Using your website to fight misinformation: Helping especially vulnerable voters
A new national campaign directs voters to their local government websites. But how do we ensure state and county websites are designed to answer voters’ top questions in ways that help the widest range of voters?
By Christopher Patten, civic design researcher
Late in 2019, the National Association of Secretaries of State launched the #TrustedInfo2020 campaign with the aim of “driving voters directly to election officials’ websites and social media pages.” Every state has an election website. But what happens once voters get there?
Since 2012, the Center for Civic Design has been studying how counties and states design their election websites. Over the years, we’ve spent a good deal of time listening to the experiences of hundreds of voters as they try to find information about elections.
Our research revealed how election officials think about elections. Our interviews with voters showed how differently they think about voting and elections.
Election administrators, rightfully, want it to look simple and easy to participate in elections. But voters have a lot of homework to do and decisions to make — not only about which candidates to vote for, but also which options they can use for getting, marking, and casting a ballot. Choices = decisions. The diagram below compares the two perceptions:
Based on our conversations with voters, questions they have and the answers available on county and state websites often don’t often match up. Voters think about elections differently from election administrators.
Using state election websites: what we witnessed
Our research shows that the overwhelming vastness of the information ecosystem about voting and elections requires voters to patch together bits and pieces of information to find answers. It grows more and more difficult to tell what information is true and what isn’t. Add in a shortened attention span, cognitive or physical disability, or sheer lack of time, and it’s particularly difficult. In the lead up to elections in 2012 and 2018, we asked people what questions they had about elections, and then asked them to go to their local government website to try to find the answers. Then we watched and listened. Here are some of the experiences we heard about.
A participant with a traumatic brain injury had no trouble finding her state’s election site on her phone. After it loaded, she was immediately taken aback by the amount of red all over the site. “Red is all over the screen and it tells me to stop.[That’s] not good,” she said. As she tapped around the screen and zoomed in, long drop down menus extended past her screen and were overwhelming. She then clicked on a link to the mobile site, which she said would be easier to read. On her phone, several large bright red buttons filled the page. She immediately switched her screen to grayscale. The FAQ button, which she thought might answer some of her questions, led her to a page jammed with small text. She seemed to scroll on indefinitely. She eventually shared that if she hadn’t been participating in our study, she would have given up by now.
A blind participant in our study who used a screen reader was able to find their state’s election site (though others couldn’t find theirs). A carousel of images with important announcements flashed across the screen. The images contained really important pieces of information, like when the next election was and where to find your polling place. The participant’s screen reader, however, moved right through the images because they didn’t include ALT text. Large blocks of text without clear headings made it hard to understand what was on the screen.
A participant who shared that he was formerly incarcerated was skeptical when it came to voting. After he had served his time, he was under the impression that he could vote. After doing so and getting his “I voted!” sticker, he posted a photo of himself on Facebook to celebrate the event. Days later, a letter arrived from the state asking if he had committed a crime by voting illegally, and requested a series of documents to prove he was eligible. While he was able to prove his voting was legal, the participant felt uneasy about the letter and began to wonder if authorities monitor social media. Whether authorities were or were not monitoring social media, this person was frustrated by the lack of clarity around when and how formerly convicted felons could restore and use their voting rights.
In addition, as they seek reliable, authoritative information about voting and elections, many voters will already be exhausted by the amount and tone of information and news about government, generally. It’s not only mis- or dis-information. It’s also events that are really happening. This adds to the cognitive and emotional load that people bring with them to county and state websites.
How to create state and county websites that better serve voters
If county and state election websites were better designed for the participants we heard from in the stories above, they’d be easier for everyone. There are a lot of known problems in website design. CCD’s research has revealed some best practices for how best to design government websites for voter information. If #TrustedInfo 2020 seeks to point voters to government sites to find information, we recommend this checklist to ensure they can easily find what they need:
Read our guide on how to design election websites. It’s easy to read and provides simple steps to follow. If you’re an election administrator, we’ll send you printed copies for free.
Look at what questions are being answered on your site. You can do this by looking at what people type into the search field on your website. If you searched for those keywords, would you be able to find and understand useful information about how to take part in elections? If you tried to answer the questions in the diagram at the top of this article on your election website, how would the site fare?
Link your site from other popular locations. Most of our participants didn’t start by searching for state websites when they want to know information about elections. Most people don’t even know that the head of elections in a state has a website. Even if voters do start out looking for a government site, they can be hard to find. We recommend improving the site’s metadata (the keywords embedded in your site to make they easier to find through a search). Make friends with local media outlets so they know your site exists and can refer people there. Connect state websites to county websites, and vice versa.
Consider an official domain and visual design and branding. We found some state election sites that used domains like .com, .net, and even .vote. We’ve heard anecdotally from voters that .gov websites seem more official. It’s even been the subject of a recent bipartisan bill. The aesthetic design of your site can make a difference too. One county election website we saw had a Pink Panther lounging across the bottom of the page. While amusing, we recommend using elements like state seals and other official graphics that confirm the site is really from the government. You want something that looks official but approachable.
Look at what other people have done. The Center for Civic Design is thankful for the work of other organizations around delivering voter information on the web. Pew’s report from 2008 laid the groundwork for our 2012 study, and the MIT performance index includes criteria for good website usability and accessibility, too.
And, along with all that, to serve the widest range of voters, best practice would be to avoid harsh colors, mega menus, and large blocks of endless text without headings. This will help all users, not just people with disabilities. The website in the illustration above was built from a template developed by the Center for Technology and Civic Life. It’s free and easy to implement. It’s available at ElectionTools.org.
Develop trust by answering voters’ questions on your website
We’re excited about #TrustedInfo2020 and believe that directing voters to one source of trustworthy information is the right thing to do. We also believe that local government sites should be these trusted sources. But we also know that many state election sites have work to do if they’re to successfully serve as trustworthy, authoritative sources of information. Failing to design sites that answer the questions of the widest range of voters will send them looking elsewhere for their information.
