Download:
pdf |
pdfUPDATING THE FEDERAL POST CARD
APPLICATION (FPCA) AND THE FEDERAL
WRITE‐IN ABSENTEE BALLOT (FWAB):
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM STAKEHOLDER RESEARCH AND
USABILITY TESTING
Prepared for The Council of State Governments (CSG)
December 2016
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
Research and Form Design Process .............................................................................................................. 3
Step 1: Gathering Information from Stakeholders ....................................................................................... 6
Interview Findings ................................................................................................................................. 6
Step 2: Creating and Testing Prototype Forms ........................................................................................... 10
Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Changes Implemented ........................................................................................................................ 11
Step 3: Gathering Feedback from FVAP and Stakeholders ......................................................................... 14
Stakeholder Feedback ......................................................................................................................... 14
FVAP Feedback .................................................................................................................................... 15
Step 4: Revising and Retesting Prototype Forms ........................................................................................ 16
Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Changes Implemented ........................................................................................................................ 18
Step 5: Final Testing and Editing ................................................................................................................. 21
Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 21
Changes Implemented ........................................................................................................................ 22
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix A: Federal Post Card Application ................................................................................................ 40
Appendix B: Federal Write In Ballots .......................................................................................................... 40
Appendix C: Discussion Guide Used in Initial Stakeholder Interviews ........................................................ 75
Appendix D: FPCA and FWAB Forms Usability Testing Interview Protocol ................................................ 84
2
Introduction
The Overseas Voting Initiative (OVI) is a cooperative agreement between The Council of State
Governments (CSG) and the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) Federal Voting Assistance
Program (FVAP). The OVI is charged with developing targeted and actionable improvements
to the voting process for the more than 1.3 million members of the uniformed services and
the Merchant Marine who are stationed away from home; their 700,000 eligible family
members; and the 5.7 million U.S. citizens living, studying and working overseas. One key
way of doing this is by ensuring that the Federal Post Card Application (FPCA) and the
Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) are as easy and effective as possible for both
voters and election administrators to use. The FPCA allows voters covered by the Uniformed
and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) to apply to register to vote, to request
an absentee ballot and to update their contact information with their local election office,
and it is often the primary method of communication between UOCAVA voters and their
election office. The FWAB is a write-in absentee ballot that can be used as a backup by
UOCAVA voters who have not received their requested state ballot in time to vote by the
election deadline. Both forms are produced as a paper form for distribution, are online as a
PDF and can be completed via an online assistant on the FVAP website. To ensure that the
forms reflect up-to-date law and policy and are as usable for voters as possible, FVAP has
revised these forms many times, most recently in 2013. FVAP is now conducting a redesign
effort in preparation for the 2018 election cycle. CSG commissioned Fors Marsh Group
(FMG) to conduct a multistage usability effort to inform this redesign.
The redesign was carried out by a team of researchers, including a form designer and plain
language expert, user experience researchers, and experts in qualitative research methods
and voting research (hereafter, referred to as the FMG Team). The FMG Team gathered
background information about the existing forms, created several rounds of prototype forms
and conducted usability testing to make recommendations and iterative improvements on
the design of the forms. This process was done in close collaboration with personnel from
CSG and FVAP, and the final prototype forms incorporated contributions from many
policymakers, stakeholders and research participants. The active contribution of each of
these groups led to the development of prototype forms that will improve the UOCAVA voting
experience in future elections, and the FMG Team extends its thanks to all who have
participated in this research effort.
Research and Form Design Process
A five-step process was used to evaluate the current FPCA and FWAB forms, to create new
prototypes and to continue soliciting feedback from FVAP and CSG personnel, state and
local election officials, military voting officers and current or potential UOCAVA voters. Each
step is described in more detail in the subsequent sections of this report.
3
Figure 1. The FPCA and FWAB Research and Form Design Process
(1) Gathering
information
from
stakeholders
(2) Creating
and testing
prototype
forms
(3) Gathering
feedback from
FVAP and
stakeholders
(4) Revising and
testing
prototype
forms
(5) Final testing
and editing
1. Gathering information from stakeholders. As a first step in this effort, the FMG Team
conducted phone interviews with state and local election officials and other
stakeholders in the UOCAVA voting process. The interviews focused specifically on
the current versions of the FPCA and FWAB forms, including how these officials and
stakeholders use and interact with the forms and the issues that they are aware of
with voters completing and submitting the forms or with administrators receiving and
processing the forms. Data collected in these interviews—along with feedback from
FVAP staff and input from an expert form designer—informed the design of the initial
prototypes of the revised forms. All prototype versions of the revised forms can be
found in Appendix A, and the current (2013) versions of the forms can be found on
the FVAP website.1
2. Creating and testing prototype forms. The second step in the research process
involved conducting usability testing with current, former or potential UOCAVA voters.
Usability-testing participants worked through each form as if they were using it to
vote in the 2016 general election. Prompted by an FMG researcher, they answered
questions about the ease of completing the forms, commented on areas of concern
or confusion, and identified areas for improvement. Members of the FMG, CSG and
FVAP teams observed the sessions and suggested areas for further inquiry. The FMG
Team compiled the results of this initial round of usability testing, made
recommendations for changing the forms and created updated drafts of the
prototype forms to guide conversations with CSG, FVAP and other stakeholders.
The FPCA form can be accessed at https://www.fvap.gov/uploads/FVAP/Forms/fpca2013.pdf, and the FWAB
form can be accessed at https://www.fvap.gov/uploads/FVAP/Forms/fwab2013.pdf.
1
4
3. Gathering feedback from FVAP and stakeholders. The third step was to gather
detailed feedback on the second draft of the prototype forms from FVAP personnel,
election officials and voting assistance officers. Prototype forms were distributed to
FVAP, which produced a detailed list of suggested changes. The FMG Team held a
meeting with FVAP personnel to discuss proposed changes to the forms and the
feasibility of making similar changes to the online versions of the FPCA and the
FWAB. Draft prototypes were distributed to a subset of the stakeholders, including
voting assistance officers (VAOs) and state and local election officials, who were
contacted in Step 1 and who had agreed to provide feedback. These stakeholders
provided feedback via email, describing features of the prototype forms that they felt
would improve usability of the forms compared to the forms that are currently in use.
They also suggested areas for further improvements to the prototype forms.
4. Revising and testing prototype forms. The fourth step was to incorporate all of the
information gathered and to create a third iteration of the prototype forms. A second
round of usability testing was conducted to obtain feedback from current, former or
potential UOCAVA voters. Based on findings from this round of testing, the FMG
Team, again, made recommendations for changing the forms and held discussions
with FVAP and CSG personnel. Once a consensus was reached, the FMG Team made
minor modifications to the prototype forms in an effort to further improve their
usability. This fourth draft built upon previous drafts and took into account all of the
information gathered up to this point in the project.
5. Final testing and editing. The final step in the process was to conduct a third round
of usability testing using the fourth draft of the prototype forms. This final round of
testing provided insights into any remaining usability issues. The findings from this
round of testing showed that many of the difficulties with the previous versions of the
forms had been resolved. Participants were able to complete the necessary
information, locate the correct addresses to send the forms to and prepare the forms
for mailing. FVAP staff then conducted a final review of the forms and requested
final, additional changes. The resulting forms will be made available to FVAP for final
internal DoD approval and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submission.
