As part of the election Field Guides project, Dana Chisnell and I are taking a look at some of the printed brochures and other information from election departments around the country. We’ll be getting reactions from new voters, including some voters who speak English as a second language.

Our goal: find out what makes voter ed effective, so we can help election officials make this information more useful for voters. What we learn will become part of an upcoming Field Guide, coming out this spring.

We’ll be conducting research sessions in several cities during January. First up is a day in New York next week. If you know someone who voted for the first time after the 2008 election, or who is not registered to vote (but would like to be) and  who would be willing to participate in the research, we’d love to hear from them:

• When:  Monday, January 7th in the afternoon
• Where: 6th Avenue near Spring Street
• Benefits: Participants will receive a payment for their help
• Sign up: Tell us when you first voted, and how to get in touch with you to set an appointment.

The Field Guides are supported by 320 backers from Kickstarter and by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

The first election I worked on was the 2010 General Election, the first general election to use paper ballots read by optical scanners in New York state.  As with any new voting method, we expected that voters would have some learning curve, however it was evident that there were several real hurdles in understanding the new system.

For example, voters would have benefitted from clearer indications—on the ballot–that the ballot continued on the other side of the paper. We scanner inspectors had been instructed to ask voters approaching the scanner if they were aware of the two sides nature of the ballot and that they could go back to the privacy booth to finish marking their ballots if they had overlooked the proposals on the back.  Apparently not all scanner inspectors did this, and many ballots were cast without a vote on the proposals. Why not have a clear instruction to the voter, located immediately under the last contest where it is likely to be read?

Instructions on how to mark the ballot, by filling in the oval next to the candidates name, would be beneficial as many people simply do not think to check the back of the ballot for instructions on how to mark their selections and will mark their ballots in any number of ways unreadable by optical scanner.  While the scanner ejects ballots it can not read back to the voter, it would save the voter an unnecessary trip back to their election district table for a new ballot to remark.

Another problem is overvoting – marking too many choices in one contest. With the lever machines in place until 2010, it was not possible to overvote, so New York State voters had never experienced this paper ballot phenomenon. Clarifying instructions and the ballot layout so that it is more apparent which candidates are running for which offices would help, especially when there are too many candidates to fit on one row.

So would good messages at the scanner. Unfortunately, the message in New York City’s voting system is confusing: One button says “Don’t Cast – Return Ballot” on a red button with an x graphic and “Accept” on a green button with a check mark, leading the voter to think that their vote would more likely be counted if they went with the friendly green “Accept” button which in reality, the opposite was true.   This has been partially addressed in more recent elections: the color difference has been eliminated and both buttons are grey, but the confusing symbols remain.

Not message related, but also relevant to facilitating smooth operation of the optical scan process, is the matter of the arrow on the scanner bed.  There is an arrow directing voters where to insert ballots but it is grey, the same color as its surroundings and is thus very hard to see.  If the arrow were colored, it would assist many more people in inserting their ballots correctly.

Indeed, in 2010, and to some extent, in recent 2012 primaries, the scanner system has been regarded with suspicion by voters at my polling place, prompting questions such as, “Who manufactures this system?” or “Is this by Diebold?” and outright declarations of “This really isn’t going to work, they already know how to hack the system”.

A confusing series of messages, unclear instructions, and a difficult ballot to navigate will only compound these suspicions.

More easily understood messages as well as clearer ballot design will both better assist the voter in making sure their vote is counted and work toward creating a more favorable view of the voting process for voters.

To learn more about common problems in ballot design and messages that can cause lost votes, see the Brennan Center report, Better Designs, Better Elections. 

The Voter Friendly Ballot Act would make possible a better ballot for New York would make possible (Thanks to Oxide Design Co and Design for Democracy_

Ballots in New York are in the news again, this time with the September 13 primary ballot that had candidate names in 7 point type. That’s really, really small, in case you were wondering.

Once again, this is a case of a design standard causing unintended consequences. The election law, reasonably, says that all ballots have to have candidate names in a uniform size. But it doesn’t specify a minimum size. When a few districts had a crowded ballot, all of the ballots ended up with small text.

The New York Times has a nice article about it, Voters Annoyed by Hard-to-Read Ballots.

We’ve created a design concept for a sample ballot, to show how design and usability best practices can make your ballots easier to read, easier to use, and reduce voter errors, working within New York State election law.

