Disenfranchised by design: Voting systems and the election process

Information Design Journal

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 29-38

  Roth, Susan King ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038789725     PISSN: 01425471     EISSN: 1569979X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/idj.9.1.08kin     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. American Association of Retired Persons. 1986. Truth about aging: Guidelines for accurate communications. Washington DC, AARP
2. Bowen, Duffy & Steinberg. 1986. 'Plain language laws', Visible Language, 20 (2)
3. McCormick, Ernest, and Sanders, Mark. 1982. Human factors in engineering and design. New York, McGraw Hill
4. Federal Election Commission. 1990. Voting systems standards. Performance and test standards for punch card, Marksense, and direct recording electronic voting systems. Washington DC, Government Printing Office
5. National Clearinghouse on Election Administration of the Federal Election Commission. 1984. A report to the Congress on the development of voluntary engineering and procedural performance standards for voting systems
6. Pitts, Donald G. 1982. The effects of aging on selected visual functions: Dark adaptation, visual acuity, stereopsis, and brightness contrast'. In R. Sekuler, D. Kline, & K. Dismukes (eds) Aging and human visual function, New York, Alan R. Liss
7. Reynolds, L. 1984. The legibility of printed scientific and technical information'. In Information design, R. Easterby and H. Zwaga, eds. Chichester: John Wiley
8. Roth, S.K. 1994. The unconsidered ballot: How design effects voting behavior'. Visible Language, 28(1): 48-67
9. Roth, S.K. 1996. 'Report of research: An examination and comparison of provisional voting processes'. (Research report, available from author on request)
10. Woodson, W., Tillman, B., and Tillman, P. 1992. Human factors design handbook. 2nd edn, New York: McGraw-Hill