5
Step 1: Gathering Information From Stakeholders
(1) Gathering information
from stakeholders
(2) Creating
and testing
prototype
forms
(3) Gathering
feedback
from FVAP
and
stakeholders
(4) Revising
and testing
prototype
forms
(5) Final
testing and
editing
As the initial step in the information-gathering process, the FMG Team conducted phone
interviews with 13 stakeholders involved in election administration or election policy in
various capacities. These interviews took place from April 26, 2016, to June 14, 2016. CSG
worked with FVAP to identify election officials and other stakeholders who could provide
insights through interviews on the issues of the FPCA and the FWAB. Eight election officials
were interviewed: three currently working at the state level and five in positions at the
county or local level. In addition, three stakeholders who had previously been in state
government and two military members who had worked as Installation Voter Assistance
Officers (IVAOs) or Voting Assistance Officers (VAOs) were also interviewed. A semistructured interview protocol was used to allow interviewers to follow a series of questions
with each subject while also allowing them to raise new questions during the interview,
depending on each interviewee’s responses. A copy of the discussion guide can be found in
Appendix B.
Interview Findings
Several general themes emerged from the interviews with election officials, applying to their
overall experience with the forms and with UOCAVA voters:
State-Specific Materials. Many officials mentioned that their state has online ballot
delivery or a registration website/system. Although all officials indicated that they
always accept the FPCA and FWAB as required by law, they prefer that voters use
their state-specific systems, and several officials suggested that FVAP refer voters to
state-specific online resources.
Voting Residency. A few officials mentioned larger questions about the concept of
voting residency. They indicated that some voters are confused as to how to choose
their permanent voting residence, particularly if they have lived in several states
before moving overseas or have transferred with the military multiple times.
6
Delivery and Return Confusion. A common theme among the interviews was that the
method of delivery and return of forms and ballots is confusing to voters. This is
understandable, as every state has its own laws about how FPCAs and FWABs can be
accepted—some states allow certain forms to be emailed or faxed, whereas other
states’ forms must be submitted as a hard copy with a “wet signature.” These
requirements can be challenging to communicate to voters. Most officials said that
when they receive a hard-copy version of an FPCA or a FWAB, it is a version that the
voter had printed from the internet rather than the DoD-produced, paper version.
Desire to Assist Voters. Every official and stakeholder that was interviewed expressed
a genuine desire to assist military and overseas voters however possible. In addition,
many officials indicated that they understand that the FPCA and FWAB need to work
for all voters from all U.S. jurisdictions and that creating forms that work for all
jurisdictions is challenging. Several officials specifically said that they believe that
given all the different state requirements that the forms have to meet, both the FPCA
and FWAB work well.
Officials and stakeholders identified specific elements of the FPCA and FWAB that cause
major confusion or issues for voters who use the form or for election administrators who
process the forms.
The original FPCA featured a page of instructions and nine informational blocks that were
arranged vertically in which voters entered their data; copies of the original FPCA and all
prototype FPCAs can be found in Appendix A. For the FPCA, major concerns included:
Block 1, Classification. Under some state laws, the type of ballot that is sent to the
voter depends on whether a voter is living overseas temporarily or permanently. For
these states, voters who live overseas permanently are only eligible to vote in federal
races, and voters who plan to return are eligible to vote in federal, state and local
elections. The current wording of the form does not allow states to easily distinguish
between these two classes of overseas citizen voters. However, other officials
indicated that they do not need the different distinctions that are currently offered
and that they do not use all of this information. They said that reducing the number
of options on this block could make it easier for voters to complete.
Block 5, Contact Information. This section was a high priority for election officials.
Anytime the FPCA is incomplete or ambiguous, election officials will try to contact the
voter to clarify the situation. However, if the contact information is incorrect or
illegible, it becomes impossible to contact the voter (e.g., one official mentioned that
people often write over the boxes rather than put a letter in each box, which makes
the information difficult to read). Interviewees suggested adding space for a
secondary email address and emphasizing the importance of providing legible, up-todate contact information. Email was cited as the easiest method to get in touch with
7
voters, particularly those who are overseas, but phone number and address
information are also used as backup methods of contact when necessary.
Block 6, Ballot Receipt. Officials in several jurisdictions indicated that voters are not
able to easily tell which of the ballot delivery methods is permitted by their state of
residence. Some states allow both email and online delivery, and officials cannot
distinguish the voter’s preference between these two methods, since the two options
are collapsed into one option on the current form. The online option is problematic
because the voter must actively go to their state’s website to download the ballot,
thus, selecting the online option on the FPCA does not complete their goal of
requesting a ballot. In these cases, the election official sometimes has to email or
call the voter to inform them of the online delivery options and instructions for
downloading a ballot. In addition, despite the instructions on the current form, which
asks voters to rank their preferred delivery methods, some officials described getting
forms with only one method checked or marked. In some cases, voters provided an
email address but not a mailing address when they only selected online delivery.
Block 7, Voting Residence Address. Many interviewees suggested that knowing how
to identify a voter’s voting residence is a source of confusion. Voters may be
confused about which address to use for registration and may try to register using
the address of a friend or family member even if they have never personally resided
there. Legibility issues are also a concern with addresses.
Block 8, Where to Send My Ballot. Officials reported that voters do not always
understand which address to put in this section. Voters are often confused which
address belongs in Section 7 and which belongs in Section 8.
Instructions. Most election officials noted that the text for the instructions was too
small and very dense (e.g., one official used the word “cluttered”), and they thought
that voters typically do not read the instructions. Some officials suggested
incorporating the instructions into the form or adding a notice at the top of the form
that notifies voters that instructions are on page 2.
The original FWAB featured a page of instructions; a Declaration/Affirmation page,
consisting of nine blocks of information, similar to the FPCA; a ballot page; and in the print
version, self-contained envelopes for the ballot and all other materials. Copies of the original
FWAB and all prototype FWABs can be found in Appendix B. For the FWAB, major concerns
included:
Purpose of the FWAB. There was confusion about the purpose of the FWAB—election
officials and IVAOs said that voters were unsure whether they were eligible to use the
FWAB. One IVAO said that voters are reluctant to use the FWAB because “this form is
frightening to them.” This IVAO stated that many people are afraid to submit a FWAB
even if they have not received an official absentee ballot because they are afraid of
8
committing voter fraud by submitting two ballots (in case the real ballot arrives later).
The complicated instructions and the process of assembling the different portions of
the form combined with the ambiguity of its purpose and the difficulty of locating
information about the relevant races and ballot items are all obstacles to voters who
are potentially eligible to use this form.
Block 1, Qualification and Voter Registration. The first section of the FWAB creates
significant issues for voters and election officials because it asks voters to indicate
whether they have registered and requested an absentee ballot. Some officials
indicated that they are unsure whether their voters understand the question or are
aware that an FPCA is an absentee ballot request, or the officials said that they doubt
that voters are able to remember whether they had registered or requested a ballot
for a specific election. Officials also indicated that voters sometimes skip or miss the
initial checkboxes to answer this question, which makes the form difficult or
impossible for the officials to process.
Block 5, Contact Information. As with the FPCA, election officials noted that having
legible, up-to-date contact information is crucial in case they need to contact a voter
to clarify any of the information on the form.
