Best Rich Picture Book
Designing blow awning voting systems: a affluent account exercise. Name: Course: Instructor: Pavel Gokin HF 770 Prototyping Chauncey Wilson Collecting the data. My primary antecedent of abstracts was the Internet in accepted and the ACM agenda library in particular. The affidavit and accessories begin there provided advice about the architecture and use of voting systems, as able-bodied as the entities influencing or influenced, anon or indirectly, by the system. Some of the stakeholder apropos came from my claimed acquaintance and accomplished guessing.
This is, of course, not how I would aggregate the abstracts for this affluent account if I were accomplishing it as a “real” project. Ideally, the insights would arise from contextual interviews of the stakeholders as categorical in Monk and Howard’s commodity (Monk & Howard, 1998, p. 22). Appropriately the apropos addressed by the architecture would be absolute user apropos (albeit arise rather than observed) rather than what I, the designer, anticipate the apropos were. Blow awning voting systems (VS) allotment best of the aforementioned stakeholders with all types of voting machines.
The exceptions actuality are the stakeholders that arise into comedy due to the cyberbanking attributes of the abstracts collection. For example, the Secretary of Accompaniment office, breadth voting arrangement vendors accept to escrow the antecedent cipher of their systems (Dill et al. , nd, 2. 3). However, some architecture issues and stakeholder apropos are altered to blow awning VS. Let’s attending at the stakeholders and their concerns, bidding in their own words. Primary / amount stakeholders. 1. The voter. This one is obvious. However, it may be advantageous to breach this stakeholder into sub-stakeholders. Here’s why. Voting systems allegation be attainable by all citizens 18 years of age or older.
This includes not abandoned “normal” voters, but additionally the elderly, disabled, uneducated, poor, and minorities (Bederson, 2003, p. 145). Each accumulation has added apropos on top of the ones it shares with all of the voters. a. Apropos accepted to all voters, in their own words, include: i. “Will I be able to amount this affair out quickly? ” ii. “Will my vote be appropriately recorded and counted? How will I know? ” iii. “Will my vote be kept anonymous? ” b. Disabled: i. “Will I be able to see the screen? Will I be able to use the arrangement after seeing anything? ” (low/no vision) ii. “Will I be able to ability the controls? ” (stature, wheelchair) iii. Will I be able to announce my alternative properly? ” (motor) c. Elderly. In accession to accepting concrete disabilities, the aged are decidedly cagey of technology. They generally allegation accounting affidavit of important affairs (i. e. cardboard amusing aegis checks). i. “Will I get a cardboard cancellation or some accounting acceptance of my vote? ” ii. “Will I accept abundant time to do aggregate comfortably? ” d. Low articulacy users: i. “Will I be able to accept the instructions/choices? ” e. The poor and racial/ethnic minorities: i. “I can do this abundant bigger in Spanish! ” ii. “Will they alike calculation my ballot? ”1 2. Poll workers.
Poll workers are the bodies who arrange and administer the systems. Their affair stems from the actuality that they accept basal training on the arrangement and, therefore, may not be able to troubleshoot problems or acknowledgment questions (Bederson, 2003, p. 145): “… because poor and indigenous and ancestral minorities were added acceptable to casting their ballots on anachronous systems, their votes were amid the atomic acceptable to be counted” (Bederson, 2003, p. 145). 1 a. “Oh no! Election night is tomorrow and we abandoned got these things this morning! How will I anytime apprentice how to use it, let abandoned advice accession if they accept a problem? ” 3. The VS’s UI designer.
This role may physically abide central the arrangement vendor’s alignment (and afflicted by it), but it additionally has its own concerns. a. “How can I architecture the interface so that it meets the requirements atomic expensively and do so after alive nights and weekends to accommodated the deadline? ” The botheration actuality is three-fold: (i) requirements may accent functionality appropriate to canyon acceptance rather than assure a attainable artefact (FEC’s fault); (ii) the burden to cut costs may beggarly that some of the users’ needs will be sacrificed; (iii) claimed time burden agency that the artist may not accept abundant time to arise up with the best solution. . The VS’s programmer. a. “How can I affairs this affair so that it meets the requirements and what shortcuts can I booty so that I get it all done while abandoned alive nights and weekends to accommodated the deadline? ” The programmer’s problems are agnate to those of the designer: too little time to affliction about the user experience. Secondary stakeholders. 5. The administration aggregation of the VS vendor. Their affair is, amid others: a. “We allegation to architecture a arrangement that will canyon accomplishment by the ITA. ” b. “How can we design, accomplish and advertise the arrangement best profitably? ” c. Who has the centermost pockets to pay for our accompaniment of the art system? ” 6. Accompaniment and bounded authorities who acquirement the system. According to Bederson et al. “state or canton purchasers are usually added anxious about amount than usability” (Bederson, 2003, p. 145): a. “Who’s got the cheapest NASED-certified system? ” Note that this affair is in battle with the VS vendor’s allegation to allegation as abundant as attainable for the systems. 7. The Federal Election Committee (FEC) creates voting arrangement standards (VSS): a. “We allegation a arrangement that’s secure, reliable, and accessible. ” 8.
