>>I heard an interesting Canadian Broadcast article last night - an interview with Prof. of Pyschology Robert St. Clair (St. Clare? Sinclair?) described a double-blind research experiment he performed twice (once w/students, again with random public) contrasting a linear ballot and a butterfly ballot. The latter proved problematic for in both experiments. Specifically, people had problems with the butterfly ballot when indicating a selection other than the first option listed. (I think this was "As It Happens" but I couldn't fine a reference at their web-site.)
>>
>>I was not an issue of how responsible these people were. And when considering machinery, I suspect most here can can readily recognize (when not politisizing) that in a whole system - the instructions, the sample ballots published in the media, the previous method that people may have become accustomed to, the UI, the input device(s), the tabulation hardware - all parts are factors. It is disingenious to charachterize the accuracy issue as 'people vs. machine'.
>
>
>Steven, it would be very intesting if Prof. St. Clair were to rerun his experiment with a large instruction board in front of the subjects saying (in large print) "4. Vote every page."
>
>I wonder how many of the subjects would follow the instructions rather than figuring out that in the case of the butterfly ballot they had to ignore that instruction.
>
>There was also a place in the standard instruction book which said to make the punch to the RIGHT of the name.
>
>This is a case where "RTFM" does not apply.
>
>Peter

Hey Peter,
Well in all fairness to Mr. Buchanan (the man who once said the "Hilter was a man of courage"), it *could* simply be that those retired Jews have put certain issues behind them and now just wanna "move forward." It *could* be that way. :-)

(Sorry, I couldn't resist)

But digress already. I once worked with a group that franchised medical software we had written. We submitted it to a testing group in Dallas, TX (can't remember the groups name.) Their UI/doc methods consisted primarily of sending two or three users together into a small room with the software loaded on a PC sitting on a desk with the manual beside it. Oh, and two hidden cameras recording their actions. These users were supposed to be educated users literate with computers and the medical field.
Of the 4 or 5 sets of users that went into try the software. The video showed a lot of poking around and "here try this" kind of stuff at many points.
Only 2 of the people used the F1 Help key and none used the manual.
A UI is supposed to put one in accord with something else. I just think it's interesting how humans interface with stuff: whether something simple like a fork (chopsticks?) or difficult like world view.

Later, Steven-