Confusion on the Ballot. In general, election officials indicated that voters struggle
with what to write on the blank ballot; some officials suggested that the ballot itself
should include language that directs voters to their state’s website for more
information on specific races.
After all interviews were completed, an expert form designer reviewed the current versions
of the FPCA and the FWAB, took into account the information that is required to be collected
on the forms and reviewed the information collected from the interviews and from FVAP
staff. The FMG Team also held a meeting with FVAP personnel, a DoD form designer and
other DoD personnel involved with the forms’ approval process. FVAP also corresponded
with the General Services Administration (GSA) to inquire about any rules governing
particular colors or fonts that should be used in Standard and Optional Forms. GSA provided
information from the Standard and Optional Forms Procedural Handbook and indicated that
the handbook only contains suggested guidelines for fonts, colors and design specifications,
but that these are not requirements. Based on this information, the FMG Team created
initial prototypes for the FPCA and FWAB forms (Prototype FPCA Version 1, Based on
Stakeholder Feedback and Prototype FWAB Version 1, Based on Stakeholder Feedback can
be found in Appendix A). The design of these prototypes focused on improving the usability
of the forms, creating a more intuitive and user-friendly interface and helping voters provide
all of the necessary information to successfully complete the voting process.
See pages 3–4 and 11–14 in the Illustration of Changes to the FPCA and FWAB for more
details on the original FPCA and FWAB and the initial prototypes that were developed.
9
Step 2: Creating and Testing Prototype Forms
(1) Gathering
information
from
stakeholders
(2) Creating and testing
prototype forms
(3) Gathering
feedback
from FVAP
and
stakeholders
(4) Revising
and testing
prototype
forms
(5) Final
testing and
editing
On July 27–28, 2016, the FMG Team conducted an initial round of usability testing with
eight participants. Participants were recruited based on having resided overseas, having
served in the uniformed services or having been a spouse or dependent of an active duty
uniformed services member. Interviews took place at FMG’s data collection facility in
Arlington, Va. Each session lasted approximately one hour and consisted of a series of
questions and tasks in which the participant completed the prototypes of the FPCA and
FWAB forms and provided feedback on the absentee registration and voting process.
Participants were provided with the forms, a computer with internet access, a paper copy of
the current Voting Assistance Guide, and various envelopes and office supplies. Each
participant was instructed to complete the FPCA and FWAB forms and to address and
prepare them to be mailed to the appropriate election office as if he or she were voting
absentee as a UOCAVA voter. A copy of the complete interview protocol can be found in
Appendix C.
Findings
In general, participants were able to complete the forms correctly and were confident in their
ability to register to vote using the FPCA prototype and to cast a backup ballot using the
FWAB prototype. However, there were some sources of difficulty and confusion on both
forms.
For both the FPCA and FWAB prototypes, participants struggled with the following areas:
Address of Residence. Participants did not always provide their current address of
residence, especially if mail was not their preferred method of ballot receipt.
State-Specific Information. Participants were unsure how to locate state-specific
rules. It might also be helpful to make state-specific rules more prominent in the
online Voting Assistance Guide.
10
Local Election Office Address. Participants found it difficult to locate the correct
address to which they should return their voting forms. The forms do not directly
provide this information, but it would be beneficial to include a simple, permanent
link to an online tool that would allow voters to locate their local election office’s
address, if this is feasible. Additionally, it would be helpful to move address info to
the top of each state’s page in the online Voting Assistance Guide.
Specifically for the FPCA, the following issues were observed:
Ballot Receipt Method. Participants were uncertain about the meaning of “The best
way to send your ballot.” They did not know if this referred to the way they would
receive their ballot or the way they would return their ballot. They were also uncertain
whether they could submit the form online or via email.
Mailing the FPCA. Many participants were uncertain how to assemble the FPCA
return envelope. Some tried to cut off the address label and attach it to an envelope,
and others folded it up to mail it directly.
For the FWAB, participants experienced issues with the following elements:
Assembly and Mailing. Participants were uncertain about how to assemble the FWAB
package and whether postage was included. The instructions, regarding the voter
information form, were unclear.
Backup Ballot. Study participants were uncertain about where to write their
candidate choices on the backup ballot and about what information was necessary in
order for their vote to be counted.
Changes Implemented
Based on the findings from the first round of usability testing, a number of changes were
made to the prototype forms. At this point in the process, the FMG Team confirmed with
FVAP that the usability testing and the design should focus on the hard-copy, paper versions
of the FPCA and FWAB that will be printed by the Government Printing Office (GPO), since
these are the versions of the forms that will be submitted to OMB and for public comment.
Alternate media for the forms, including a printable PDF and the online assistant output, will
be created by FVAP after approval has been received for the paper versions of the forms. All
instructions and formatting of the forms, therefore, reflect hard copy, paper-printed versions
that will include adhesive for self-sealing and attached envelope.
Other changes to the forms included restructuring certain sections as well as small language
changes. Table 1 summarizes major changes.
11
Table 1. Major Changes to the FPCA and FWAB After Initial Usability Tests
Form
Section
Address of Residence
State-Specific Information
FPCA
Ballot Receipt Method
Mailing Instructions
Address of Residence
State-Specific Information
FWAB
Assembly and Mailing
Backup Ballot
Changes Made
The prototype for the FPCA form was restructured so that
the address box did not immediately follow the ballotrequest-mode question. The form segments were
reordered and language was modified to indicate that the
voter’s current address of residence must be included.
Language was added to prompt voters from specific states
to look at the Voting Assistance Guide. It might also be
helpful to make state-specific rules more prominent in the
online Voting Assistance Guide.
This data element was moved so that it immediately
follows voting-related elements. This section of the form
was clarified, and the prompt was reworded to “The best
way for you to receive your ballot from election officials.”
The FMG Team modified the instructions and the format of
the paper version of the form to make mailing instructions
clearer. Once the prototype form has been approved and
finalized, other formats, such as the printable PDF form
and online assistant output, should include their own
customized assembly instructions as well.
The prototype for the FWAB form was restructured so that
the address box did not immediately follow the ballotrequest-mode question. The form segments were
reordered and language was modified to indicate that the
voter’s current address of residence must be included.
Language was added to prompt voters from specific states
to look at the Voting Assistance Guide. It might also be
helpful to make state-specific rules more prominent in the
online Voting Assistance Guide.
The FMG Team clarified the mailing instructions and
changed the heading of the voter information form to read,
“Confirm Your Identity with This Form.” Once the prototype
form has been approved and finalized, other formats, such
as the printable PDF form and online assistant output,
should include their own customized assembly instructions
as well.
The FMG Team clarified the instructions for the bottom half
of the ballot and reformatted the columns for the office and
candidate name or party to make it more obvious that they
are connected.
In addition, a number of minor wording changes were made:
FPCA, the first page:
In the red box located in the upper-left corner, some participants thought that the
gray squares were check boxes. These boxes were changed to circles to make it clear
that no input is required here.
12
In the instructions located at the top, a link was added for the Voting Assistance
Guide.
FPCA, the second page (instructions):
One participant noted that the absentee-voting process is rather complicated and the
wording “It’s easy to vote while you’re outside of the U.S.” seems out of touch. That
wording was replaced with “You can vote wherever you are.”