• 2010 Election Survey Report – League of Women Voters of New York State
• A Better Ballot for New York State in 2012 on Slideshare

Design mockup by Drew Davies, Oxide Design Co. and AIGA Design for Democracy Analysis and presentation by Whitney Quesenbery, WQusability and UPA Usability in Civic Life

Another report that shows how much difference good design makes in an election, documenting the number of votes lost in case studies from the 2008 and 2010 elections.

Writing Better Ballots in 2008 was an eye-opener. It showed that design flaws in election materials aren’t just a matter of aesthetics or voter preference, but can make a difference in how we vote…and even in the outcome of elections.

Better Design, Better Elections shows us that design problems continue to have a major impact on elections. Many of the same problems from Better Ballot are still with us. And there are new examples of poor and misleading instructions, unclear messages, and election forms that contributed to the loss of votes. ”We estimate that in the 2008 and 2010 general elections combined, as many as 400,000 people had their absentee or provisional ballot rejected because they made technical mistakes completing the forms or preparing and returning the envelope.”

Examples in the report include

• Ballots layout from Illinois and Florida that invite voters to skip contests
• Ballots in Ohio and New York that split contests across rows or columns inviting voters to mark too many choices.
• Missing and confusing instructions in Florida and Ohio
• Inadequate overvote (marking too many choices) warnings in New York

There is also good new: case studies from Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio where election officials used voter education, usability testing and other corrective actions to solve problems

Key points from the report

American elections are marred by major design problems. As smartphones and computer tablets have convinced many people and businesses of the importance of good design and usability, elections have changed far more slowly.

• Poor design increases the risk of lost or misrecorded votes among all voters, but the risk is even greater for particular groups, including low-income voters and the elderly.
• As documented in this report, several hundred thousand votes were not counted in the 2008 and 2010 elections because of voter mistakes, in some cases affecting the outcome of critical contests.
• The rise of absentee and provisional voting since 2000 has only increased the importance of design in elections. We estimate that in the 2008 and 2010 general elections combined, as many as 400,000 people had their absentee or provisional ballot rejected because they made technical mistakes completing the forms or preparing and returning the envelope.
• There are simple measures election officials can take before November to cure design defects in ballots, voting machines, and voter instructions.
• We encourage election officials to review lost vote data from previous elections, conduct usability tests, and work with experts to find design problems and solutions before this November’s election.

Better Design, Better Elections by Lawrence Norden, Whitney Quesenbery, and David Kimball, July 31, 2012

• About the report 
• Download the Report (pdf)
• View Slideshow on Design Flaws and Solutions (pdf)
• “Voting Systems’ Plagues Go Far Beyond Identification” by Ethan Bronner, New York Times

One way is to think about plain language as a process. Instead of trying to get the whole thing right in one try, edit in a series of steps.

In the examples below, each step starts with an image of how the instructions appear, followed by the text as it is revised. 

Let’s start from some typical ballot instructions

All of the text is centered, with some very short lines, and very long ones. It’s cramped and hard to read. And, it uses word like “deface” and “wrongfully mark.”

NOTICE
If you tear, deface, or make a mistake and wrongfully mark any ballot, you must return it to the election board and receive a new ballot or set of ballots.
To vote for a person whose name is printed on the ballot, darken the oval at the left of the person’s name.
To vote for a person whose name is not printed on the ballot, write the person’s name in the blank space, if any is provided, and darken the oval to the left.
TO VOTE, DARKEN THE OVAL NEXT TO YOUR CHOICE, LIKE THIS

1. Put the instructions in a logical order

The most important instruction is the basic information about how to vote, so let’s put that first. The rest of the instructions are in the order of importance: voting for a candidate on the ballot, writing in a name, and how to fix a mistake.

TO VOTE, DARKEN THE OVAL NEXT TO YOUR CHOICE, LIKE THIS
To vote for a person whose name is printed on the ballot, darken the oval at the left of the person’s name.
To vote for a person whose name is not printed on the ballot, write the person’s name in the blank space, if any is provided, and darken the oval to the left.
If you tear, deface, or make a mistake and wrongfully mark any ballot, you must return it to the election board and receive a new ballot or set of ballots.

