visual cues (headings, boldface, color, etc.) sparingly to highlight key content and guide voters toward actions they will take.
Explanation: Visual cues can provide important clues to help low-literacy voters process information and move through the ballot easily. However, too much use of visual cues can prove distracting and confusing.
Guideline: Maintain a clean, uncluttered layout.
Explanation: This helps prevent voters from becoming confused or distracted. This can be crucial for voters with low literacy skills, who are already struggling to process all the information on the ballot.
5.3 Buttons
Guideline: Make buttons easy to see and easy to recognize as buttons. Use labels or icons that clearly communicate the purpose of each button to voters.
Explanation: Buttons should have a consistent format, with rounded corners. Shadow, bevel, gradient, and other effects that make them look more like physical buttons can also help. Make sure labels on buttons are easy to read (e.g., by putting the text in bold and using high contrast). User testing can help determine whether low-literacy voters recognize and use the buttons as intended.
Guideline: When voters select a button, change the visual appearance to signify that it has been selected.
Explanation: This provides valuable feedback for voters.
5.4 Text Format and Font
Guideline: Use a text format and font that is clear and easy to read.
Explanation: For example:
-
Text should be flush left, in mixed case (not all capitals), using a simple and easy-to-read font [14].
-
Text should be big enough to read easily. While most guidelines call for 12 point text, low-literacy voters often find it easier to complete ballots that are in a larger text size.
-
Do not use long blocks of italicized text.
-
Voters should be able to change the text size at any point in the voting process.
Guideline: Make sure text does not run wider than 3-4 inches.
Explanation: Longer lines make text harder for low-literacy voters to process. This is particularly important to keep in mind when designing interfaces for small screens that might also be used with larger screens.
Guideline: Visually emphasize key information.
Explanation: This is often done through using bold text or color. However, overuse of boldface and other visual cues can reduce the impact and lead to confusion.
6 Interaction
6.1 General Guidelines
Guideline: Provide an option for voters to hear text spoken.
Explanation: Voters with difficulty reading may benefit from hearing text read. This is particularly true for items such as instructions and feedback messages.
Guideline: Give voters control over their voting experience (text size, contrast, audio, etc.).
Explanation: Both initially and at any point in the voting experience, users should be able to change any of the following:
-
Text size
-
Contrast levels
-
Audio (on/off) and volume
Guideline: When text extends past the visible screen, provide both a scrollbar and a clearly labeled button to view additional text.
Explanation: Voters with computer experience expect scrollbar functionality and are likely to be frustrated if it is not available. However, some voters have difficulty using scrollbars. Additionally, scrollbars do not provide a strong signal of the presence of additional text, particularly for voters with low computer experience. For such voters, a clearly labeled button provides essential additional support.
6.2 Support for Vote Selection
Guideline: When a list of candidates extends past the visible screen, strongly signal the availability of more candidates.
Explanation: It is important to draw the attention of voters to additional candidates. However, users should not be forced to view the entire list. One possible solution is a large button reading “Touch to see more names,” presented in a different color at the bottom of the visible list of candidates—plus an active scrollbar at the side of the list.
Guideline: Provide signals to help voters know whether they have selected a candidate or made a choice before moving on.
Explanation: For example, before voters select a candidate or make a choice, the button to move on could read “Skip.” Afterwards, it could change to “Next.”
Guideline: If using a touchscreen interface, let voters select candidates by touching anywhere on the candidate’s name.
Explanation: Voters expect this functionality and are frustrated when it is not available. It also makes the interface easier to use for voters with motor impairment.
6.3 Feedback
Guideline: Whenever voters take an action, immediately communicate the results of the action through visual cues and through text messages when appropriate.
Explanation: Immediate feedback is a principle of universal good electronic interface design, but is particularly important for low-literacy readers.
Guideline: Communicate results of a voting choice by using multiple signals.
Explanation: For example, results could be communicated through color change plus a check mark, or through color change plus contrast change.