The wording of “55 States, territories, and the District of Columbia” was changed by
substituting “55” with “all.”
The first item of the instructions was changed to clarify that all states accept the form
by mail, and some states also accept it via email or fax.
The third icon showed a pencil and blue ink even though the form specifies that
voters should use black ink and a pen. The icon was changed to show a black pen to
be consistent with the instructions.
An FVAP email address was added for voters to contact if they have questions. Many
participants also noted that a phone number would be helpful.
FWAB, the instruction page:
One participant noted that the absentee-voting process is rather complicated, and
the wording “It’s easy to vote while you’re outside of the U.S.” seems out of touch.
That wording was replaced with “You can vote wherever you are.”
In the first paragraph of instructions were revised about informing the local election
office if an official ballot is received after submitting a FWAB. Participants indicated
they would not do this, and it is important to make it clear that voters are not doing
anything wrong by returning both ballots, if that ends up being the case.
The first item of the instructions was changed to clarify that all states accept the form
by mail, and some states also accept it via email or fax.
The third icon showed a pencil and blue ink even though the form specifies that
voters should use black ink and a pen. The icon was changed to show a black pen to
be consistent with instructions.
An FVAP email address was added for voters to contact if they have questions. Many
participants also noted that a phone number would be helpful.
See pages 5 and 15–17 in the Illustration of Changes to the FPCA and FWAB for detailed
images of the development of the FPCA and FWAB at this point in the research process.
13
Step 3: Gathering Feedback From FVAP and Stakeholders
(1) Gathering
information
from
stakeholders
(2) Creating
and testing
prototype
forms
(3) Gathering feedback
from FVAP and
stakeholders
(4) Revising
and testing
prototype
forms
(5) Final
testing and
editing
Based on the findings from the first round of usability testing, the FMG Team modified the
prototype forms to address the most common sources of difficulty or confusion, which were
described in the previous section. The updated prototypes were then distributed to a select
group of stakeholders, which included three state or local election officials and two VAOs
who had agreed to review the prototype forms and provide feedback. Three of these
stakeholders provided email feedback about the forms.
FVAP personnel also provided extensive feedback on the prototype forms at this stage in the
process. Several FVAP staff members provided detailed comments on various aspects of
both forms. When providing this feedback, they took into account their organizational
mission, the state and federal legal requirements that are related to the voting process and
their direct experiences with helping voters. Their comments were then compiled into a
comprehensive list of suggested changes. The FMG Team held a meeting with FVAP
personnel to review and discuss the proposed changes and the best ways to improve the
prototype forms and then the agreed-upon changes were implemented.
Stakeholder Feedback
In general, stakeholders approved of the changes made to the prototype forms and believed
that the updated prototypes would be helpful to UOCAVA voters trying to complete the
absentee-voting process. They viewed most of the changes as improvements on the existing
FPCA and FWAB, and they provided additional suggestions for changes to be made.
Voter Type. Election officials preferred the check boxes with “overseas citizens” as a
single category and the type of overseas citizen as a separate, sub-check box.
14
Political Party. Election officials noted that some states use a voter’s political party to
determine which primary ballot to send, and other states use it to establish
permanent party affiliation. It may be important to clarify the purpose of this field or
provide options.
Email or Online Delivery. Election officials recommended deleting “online” as an
option for ballot delivery, since it is not clear what that means. For example, in
Wisconsin, voters can only receive a ballot online through the state’s online portal,
and selecting “online” on the FPCA does not provide voters with any information to
direct them to this portal.
Mental Competence Requirement. Mental competence is not a requirement for
voting in all states. Consider removing this from the voter statement on the FPCA and
FWAB.
FVAP Feedback
FVAP staff reviewed the prototypes for the FPCA and FWAB forms and provided detailed
recommendations for changes to both forms. These changes often focused on specific
wording. FVAP also provided guidance regarding legal requirements for the forms, including
portions of the form that required official language.
General Formatting. FVAP suggested changing the blue areas to black or gray and
limiting color on the form to a few red accents. These red accents were used only on
the most important fields of each form to ensure maximum visibility of crucial
elements. Additionally, it was noted that the light gray areas of the form were not
visible on photocopies.
Instructions and Spacing. In order to provide better readability and spacing, FVAP
recommended removing many of the in-line instructions on the form.
Voter Type. FVAP suggested listing each category of voter as a separate check box so
that voters would not inadvertently skip over the second set of check boxes.
Voter Declaration. FVAP recommended changing the language of the voter
declaration, which appears immediately before the signature, reverting to the official
language used on the current versions of the FPCA and the FWAB.
See pages 6 and 18–20 in the Illustration of Changes to the FPCA and FWAB for detailed
images of the development of the FPCA and FWAB at this point in the research process.
15
Step 4: Revising and Retesting Prototype Forms
(1) Gathering
information
from
stakeholders
(2) Creating
and testing
prototype
forms
(3) Gathering
feedback
from FVAP
and
stakeholders
(4) Revising and testing
prototype forms
(5) Final
testing and
editing
A second round of usability testing was conducted with eight participants who were former
or potential UOCAVA voters, as they had been on active duty in the uniformed services, had
been a dependent of a uniformed services member, or had lived or will be living overseas.
These interviews focused on the second round of prototype versions of the FPCA and FWAB
forms. Participants completed each form and provided feedback on the experience. The
interviews were conducted on Sept. 26 and 27, 2016, at the FMG facility in Arlington, Va.
The same interview protocol was used for all rounds of usability testing, and it can be found
in Appendix C for reference.
Findings
In general, participants were able to complete the forms correctly and were confident in their
ability to register to vote using the FPCA prototype and to cast a backup ballot using the
FWAB prototype. There were notable improvements in the participants’ ability to successfully
use several parts of the forms, although some difficulties remained.
For both of the FPCA and FWAB prototypes, participants struggled with the following areas:
Addresses. Overall, participants were able to successfully enter both their registration
and residence addresses—generally, they put each address in the right place on the
form. Having this complete and correct information will allow state and local election
officials to easily determine voting eligibility and to send ballots and other election
materials to the correct address.
FVAP Email Address. Several participants said that if they had questions they would
use the FVAP email address provided on the forms. Email assistance could be further
improved by creating a specific help email address for each form (i.e.,
16
fpca@fvap.gov). Several participants also noted that it would be helpful to have a link
to a web page that covers frequently asked questions.
Mailing and Assembly. Overall, participants seemed to understand how to assemble
the FWAB and how to fold and mail the FPCA.
Internet Links. Overall, participants were able to locate the fvap.gov website but had
a hard time locating the specific information they needed either because they typed
in the wrong internet address or because the links are too general. For instance, one
user typed in a URL with “vaq” instead of “vag” and was unable to find the Voting
Assistance Guide on the FVAP site. It may be helpful to create specific, simple and
permanent links to the relevant areas of the FVAP website, such as fvap.gov/state for
state-specific requirements or fvap.gov/address to locate the correct address for
returning the forms.
Race. Many participants did not appreciate being asked for their race even though
they understood that it is an optional field. It might be beneficial to remove the
“Race” field and instead include information about states that are required to
request it in the Voting Assistance Guide under “Other State Requirements.”
However, this wording would add to the length of the list of states with specific
requirements.