2. Remove centering and capitals. Add emphasis on the most important instructions

Now, let’s work on how the text is presented, without changing the text. Centered text is harder to read, because each line starts in a different place. By starting all of the text at the left margin, each instruction fits on one line.

3. Simplify phrases to use common words

Next, it’s time to make it plainer. Instead of “darkening” an oval, we can fill it in. We can edit the scary instructions about how to fix a mistake, and make them a little friendlier.

To vote, fill in  the oval next to your choice, like this:
To vote for a person whose name is printed on the ballot, fill in the oval at the left of the person’s name.
To vote for a person whose name is not on the ballot, write the person’s name in the blank space, and fill in the oval next to it.
If you make a mistake marking your ballot, return it to the election board and receive a new ballot or set of ballots.

4. Continue simplifying and using active phrasing

It’s getting better, but we can still make it shorter and easier. Remove the duplicate instructions about how to vote and make the instructions for how to get a new ballot more active.

To vote, fill in the oval next to your choice, like this:
To vote for a person whose name is not on the ballot, write the person’s name in the blank space, and fill in the oval next to it.
If you make a mistake marking your ballot, ask a poll worker for a new ballot.

5. Make the text large enough to see

The instructions are now almost cut in half, down to 56 words from the original 96. That leaves some extra space, so we can make the text larger and put some extra space between the lines. The larger text helps many read the words more easily. The extra space between the lines not only separates the instructions, but helps people with dyslexia and other reading disabilities see the text better.

The final version is short, clear, direct, and easier to read. 

Guidelines for writing in plain language.

• Writing instructions voters understand, a field guide from civicdesigning.org
• A plain language checklist from the Center for Plain Language

One example came from the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries and a letter to people requesting public records. Before a revision, 10% of their calls were questions about procedures. When they created new letters and accompanying fact sheets, the number of calls about these requests dropped from 10% to 1%   They made three big changes:

• Wrote directly to the person, saying “you”
• Showed the steps in the process (and options) in a list, making it easy to scan
• Added a fact sheet with answers to the top questions

Making the case for plain language

If you are looking for clear evidence to support the claim that plain language works, you can’t go wrong with a new book, Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please by Joseph Kimble, an international expert on legal writing. It’s full of examples from real agencies, like these case studies:

• The Veterans Benefits Administration estimates that they saved $40,000 from rewriting just one letter into clear language. The number of calls relating to this letter dropped from 66% to 27%. Multiply that by thousands of letters, nationwide.
• The Los Angeles County Department of Consumer Affairs revised their brochures, web pages and form letters. Calls went down from 5,000 a month to 3,500, time the staff could spend on other work.
• The IRS improved a form, resulting in a sharp increase in the number of people who could fill it in without errors – up to 55% from just 10%.

The book has over 50 case studies showing clear, measurable improvements and the value of plain language in reducing costs and increasing effectiveness.

Both Joe Kimble’s book and Whitney Quesenbery’s presentation at IACREOT make the point that plain language does not mean dumbing down information. Information can be:

• technically accurate
• legally accurate
• legally sufficient, and also
• clear and understandable

In a seminar to a federal advisory committee, Ginny Redish demonstrated the use of plain language in regulations and made the case that it is critical for standards.

Most importantly, the readers – citizens, taxpayers, voters, the general public – can tell the difference.  In a head-to-head comparison of ballot instructions, researchers Ginny Redish and Dana Chisnell found that 82% preferred the plain language version. Their choice is clear!

More resources, and links from the presentation:

• Unum – How to File a Disabilty Claim, ClearMark award winner, 2012
• Medicare Summary Notice revisions: press release and before-and-after comparison (PDF)
• Minnesota Absentee Ballot instructions: article and presentation slides
• Definition of plain language from the Center for Plain language
• Redesign of the New York ballots

Thanks to IACREOT, the International Association of Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials & Treasurers, including President Elizabeth Ensley Deiter, Shawnee Country (Kansas) Election Commissioner and Tony J. Sirvello III, Conference Chair for the opportunity to give this presentation. 

Good news. In 2010, New York State switched from lever machines to paper ballots.

Bad news. The ballots were, to put it mildly, difficult to read. When we saw the ballot design, we were shocked. It was cluttered, confusing, and hard to read. Requirements for multiple languages made the situation even worse in New York City.