The Independent Testing Ascendancy (accredited by the National Association of Accompaniment Election Directors (NASED)) qualifies VS for use in elections (Coggins, 2004, p. 35): a. “Does this arrangement accommodated the accomplishment requirements? ” 9. Electees. To quote/paraphrase Al Gore: a. “We allegation a complete and authentic count! ” 10. The Media. Would they anytime adulation to dig up some “dirt” on a arrangement that a disabled adept could not use and was appropriately disenfranchised! a. “Are there systems out there that are not defended or accessible? ” 11. Political Analysts. They too like to allocution about chads. a. Will the new systems afresh abuse our Democracy? ” The Affluent Picture. The diagram on the afterward folio places (a) all the stakeholders, (b) their concerns, and (c) their relationships to one another. The relationships are authentic by the advice or actual appurtenances they exchange. The aborigine stakeholder is “exploded” into its subgroups. Absolute stakeholders arise in the black area. Will I be able to amount the arrangement out bound so I can advice the voters? Will I accept the instructions / choices? The Aborigine Can I amount this out quickly? I can do this abundant bigger in Spanish!
Instructions / advice Poll Worker Requests for abetment Low Articulacy Aborigine Aborigine Will I be able to use this affair at all? Poor and Racial/Ethnic Minority Will I get a receipt? Sala ry Allegation the cheapest certified arrangement we can get. Allegation to cut costs and allegation more. Votin g Syste m s Disabled Aborigine Aged Aborigine er Us inp ut (? ) I don’t accept time for UCD! I appetite a complete and authentic vote count! Accompaniment / Bounded voting ascendancy (VS Purchaser) t un co te Vo l resu Vote ts Arrangement architecture Salary Paym ent VS Artist Arrangement VS Bell-ringer ec cipher I ambition I had added time! Salar s sp y Qu m ali
Vote after-effects Sy ste fic o ati Electee VS Programmer n# Is poor architecture causing disenfranchisement amid the voters? Media We appetite “dirt” on abominably advised voting systems! Political Media Analyst We allegation accepted standards for defended and accessble systems V S Qu alificat Repor ion t NASED VS n Sta da s rd ITA Vote res u lts Note: Primary / amount stakeholders arise in the ablaze gray black breadth FEC Discussion. Obtaining concerns. Since I didn’t account the stakeholders, abounding of the apropos are based on my assumptions about the stakeholders. Therefore, those apropos may not be real.
For the aforementioned acumen I can abandoned assumption the exact accent to use in the apropos anticipation bubbles. An absorbing alternating action could accept been to omit counterfeit concerns. In this case the consistent affluent account would point to advice gaps acute added research. Which apropos to include. Alike if all apropos are articular we allegation accumulate in apperception that some affect the arrangement about which we’re aggravating to accomplish a affluent account while others don’t. In general, anecdotic apropos that accept an appulse on the architecture of the blow awning voting arrangement was difficult.
This was abnormally accurate for aberrant stakeholders. In addition, allotment apropos that assume to accept an appulse on the arrangement actuality advised and blank the others may accept acquired me to omit an important affair that may accept a cogent appulse on the system. Absolute vs. aberrant stakeholders. Breadth to draw the line? The way I dealt with this botheration was to allocate as absolute stakeholders all entities that physically collaborate with the arrangement or whose decisions accept a absolute appulse on a authentic voting system. A attainable alternating approach.
In their paper, Monk and Howard allegorize two approaches to advertence action flows amid stakeholders in a affluent picture: illustrating the breeze of abstracts and the breeze of influence. While I chose to allegorize the breeze of abstracts or information, the access breeze access could accept provided some absorbing insights as well. I could accept placed the arrangement itself in the centermost of the diagram and represented the means in which the altered stakeholders afflicted the arrangement application action arrows. These influences, accumulated with concerns, could again be acclimated to actualize arrangement requirements. Bibliography. Bederson, B. B. , Lee, B. Sherman, R. M. , Herrnson, P. , Niemi, R. G. (April, 2003). Cyberbanking Voting Arrangement Usability Issues. CHI 2003, April 5–10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA. Dill, D. L. , Mercuri, R. , Neumann, P. G. , & Wallach, D. S. (nd). Frequently Asked Questions about DRE Voting Systems. Retrieved on February 14, 2006 from: http://www. verifiedvoting. org/article. php? id=5018. Coggins, C. (November, 2004). Independent Testing of Voting Systems. Communications of the ACM, October, 2004, 47(10), pp. 34-38. Monk, A. , & Howard, S. (March-April, 1998). The affluent picture: A apparatus for acumen about assignment context. Interactions, pp. 21-30.
Order a unique copy of this paper