State-Specific Information. In general, participants had questions about how the
forms related to their state’s voting process. For instance, one participant was
confused about whether completing the FPCA was all she needed to do for her state
or if her state would send separate forms. Many participants were curious about
state deadlines, state-specific candidates and ballot initiatives, and how to locate
more information about their state’s voting process.
Political Party. Some participants were unsure of the purpose of the political party
option. They were not sure if it was required or what it would be used for.
Specifically for the FPCA, the following issues were observed:
Contact Information. Participants failed to provide contact information because they
felt that they only needed to provide information for their preferred method of ballot
receipt. For instance, if they preferred to receive their ballot by mail, they did not
provide an email address, phone number or fax number. Some participants even
failed to provide the necessary information that corresponded to their preferred
method of ballot delivery.
Ballot Delivery Method. Participants were confused about this section. There is no
option for mail delivery, and phone is not a method of ballot delivery. In addition,
participants did not fully complete the contact information because the check boxes
located next to the contact information section confused them. Incomplete contact
information prevents election officials from contacting voters if they need more
information or clarification.
17
Specifically for the FPCA, the following issues were observed:
Voter Registration Address. A significant number of participants were confused about
the wording “State or territory where you will submit an absentee ballot.” They did not
know whether this referred to their state of residence or their current residence.
Candidate Choices. Participants were unsure which candidates they could vote for or
where to locate that information. Many participants said that they wished they had a
list of candidates, and one said he was unsure whether he could only vote for federal
offices.
Changes Implemented
Based on findings from the second round of usability testing, a number of changes were
made to the prototype forms. These changes included both restructuring certain sections as
well as small language changes. Table 2 summarizes major changes.
18
Table 2. Major Changes to the FPCA and FWAB After Round 2 Usability Tests
Form
FPCA
Section
Address of Residence
The prototype for the FPCA form was restructured so that
the address box did not immediately follow the ballotrequest-mode question. The form segments were
reordered and language was modified to indicate that the
voter’s current address of residence must be included.
Mailing and Assembly
The prototype for the FPCA was modified so that the fold
line is precisely in the middle of the page.
Internet Links
The URL, fvap.gov/vao/vag, was updated by printing “VAG”
in capital letters to avoid any confusion. It might also be
helpful to create specific, simple and permanent links to
the relevant areas of the FVAP website, such as
fvap.gov/state for state-specific requirements or
fvap.gov/address to locate the correct address for
returning the forms.
Political Party
This field was moved so that it is grouped with ballot
delivery method.
Contact Information
Ballot Delivery Method
Internet Links
FWAB
Changes Made
The contact information section was reorganized to make it
more visible, and language was added to encourage voters
to provide their contact information.
For the third version of the prototype forms, the FMG Team
reformatted this section to separate the ballot-delivery
preference and the contact information fields.
The URL, fvap.gov/vao/vag, was updated by printing “VAG”
in capital letters to avoid any confusion. It might also be
helpful to create specific, simple and permanent links to
the relevant areas of the FVAP website, such as
fvap.gov/state for state-specific requirements or
fvap.gov/address to locate the correct address for
returning the forms.
Political Party
This field was moved so that it is grouped with ballot
delivery method.
Voter Registration Address
The wording of the registration address field was changed
to read, “What is your address in the State or territory
where you are registered to vote or sending a ballot?”
Candidate Choices
Language was added to direct voters to the fvap.gov
website to find more information about specific candidates
and races.
Based on findings from the second round of usability testing, the following additional, minor
changes were implemented on the FPCA prototype:
The language “Your mailing address (if different)” was changed to “If your mailing
address is different.”
o Having the conditional statement first will help participants understand the
purpose of this field and avoid entering the same address twice.
19
Based on findings from the second round of usability testing, the following additional minor
changes were implemented on the FWAB prototype:
Underneath the heading for address of voting residence, the language “Your ballot
will not be sent to this address” was changed to “Your voting materials will not be
sent to this address.” This reflects the fact that the FWAB acts as an absentee ballot,
so it does not typically result in a ballot being sent to the voter.
The language “Your mailing address (if different)” was changed to “If your mailing
address is different.”
o Having the conditional statement first will help participants understand the
purpose of this field and avoid entering the same address twice.
Language was added to the instructions indicating that voters should also complete
and return their state ballot if they receive it before the election even if they already
submitted the FWAB. Some participants expressed concern that both ballots would
accidentally be counted, and others thought that the current instructions meant that
they should return a blank state ballot.
The language “Form” was changed to “Voter Information Form” on instructions.
The language located in the top, right-hand box of the FWAB Voter Information Form
was revised to make it clearer as to what action voters need to take if they have not
yet registered and their state does not accept the FWAB as a voter registration form.
Because of the information gathered during this phase of research, the FMG Team updated
its prototypes of the FPCA and FWAB forms. See pages 7 and 21 – 23 in the Illustration of
Changes to the FPCA and FWAB for detailed images of the development of the FPCA and
FWAB after the second round of usability testing.
20
Step 5: Final Testing and Editing
(1) Gathering
information
from
stakeholders
(2) Creating
and testing
prototype
forms
(3) Gathering
feedback from
FVAP and
stakeholders
(4) Revising
and testing
prototype
forms
(5) Final testing and
editing
For the fifth stage in the research process, the FMG Team conducted in-person interviews
using the latest versions of the prototypes of the FPCA and FWAB forms. Participants
consisted of eight registered voters who were former or potential UOCAVA voters, as they
had been on active duty in the uniformed services, had been a dependent of a uniformed
services member, or had lived or will be living overseas. Participants completed the
prototypes of the FPCA and FWAB forms and provided feedback during and after the
experience. The interviews were conducted on Oct. 27 and 28, 2016, at the FMG facility in
Arlington, Va. The same interview protocol was used for all rounds of usability testing, and it
can be found in Appendix C for reference.
Findings
Participants were successful at completing all of the key areas of the forms:
Addresses: Overall, participants accurately completed the address portions of both
forms. They understood which address belonged in each field, and they provided full
information for their registration and mailing addresses.
Mailing and Assembly: Overall, participants seemed to understand how to assemble
the FWAB and how to fold and mail the FPCA. For this round of testing, the form
prototypes were outfitted with double-sided tape so that they would more accurately
reflect the design of the final forms, and participants were able to correctly assemble
and prepare the forms for mailing.
Contact Information: Participants generally provided information for at least one
method of contact, and they were able to complete this information in a manner that
was readable and correctly formatted.
21
Participants had some difficulty with the following areas of the forms:
Internet Links: Overall, participants were able to locate the fvap.gov website but had
a hard time locating the specific information they needed either because they typed
in the wrong internet address or because the links are too general.
State-Specific Information: Participants continued to struggle with locating statespecific information with respect to additional requirements and mailing addresses
for their election office. They were generally able to find the FVAP website based on
the information on the prototype forms, but navigating to the specific information
they needed was often difficult.
Changes Implemented
Based on the findings from the third round of usability testing, a few small changes were
made to each of the forms.
On the FPCA prototype, the link to the Voting Assistance Guide was updated from
fvap.gov/vao/VAG to fvap.gov/vao/vag, since internet browsers were unable to navigate to
the page when “vag” was typed in with capital letters.
Two changes were made on the FWAB prototype:
A security pattern was added to the back of the ballot page to protect the secrecy of
voter choices.
