While you describe yourself as an “elections junkie,” I am a usability junkie. And I must say that Ms. Shafer’s comments in the article came across as entirely consistent with the kinds of dismissal of responsibility for usability problems that happens in many, many contexts. It is entirely possible that Ms. Shafer’s quote was taken out of context in the article and it’s also possible that she simply didn’t communicate her concern for the users as well as she meant to on that particular day to that particular journalist.

Nevertheless, for something as important as our democratic enfranchisement, I think we should err on the side of vigilance. I am not a Luddite and do not oppose all electronic voting in principle. But there’s a reason why NASA often still uses very old computers. Sometimes bedrock, fail-safe reliability is more important than latest-greatest. As somebody who spends much of his professional life (and his personal life) thinking about and working with software, I think Americans are right to be cautious and skeptical about e-voting. This is not something that should be rushed.

Thanks again for the benefit of your perspective and experience.

Your comments about Hart were interesting, but I think incorrect. I know the company, since I used to work there and do know Michelle. You may have taken her comments out of context a bit.

Here’s what I found when I voted a straight party ticket…. I did follow instructions that allowed me to page through the remainder of the ballot and to over-ride some of the straight party choices. However, I did not attempt to “emphasize” a vote by clicking again on a selection. I was able to get to the end of the ballot easily and was able to review my choices before casting my ballot.

I’m not sure what you voted on, but if you are commenting about Travis County ….as Michelle was… she is correct.

I’ve worked on elections in the past, and have seen voter errors that created problems. I’ve seen paper ballots that were mis-marked and resulted in over-votes (in which case a voter’s preference can’t be determined and they lose their vote on that particular race or issue). I’ve seen ballots so badly marked that they cannot be cast and require that someone remake the ballot. I’ve also seen instances at polling places where lever machines were in use where a voter opens the curtain (an action that causes the vote to be recorded) so that they could ask a question of the poll workers. In many cases, voters do make errors.

The eSlate system minimizes errors, and obviously allows people to correct errors BEFORE casting their vote. Even that system, however, does assume that a voter will read and will follow a very small set of instructions.

When it comes to dealing with handicapped voters, it is far superior to older technology….and allows visually handicapped individuals and profoundly handicapped individuals to vote and to keep their vote private.

I know that you are disturbed by what you read as Michelle Shafer’s comments. However, she is actually correct in her assessment. Comparing Hart’s eSlate System to those punch card ballots in Florida well…. is stretching things beyond what I believe is credible.

Hopefully anyone reading this will not feel that they are obligated to run out to protest the use of a system that works very well…..