Guidance Notes – draft 1/17/18

Human factors guidance notes

Requirements for text size updated for VVSG 2.0

This guidance note applies to:

VVSG 2.0 Requirement / VVSG 1.1 Requirement
7.1-G-Text size (electronic) / 3.2.5.d
7.1-H-Scaling and zooming (electronic) / New
7.1-I-Text size (paper) / 3.2.5.e
7.2-D-Page scrolling (electronic) / 3.2.6.a
7.3-C-Two pages or columns / 3.2.4.e

Why the requirements were updated

Evidence from both voter experience reports and related research since VVSG 1.1 showed that the original text size requirements are simply not large enough to meet the needs of both the large number of older voters or voters with mild visual disability and the needs of voters with low vision who require much larger text.

The goals of these updates are to:

  • Make it easier for more voters to read the ballot without special assistive technology.
  • Provide minimal requirements to ensure that the ballot layout is not distorted by changes in text size so that voters have as consistent as possible experience.
  • Address the need for vertical scrolling among contests with a large number of candidates or when the text is large enough that the contest does not fit on a single screen.

How the requirements have changed

These requirements update the sizes for text for information presented and for how the information is reformatted for display.

Point size approximations

Although all text sizes are still stated in millimeters, an approximate size in points is also included to provide a more commonly understood equivalent to the technical measurement. The point sizes were calculated by converting points (1/72 or 0.014 inches) to millimeters and rounding to a single decimal place.

For an electronic interface:

  • The default text size is increased to 4.9mm / 14 pts. The minimum text size is 3.5mm / 10pts.
  • Electronic text is required in 4 size ranges (or continuous sizes in .5mm increments).
  • Non-text information, such as informational images, buttons, and ballot marking targets, is now required to resize as text is resized.
  • Requirements for how the display is reformatted as the text size changes has been substantially changed to require a display without horizontal scrolling up to 7.1mm, following the WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0) threshold of 200% enlargement.
  • Vertical scrolling within a logical pageis allowed for long contests or with large text. The option of pagination within a contest is also allowed.

For a paper ballot or other records a voter reads:

  • The minimum text size (3.5mm / 10 points) is increased, matching the increase in electronic text.
  • If the voting system includes a large print option, a good range for the text size of 6.4-7.1mm / 18-20pts is suggested in the discussion.
  • The paper text size requirement is no longer marked as an accessibility requirement.

Design notes

Text does not all have to be the same size
Usable design can include a small variety in the size of text to create a visual hierarchy of information, so these requirements are not intended to limit the text on the screen to a single size. For example, candidate names or voting choices might be in the 4.9-5.6 mm range, secondary information in the 3.5-4.2mm range, and titles or button labels in the 6.4-7.1mm range.

Informational elements will scale proportionally until maximum sizes are reached
If the interface design includes elements that are already large enough that making them larger would distort the layout, those elements are not required to enlarge proportionately beyond the target size of the text.

The requirements do not prohibit innovation
During the gap analysis, several novel approaches were examined fortext magnification and cueing voters that there is more information about a contest than is visible on the screen. For example, if designed carefully and tested, these approaches could be appropriate:

  • A zoom lens showing an enlarged view of part of a screen.
  • A combined visual and semantic cue that there is more text with both a button or other control in the middle of last lines of thetext area plusfading the last lines of text.

Evidence for this change

Several different sources of evidence contributed to this requirement:

  • A large body of anecdotal evidence from voter feedback to both election offices and advocacy groups showed that the default text sizes (typically under 10 points) was too small for many voters, and that the largest text sizes available in practice were not large enough for voters with low vision.
  • Research at the University of Baltimore with people with low literacy found that they read better with text at 14 points (4.9mm) or larger.
  • The Los Angeles VSAP (Voting System Assessment Project) designed both their paper and electronic ballots with the candidate names in the proposed ranges, based on their comprehensive usability testing.
  • Research at Michigan State University on small-screen ballot design used the National Association for the Visually Handicapped large print standard as the basis for selecting font sizes, adopting text sizes in the proposed ranges.
  • Several research projects found that their test users wanted to be able to change the text size for reading different parts of the ballot, for example candidate contests vs. ballot questions.
  • A ballot design workshop convened by the Center for Civic Design produced several novel designs to support scrolling within a contest with good usability.

Additional resources

  • White paper: Scrolling on a ballot (11/29/2016)
  • White paper: Text size (11/02/2016)
  • Workshop report: Ballot design studio (2/05/2017)