The ballot pictures on the instructions were updated to match the updated
appearance of the ballot.
See pages 8 and 24–26 in the Illustration of Changes to the FPCA and FWAB for detailed
images of the development of the FPCA and FWAB after the third round of testing.
After edits were made following the third round of usability testing, FVAP staff reviewed the
forms and requested additional changes be made. As a result of the FVAP review, the
following changes, as well as a few other small wording changes, were made to the forms:
AP comma style was used throughout the forms.
Sections 1 and 2 were combined into a single “Who Are You?” section, and social
security number and driver’s license were moved to this new combined section.
The “Race” field was removed from the form.
Formatting changes were made to provide more space for the overseas address and
state requirements.
The contact information instructions were rephrased to read, “Contact information so
election officials can reach you if there is a problem with your request.”
22
“Election officials” was changed to “election office” throughout the form.
“Best way for you to get a ballot from election officials if your State allows” was
changed to “How do you want to receive your ballot from your election office?”
The positions of the ballot delivery and political party items were reversed.
“What other additional information or State requirements must you provide?” was
changed to “What additional information must you provide?”
On the FPCA and FWAB instructions page, the information for looking for statespecific guidance on completing the form was moved from the first step of the
instructions to the last step.
On the FWAB, Alabama and Wisconsin were added to the list of states that may have
additional requirements.
On the FWAB form, instructions for residents of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands were moved to the initial block instructions. Instructions
on the other parts of the ballot were removed, and “Include additional pages if
necessary” was added.
Also on the ballot page, the space for writing in candidate names was reduced and
the space for ballot initiatives was increased.
“Ballot Enclosed for MM/YY Election” was added to the FWAB envelope.
See pages 9 and 27–29 in the Illustration of Changes to the FPCA and FWAB for images of
the prototypes that the FMG Team developed based on feedback from FVAP.
After completion of the usability testing process, FVAP personnel then reworked the FPCA
and FWAB forms to submit them for public comment and then to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for approval. Two primary changes were made to the forms during this
process. First, the font size on both forms was increased. Second, the layout was adjusted to
maintain structural continuity throughout both forms, ensuring that across forms the text
boxes were the same size and the lines were the same weight and color.
See pages 10 and 30–32 in the Illustration of Changes to the FPCA and FWAB for images of
the final forms as edited by FVAP.
23
Recommendations
This research process, with its multiple rounds of usability testing and stakeholder feedback,
was designed to create a central data collection that is as clear and usable as possible.
However, to ensure maximum voter success, the FPCA and the FWAB both need to be
surrounded and supported by information sources that meet voters’ needs. During the
process of gathering data from FVAP staff, potential UOCAVA voters, election officials and
other stakeholders, the FMG Team also identified a number of additional steps that FVAP
could consider taking—beyond just the production of the FPCA and FWAB forms—to support
UOCAVA voters.
(1) Customize instructions for the medium of that specific form. Election officials reported
that correctly assembling the forms, particularly the FWAB, can be a challenge for voters.
Some of the participants in user testing also struggled with this. One way to facilitate this
process is to ensure that each version of the forms—the GPO-printed hard copy, the
printable PDF and the output from the online assistant—has unique, visual instructions that
guide voters through assembling that specific set of forms.
The prototype versions discussed here are, as noted earlier, the GPO-printed hard-copy
forms; the instructional text and images are designed for a printed version of the forms that
would have adhesives and, for the FWAB, an attached envelope. The FMG Team
recommends that once the main elements of the paper form have been approved, new,
alternate instructions should be created, specifying that individuals who are using materials
that he or she has printed will need to get or create an envelope, provide postage and
perform other necessary steps. This will help ensure that when a voter has completed an
FPCA or a FWAB, the physical process of packaging the materials for submission will be as
clear as possible, since the voter will have a set of instructions that will guide them on how
to manage the exact materials they are using at the time.
(2) Provide links on the forms to customized fvap.gov web pages. Because of various state
requirements and because each voter must submit their completed forms to their specific
jurisdiction, there is no way that either the FPCA or the FWAB can be completely selfcontained. A voter will always need to access either the Voting Assistance Guide or the FVAP
website in order to find, at a minimum, their jurisdiction’s address. Most voters will not have
access to a paper copy of the Voting Assistance Guide, so they will be using either the PDF
version of the guide or the FVAP website only. However, there is a great deal of information
on the overall FVAP website and in the Voting Assistance Guide, and in testing, a number of
participants were able to go to the correct place but were never able to find the specific
information (i.e., additional state requirements or the jurisdiction’s mailing address).
As any user who is visiting the FVAP website to complete and submit their FPCA or FWAB will
likely be looking for a few key pieces of information, we recommend that FVAP create
24
customized web pages within fvap.gov that place state requirements, links to mailing
address and other information at the top of a clean, well-directed website. This specific URL
will then be the one provided on the forms. A user who goes to this URL will then be able to
access the full Voting Assistance Guide or the rest of the FVAP website, but this URL will
ensure that a form user is pointed as quickly and clearly as possible to the specific
information they are looking for. The goal of specific, customized web pages is to ensure
that a voter does not give up on completing a form or provide incorrect information even
though they went to the right place but were not able to quickly find the specific information
that they needed.
(3) Create a form-specific email account. The final prototype version of the forms includes
an FVAP email address that users can email to receive help on the forms. This was not
included on previously approved versions of the FPCA and FWAB, but it could help ensure
that people correctly complete and return their forms by offering a clear, centralized place to
request assistance. Much like the website described above, voters who would be sending an
email to the email address on the form would likely be asking a few key questions about
their residency, deadlines, state requirements and mailing addresses, among other issues.
Therefore, we recommend establishing a unique email address for the forms so that those
queries can be easily distinguished from other help requests. We also recommend creating
an auto-response to respond to any emails submitted to that address, which would answer
or provide links to answers for those key questions. This can help ensure that voters get the
assistance they need as quickly as possible, possibly as soon as they send the email, and
FVAP staff can follow up, as the support response schedule allows, to ensure the voter’s
question was answered.
(4) A final recommendation addresses the form design process, as we encourage FVAP to
ensure that the final versions of the forms are tested with potential users. The prototypes
that have been developed here have been refined in an iterative process based on feedback
from stakeholders and learnings from usability testing. However, before the forms can be
finalized, they will be published for public comment so that everyone concerned with the
UOCAVA voting process can provide comments and input on the forms. This process helps
ensure that the form revisions address all the concerns of the overseas and military voting
community. However, if changes are made to the forms as a result of public comments
without evaluating how those changes affect the usability of the forms or how the totality of
the information works together, new opportunities for error could be introduced. We strongly
recommend that FVAP conduct an additional round of usability testing on the final version of
the forms that include changes based on all public and internal FVAP and DoD comments.
This will help confirm that the usability of the forms remains consistently high as the final
versions proceed through the OMB approval process.
