Voter, What Message Will Motivate You To Verify Your Vote?

Olembo, Maina M.; Renaud, Karen; Bartsch, Steffen; Volkamer, Melanie

doi:10.14722/usec.2014.23038

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(55 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies focused on the voters' verification-related mental models [28,29,32]. These studies revealed a number of factors that would potentially prevent voters from verifying, such as a lack of knowledge of verification procedures, perceived verification effort or misconceptions about verification itself.…”

Section: Previous Studies On Human Factors In Verifiable E-voting Sysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing “Challenge-Based” and “Code-Based” Internet Voting Verification Implementations

Kulyk

Henzel

Renaud

et al. 2019

Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internet-enabled voting introduces an element of invisibility and unfamiliarity into the voting process, which makes it very different from traditional voting. Voters might be concerned about their vote being recorded correctly and included in the final tally. To mitigate mistrust, many Internet-enabled voting systems build verifiability into their systems. This allows voters to verify that their votes have been cast as intended, stored as cast and tallied as stored at the conclusion of the voting period. Verification implementations have not been universally successful, mostly due to voter difficulties using them. Here, we evaluate two cast as intended verification approaches in a lab study: (1) "Challenge-Based" and (2) "Code-Based". We assessed cast-as-intended vote verification efficacy, and identified usability issues related to verifying and/or vote casting. We also explored acceptance issues post-verification, to see whether our participants were willing to engage with Internet voting in a real election. Our study revealed the superiority of the code-based approach, in terms of ability to verify effectively. In terms of real-life Internet voting acceptance, convenience encourages acceptance, while security concerns and complexity might lead to rejection.

show abstract

Section: Previous Studies On Human Factors In Verifiable E-voting Sysmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing “Challenge-Based” and “Code-Based” Internet Voting Verification Implementations

Kulyk

Henzel

Renaud

et al. 2019

Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…statistics from the Estonian elections shows that, the percentage of verified votes ranges between 3.4 and 5.3 (Solvak, 2020). On the positive side, the study by Olembo et al shows that, educating the voters by specifically crafted messages can increase the intent to verify (Olembo et al, 2014). Again, we see that the level of voter awareness as a social parameter plays a crucial role in how well individual vote verification mechanisms work.…”

Section: Verificationmentioning

confidence: 52%

Towards Identifying Social Factors behind (In)Efficiency of Voting Security Measures

Willemson

2022

JeDEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we take a look at some standard requirements set to voting, and measures to achieve them. We argue that while the measures themselves are typically technical or organizational, their (in)efficiency is often determined by social factors. As the requirements set to voting are contradictory, every society will have to make trade-offs between them. Our analysis shows that one reason why some potential vulnerabilities are perceived as acceptable residual risks in some societies may be that, there simply is no tradition of abusing these vulnerabilities in this particular society. We identify a number of societal parameters, categorize them and study their effect on the (perceived) security of the respective measures.

show abstract

“…Olembo et al [23] showed that specific messages could motivate voters to verify their vote, as they understand better the objective of such a procedure. In particular, they focused on risks, norms and analogies.…”

Section: Impact Of a User-centred Application On The Voting Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

User Experience Design for E-Voting: How mental models align with security mechanisms

Zollinger¹,

Distler²,

Rønne³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a mobile application for vote-casting and vote-verification based on the Selene e-voting protocol and explains how it was developed and implemented using the User Experience Design process. The resulting interface was tested with 38 participants, and user experience data was collected via questionnaires and semi-structured interviews on user experience and perceived security. Results concerning the impact of displaying security mechanisms on UX were presented in a complementary paper [7]. Here we expand on this analysis by studying the mental models revealed during the interviews and compare them with theoretical security notions. Finally, we propose a list of improvements for designs of future voting protocols.

show abstract

Voter, What Message Will Motivate You To Verify Your Vote?

Cited by 8 publications

References 52 publications

Comparing “Challenge-Based” and “Code-Based” Internet Voting Verification Implementations

Comparing “Challenge-Based” and “Code-Based” Internet Voting Verification Implementations

Towards Identifying Social Factors behind (In)Efficiency of Voting Security Measures

User Experience Design for E-Voting: How mental models align with security mechanisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About