In an editorial, The Disability Lobby and Voting, the New York Times wondered why some groups see a conflict between having elections accessible to all and allowing for a verifiable audit trail.
The UPA response stressed the value of a complete user-centered design approach in meeting all requirements and ensuring usability.
Letters to the Editor, The New York Times
June 11, 2004
Members of the Usability Professionals’ Association’s Voting and Usability Project are concerned about the tenor of the voting system debate as outlined in “The Disability Lobby and Voting” June 11. The issue of accessibility versus verifiability of voting systems should not be a debate between the differently-abled and others. It is a usability issue.
Ease of use and voter confidence are two fundamental requirements that must be — and can be — met through a design approach called user-centered design. In fact, this approach was recommended by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). We support adoption.
By starting with clear voter requirements and designing systems to high standards with rigorous usability testing, election equipment makers can create a system that will meet both needs.
The EAC and NIST need funding from Congress to continue their work on usability standards under the Help America Vote Act. We encourage voters to contact their lawmakers.
Josephine Scott, UPA Voting and Usability Project