25
Appendix A: Federal Post Card Application
Original FPCA
26
27
Prototype FPCA Version 1, Based on Stakeholder Feedback
28
29
Prototype FPCA Version 2, Based on Round 1 Testing
30
31
Prototype FPCA Version 3, Based on FVAP Feedback After Round 1 Testing
32
33
Prototype FPCA Version 4, Based on Round 2 Testing
34
35
Prototype FPCA Version 5, Created Based on Round 3 Testing
36
37
Prototype FPCA Version 6, Based on FVAP Feedback
38
39
Prototype FPCA Created by FVAP and Submitted for Public Comment
40
41
Appendix B: Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots
Original FWAB
42
43
44
Prototype FWAB Version 1, Based on Stakeholder Feedback
45
46
47
Prototype FWAB Version 2, Based on Round 1 Testing
48
49
50
51
52
53
Prototype FWAB Version 3, Based on FVAP Feedback After Round 1 Testing
54
55
56
57
58
59
Prototype FWAB Version 4, Based on Round 2 Testing
60
61
62
Prototype FWAB Version 5, Created Based on Round 3 Testing
63
64
65
66
67
68
Prototype FWAB Version 6, Based on FVAP Feedback
69
70
71
72
73
74
Prototype FWAB Created by FVAP and Submitted for Public Comment
75
76
77
78
79
80
Appendix C: Discussion Guide Used in Initial Stakeholder
Interviews
Goal: Conduct interviews with Election Officials, VAOs, and other stakeholders to determine
their overall impressions and experiences with the FPCA and FWAB forms. Identify common
problems or areas of confusion associated with the completion of these forms.
Introduction: Hi, my name is __________, and I am conducting research on behalf of the
Federal Voting Assistance Program and the Council of State Governments. Thank you for
taking the time to speak with me about the FPCA and FWAB forms. Because of your
experiences with helping others through the voting process/working in elections, you are in
a position to provide us with important information that will help us improve the voting
process for military members and their dependents and for U.S. citizens living overseas.
What you say in this interview will be kept confidential—when we report on these interviews
your name will not be linked to anything you say. Your participation is voluntary, and you are
free to end the call or not answer a question at any time. I would like to record this call, so
that I can refer back later when I’m writing up notes and talking about changes to the
forms—the recording will be destroyed once data analysis is complete. Do you have any
questions about the study at this point?
General questions (LEOs):
1) First, can you tell me a little about what your job in [office/jurisdiction/county name]
is?
2) What responsibilities do you have for voting?
3) Are you the only one who does this or do you have other staff and co-workers who
assist you?
4) How many total voters typically vote in your jurisdiction during a presidential election?
Of these, how many would you estimate are UOCAVA voters?
General questions (VAOs):
1) First, can you tell me a little about your responsibilities as a VAO? What
responsibilities do you have in terms of providing voter assistance?
2) Approximately how many people have you provided voting assistance to in the past
year? Are these mostly military members, dependents, or both?
3) How often do you work with other UVAOs, IVAOs, or other staff to provide voting
assistance?
FPCA questions: Now I’d like to talk about the different voting forms. First, let’s talk about
the Federal Post Card Application, or the FPCA. Are you familiar with the FPCA?
81
[If not, who in the office would be familiar? Can we speak with them?]
Before we begin, I’d like to make sure that we are both looking at a copy of the FPCA form.
Do you have the paper or PDF copy of this form in front of you?
1) How familiar are you with this form? How many times do you see this form in each
election year, and what is your overall experience with it?
2) What are the most common questions that voters have about this form? Are they
usually confident in their ability to fill out the form correctly?
3) In your experience, are voters typically successful at requesting a UOCAVA ballot
using the FPCA? If not, what are the most common errors or factors preventing them
from successfully requesting a ballot?
4) Are there any specific parts of the form that voters find confusing, even if it does not
prevent them from successfully requesting a ballot?
5) Do you accept FPCAs via mail, email, and fax? Are there different problems with
paper forms vs. email vs. fax?
6) What would you say is the single biggest problem you see with the FPCAs?
7) If you could make changes to the FPCA, what changes would you make?
Now let’s focus on some specific portions of this form.
1) Take a look at the options in section 1 of this form. In your experience (receiving this
form/helping others complete this form), do you feel that voters are able to
determine which category applies to them? Have you run into a situation where a
UOACAVA voter did not fall into any of the categories listed? What changes would you
make to this part of the form?
2) Now let’s look at sections 7 and 8. What are the most common errors in this section?
Do you find that voters are able to distinguish which address belongs in each of
these sections?
3) In section 9 of the form, what are the most common types of information you see
listed? (For LEOs: Does your state have specific requirements for this portion of the
form?) Do you find that voters are confused about what belongs in this section?
4) Finally, let’s look at the last page of the form including the instructions and mailing
information. Is there anything on this page that seems to be a source of confusion for
voters? What issues have you seen with the instruction and submission process?
FWAB questions: Now, let’s talk about the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot. Are you familiar
with the FWAB?
[If not, who in the office would be familiar? Can we speak with them?]
Before we begin, I’d like to make sure that we are both looking at a copy of the FWAB form.
Do you have the paper or PDF copy of this form in front of you?
82
1) How familiar are you with this form? How many times do you see this form in each
election year, and what is your overall experience with it?
2) What are the most common questions that voters have about this form? Are they
usually confident in their ability to fill out the form correctly?
3) In your experience, are voters typically successful at casting a ballot using the FWAB?
If not, what are the most common errors or factors preventing them from successfully
voting using the FWAB?
4) Are there any specific parts of the form that voters find confusing, even if it does not
prevent them from successfully voting?
5) Do you accept FWABs via mail, email, and fax? Are there different problems with
paper forms vs. email vs. fax?
6) What would you say is the single biggest problem you see with the FWAB?
7) If you could make changes to the FWAB, what changes would you make?
8) (For LEOs: Does your State accept the FWAB for any State or local races? Does this
present any unique challenges?)
Now let’s focus on some specific sections of the FWAB.
1) The form is separated into two parts: the Voter’s Declaration/Affirmation and the
Official Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot. Do you find that voters are able to recognize
these distinct parts of the form?
2) Let’s look at the instructions for mailing the form. These are found on page one of the
form starting in the third paragraph in the right-hand column. Are voters typically able
to correctly follow these instructions? What are the most common mistakes you see
with respect to mailing?
3) In section 9 of the form, what are the most common types of information you see
listed? (For LEOs: Does your state have specific requirements for this portion of the
form? Are these different than the requirements for the FPCA?) Do you find that
voters are confused about what belongs in this section?
83
Appendix D: FPCA and FWAB Forms Usability Testing
Interview Protocol
This semi-structured interview protocol served as a discussion guide. The moderator uses these questions as a
roadmap and probed as needed to maintain the natural flow of conversation.
A.
Introduction (5 minutes)
Thank you for participating in this study today. My name is ________, and I work for Fors Marsh
Group. We are a private research firm, and we are working today with the Council of State
Governments and the Federal Voting Assistance Program, or FVAP. FVAP is a federal government
agency that helps ensure that military members, their eligible family members and overseas citizens
are able to exercise their right to vote, and the Council of State Governments is a non-profit
organization that supports state government. CSG and FVAP are working together under a four-year
cooperative agreement funded by the US Department of Defense, which has created the Overseas
Voting Initiative to help improve the election process for military and overseas voters
We’re working with FVAP and the Council of State Governments today to improve the forms that
military and overseas voters use to register to vote, request a ballot, and submit an absentee ballot.