Guideline: Show text feedback messages in an overlay box on top of the active area, with multiple ways to close the message box.
Explanation: More specifically:
-
In light of low-literacy voters’ narrow field of view, it is particularly important that feedback messages be presented where they will be sure to see them.
-
The message feedback box should not obscure the entire screen, but instead should let voters see enough of the original screen that they do not lose context. The original screen should be darkened, compared to the message box.
-
Low-literacy voters are more likely to have difficulty closing the message box. Message boxes should include a button that says “Close”; it is also helpful if voters can make the message box disappear by clicking outside the box.
6.4 Help
Guideline: If help is provided, make it context-sensitive and focused on the problems voters are most likely to have.
Explanation: If voters ask for help when they are in the write-in interaction, it should help them figure out how to write in a candidate; if they are on the review screen, it should explain what they can do on the review screen and how to do it.
Guideline: Any help text that is provided should be in plain language and should be tested with low-literacy voters.
Explanation: Explanations on help screens should be more simple than the language that is used in the body of the ballot, if possible.
References
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., Dunleavy, E.: Literacy in Everyday Life: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (2007)
Summers, K., Summers, M.: Reading and navigational strategies of web users with lower literacy skills. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 42(1), 1–10 (2005). doi:10.1002/meet.1450420179
Chisnell, D., Davies, D., Summers, K.: (2013, July 24). Any Device, Anywhere, Any Time: A Responsive, Accessible Ballot Design. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Working Paper #007. Retrieved November 20, 2014 from. http://www.elections.itif.org/reports/AVTI-007-Chisnell-Davies-Summers-2013.pdf
Summers, K., Summers, M.: Making the web friendlier for lower-literacy users. Intercom 51(6), 19–21 (2004)
Summers, K., Langford, J., Wu, J., Abela, A., Souza, R.: Designing web-based forms for users with lower literacy skills. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 43(1), 1–12 (2006). doi:10.1002/meet.14504301174
Gribbons, W.M.: Universal accessibility and low-literacy populations: Implications for human-computer interaction design and research methods. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, 3rd edn., pp. 913–931. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2012)
Federal Plain Language Guidelines, Revision 1. (2011, May). Retrieved November 30, 2014 from. www.plainlanguage.gov/howto/guidelines/FederalPLGuidelines/FederalPLGuidelines.pdf
PLAIN [Plain Language Action and Information Network]. (n.d.). What Is Plain Language? Retrieved November 30, 2014 from. www.plainlanguage.gov
Summers, K., Chisnell, D., Davies, D., Alton, N., McKeever, M.: Making voting accessible: designing digital ballot marking for people with low literacy and mild cognitive disabilities. USENIX J. Election Technol. Syst. 2(2), 11–33 (2014)
Redish, J., Chisnell, D., Newby, E., Laskowski, S.J., Lowry. S.: Report of Findings: Use of Language in Ballot Instructions. NISTIR 7556. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2008)
Kline, K., Bell, C., Jahant, H., Price, C., Jones, A., Mosley, S., Farmer, S., Harley, L., Fain, B.: A Study of Plain Language Writing Style for Ballots in English, Spanish, and Chinese (Working Paper #014). The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (2013). http://elections.itif.org/wp-content/uploads/AVTI-014-GTRI-PlainLanguage-2013a.pdf
Doak, C., Doak, L., Root, J.: Teaching patients with low literacy skills, 2nd edn., J.B. Lippincott Company, Philadelphia (1996)
Redish, J., Laskowski, S.: Guidelines for Writing Clear Instructions and Messages for Voters and Poll Workers. NISTIR 7596. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2009)
Norden, L., Quesenbery, W., Kimball, D.: Better Design, Better Elections. University School of Law Brennan Center for Justice, New York (2012)
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by grant 70NANB13H180 from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Summers, K., Langford, J. (2015). The Impact of Literacy on Usable and Accessible Electronic Voting. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds) Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Access to the Human Environment and Culture. UAHCI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 9178. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20687-5_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20687-5_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20686-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20687-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)