We weren’t the only ones worried about the impact of the ballot design. The League of Women Voters surveyed over 1000 voters in 47 counties. In their 2010 Election Survey Report. They called fixing usability of the ballot an “immediate priority.”

In their survey, voters told them that:

• The text is hard to read because the font is too small
• It’s difficult to tell where one contest ends and the next one begins
• They had trouble marking their choices in small ovals or squares
• The instructions were missing or incomprehensible
• They were not told about magnifying lenses or other assistance

These are all problems with basic principles of election design, usability, and plain language that have been covered in official guidelines like the Election Assistance Commission’s Effective Designs for the Administration of Federal Elections, and in advocacy reports like the Brennan Center’s Better Ballots.

Why are we seeing such basic design probems?  One reason is state election law. The basic layout and contents of the ballot – including the exact words of the instructions – are written in the law. Yep. In law.

Good news. Laws can be changed.  Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh introduced the Voter Friendly Ballot Act in May 2011 (that’s over a year ago). Usability in Civic Life and AIGA worked with the  Brennan Center to create sample ballots showing what the new bill would make possible.

The changes in the law would allow changes in the design to make the ballot easier to read and use:

• Larger text for candidate names, titles, and instructions
• Shorter, clearer instructions, placed where they will be read
• Emphasizing the candidates names with bold text and less clutter
• Ovals next to the names, making a clearer association
• Better divisions between contests, using better lines and clear shading

The bill also allows just two languages on a ballot, keeping the ballot clear and readable.

The group gathered to share the common challenges and enablers that are unique to the world of design for government and its citizens. They identified the elements that enable great civic design:

• Our participation in civic projects as professionals, using the methods that we know works in our practice.
• Using our central principle:  involve the user.  That includes constituents, voters, and government employees – anyone who may be touched by civic systems.
• Providing our leadership.  In concert with UxPA’s leadership theme, we recognized that we have the ability to step up and lead the way toward better design.

But jumping in has its hazards. How can UX professionals provide the solutions that enable design? The team identified several best practices that can smooth the way:

• Learn the lay of the civic landscape. Get to know the law, the government that manages it, and the people who are touched by a design project.
• Understand the nature of bureaucracy.  Compared to business, the pace can seem glacial and navigating the political hazards can be tricky.
• Overcome resistance to change. There may be a special resistance to new ideas because the law and the structure of government both add a level of resistance that persistence and creativity must overcome.

In an ongoing project, the team is working on a set of guidelines and  heuristics for civic design engagements.

- By Josephine Scott

• Ensuring the Usability of Voting Systems – UPA 2004 Workshop report
• Ethics Guidelines
• Get involved, get in touch

Workshop participants included: Organizers Whitney Quesenbery, Josephine Scott, and Christina Melton along with UX pros including: Jennifer Fabrizi, Jean Fox, Lija Hogan, Caroline Jarrett, Karen Lin, Jeff Johnson, Tobias Limbach, Rolf Molich, Emma Rose and Chris Rourke.  It built upon previous work conducted by all participants.

Lorrie Faith Cranor, from Carnegie Mellon’s CyLab, offered advice for anyone interested in getting involved in policy issues. Most of the audience worked in academic research, but her ideas are useful for anyone.

1. Get up to speed. Do your reading. Government reports, reports from advocacy groups, relevant laws or regulations, and research papers will all help you learn the background and who else is working in this area.
2. Follow current events. Identify and follow relevant mailing lists, blogs, Twitter feeds.  Attend policy conferences, public hearings, or workshops.
3. Do relevant research. Whether you are an academic researcher, or an advocate with research skills, find policy questions where empirical data, design ideas, or new skills will advance the debate.
4. Make your research (or views) easy to understand. Don’t expect policy-makers and their staff to read long research papers.
5. Network. Meet other researchers, meet staff of government agencies, industry, and other activists. Let them know about your work.
6. Get involved. Standards committees, policy groups, public task forces are all opportunities to get involved, but all demand time and a commitment.

Her final advice echoes what we’ve learned at Usability in Civic Life:

• Public policy moves slowly.
• But be prepared to respond quickly.

There are legislative cycles, long public review periods, and time for consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. But when things move, they often move very fast. On one project, we were told to expect a draft of a bill and to be ready to say whether we could support it – on the spot.

Learn more about the SIGCHI US Public Policy Committee. Read the extended abstract in  the ACM Digital Library.  Slides are also available.