Our goal is to make these forms as clear as possible for people who will use them in the future, and
your comments and feedback will help us to improve the forms. We’re interested in both your
positive and negative reactions to the forms, and I did not create the forms, so please do not feel like
you have to hold back on your thoughts to be polite to me. Any difficulties you may run into reflect
the design of the forms, not your skills or abilities.
The entire session should last about 60 minutes. Do you have any questions so far?
Let’s cover a couple things before we get started.
As you’re looking at the materials I’m going to show you, I’d like you to work as you normally would if I
was not here, but I would also like you to share anything that is noteworthy or confusing. You don’t
have to read everything aloud to me. Just do what you normally would do. But please tell me if you
are looking for something and what it is and whether you can find it or not. I will ask questions along
the way.
We are making an audio recording of this session. Only those of us associated with this project will
see the recordings, and we will not share your name or personal information. The recordings are
really used as a memory aid for me so I can go back later to recall what happened during each
session. Your responses will not be linked to you personally.
There are some people from my team and from the CSG and FVAP who are in the other room to
observe, take notes, and record your comments. Your candid feedback will be very valuable, so even
though people are observing, please speak openly about your opinions and experience. We want to
learn from you, so it is important that you share your honest opinions.
84
There are no wrong answers, and your comments and opinions will only be used in combination with
the feedback that we get from other people. Your participation is voluntary and you can withdraw at
any time. Any questions so far?
B.
Background Information (10 minutes)
Let’s begin by talking for a few minutes about your experiences.
If in the military:
1.
What branch of the military are you in?
2.
What is your rank?
3.
Where is your home of record with the military?
4.
And where do you live now?
If a military spouse:
1.
What branch of the military is your spouse in?
2.
What is their rank?
3.
Where is their home of record with the military?
4.
And where do you live now? Do you live with your spouse, or are they
stationed somewhere else?
If an overseas citizen:
1.
What country did/do you live in outside the United States?
2.
And why were/are your living there?
3.
How long were you there/have you been there?
For all:
1. Are you registered to vote?
2. When is the last time you voted?
3. The last time you voted, did you vote in person or did you vote absentee?
4. If you voted absentee, where we you (in the U.S. or overseas)?
a.
[If they voted absentee] Can you tell me about that experience?
i. How did you find the process?
ii. Were there barriers or stumbling blocks in the process? What were they?
5. [If military or military spouse] Have you ever used any voting resources provided by the
military? Talked to a voting assistance officer, visited an installation voting assistance
office, etc.?
85
[Moderator can probe on their UOCAVA voting experience—where were they living,
have they voted absentee in past elections if not most recently, etc.]
C.
FPCA (15 minutes)
Okay, now we are going to move on to an activity. I would like you to imagine that you are interested
in registering to vote, but you are living in a different location than your official home of residence.
[The moderator can customize this situation based on the participant’s specific situation. If they are
currently a UOCAVA voter, they can recreate their specific registration. If they lived overseas in the
recent past, they can fill out the form as if they were still living where they did before, etc.
Give participant FPCA form, computer, and VAG. Make sure they have pens, envelopes of various
sizes, scissors, and tape.]
You’ve been given this form to fill out in order to register to vote. Please go ahead and fill this out just
as you would in real life, if I weren’t here, including putting on the mailing address and getting it
ready to return to your election official. Feel free to use the computer to access any websites that
would be helpful for you or this Voting Assistance Guide. You can also use any of these office
supplies to send in the form. We would like you to use addresses that are as real as possible, but
feel free to make up a birthday or Social Security number, if you want—and we’ll shred these forms
when we are done with the session. As you’re completing the form, I’d like you to “think aloud.” So, I
would like you to tell me what you are thinking as you read. Tell me how you’re reviewing the
information and if anything is confusing, surprising, interesting, or unclear. And then let me know
when you’re done.
[When the participant is done, the moderator should take their form and quickly review]
Now I’d like to ask you some specific questions about the form and your experience with it.
1.
Please walk me through what you did on the form, and tell me about any questions or
confusion you remember having along the way.
2.
What additional instructions would be useful?
3.
Do you feel confident that you could successfully register to vote using this form?
4.
What help do you think that other people might need in using these forms?
5.
How would you plan to return the form? How confident are you that you’re sending the
forms to the right place?
6.
What would you have done if you hadn’t had the VAG here?
7.
What other information did you need that wasn’t on the form?
8.
What other changes would you want to make to the form?
[Moderator can probe on any errors noted on the FPCA, but should be careful to note that
the participant is not being tested; any errors are signs that the forms can be improved in
the future.]
86
[Probe on specific areas of the form that are of interest.]
1. How did you decide what to answer for this question?
2. How did you decide which address to put in the block?
3. How did you decide which contact information to include?
4. I see that you answered this question [in this way]. What was your thinking behind that?
D.
FWAB (20 minutes)
Okay, now we are going to move on to an activity. Now I want you imagine that it’s October, and you
want to vote in the general election, and you requested an absentee ballot from your state but your
haven’t received it yet. So you learn that you can use the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot, or the
FWAB, as a back-up ballot.
[The moderator can customize this situation based on the participant’s specific situation, as
applicable.
Give participant FWAB form, envelopes, computer, and VAG]
Please go ahead and fill this out just as you would in real life, if I weren’t here, including packaging it
up ready to be mailed. Feel free to use any of the materials in front of you. You can use the computer
or this paper copy of the Voting Assistance Guide to locate any relevant information as you complete
this ballot. Again, we would like you to use addresses that are as real as possible, but feel free to
make up a birthday or Social Security number, if you want—and we’ll shred these forms when we are
done with the session. As you’re completing the form, I’d like you to “think aloud” again. So, I would
like you to tell me what you are thinking as you read. Tell me how you’re reviewing the information
and if anything is confusing, surprising, interesting, or unclear. And then let me know when you’re
done.
Now I’d like to ask you some specific questions about the form and your experience with it.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Please walk me through what you did on the form and the ballot, and tell me about any
questions or confusion you remember having along the way.
What additional instructions would be useful?
Do you feel confident that you voted the way you intended to, using this ballot?
If you wanted to vote a straight party ticket, how would you do that?
Do you feel confident that you assembled the FWAB package in the correct way?
How confident are you that you’re sending the forms to the right place?
What additional resources would you consult besides FVAP.gov and the Voting Assistance
Guide?
What other information did you need that wasn’t on the form?
What help do you think that other people might need in using these forms?
What other changes would you want to make to the form?
[Moderator can probe on any errors noted on the FWAB, but should be careful to note that
the participant is not being tested; any errors are signs that the forms can be improved in
the future.]
87
[Probe on specific areas of the form that are of interest.]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
How did you decide what to answer for this question?
How did you decide which address to put in the block?
How did you decide which contact information to include?
How did you decide what to write on the ballot?
Did you look at the instructions on the back of the document?
I see that you answered this question [in this way]. What was your thinking behind that?
Thank you so much for your feedback on these forms today. Before we wrap up, I’m going to check in
with the rest of the research team to see if they have any other questions they’d like to ask.
Thank you, those are all the questions I have for you today. Was there anything else that you wanted
to say about the forms before we finish?
88
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Microsoft Word - FPCA and FWAB Redesign Final Report_12_30_16 |
| Author | kgimbel |
| File Modified | 2016-12-29 |
| File Created | 2016-12-29 |