Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ljilja Ruzic

dblp:143/4211 · also Ljilja Kascak, Ljilja Ruzic Kascak · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2016
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Accessibility and assistive technology · 77% Usability and user experience research · 23%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Accessibility and assistive technology › accessible interaction
accessible voting
0.212016
Universal Design Ballot Interfaces on Voting Performance and Satisfaction of Voters with and without Vision Loss · CHI 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

efficacy testing · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2016 Universal Design Ballot Interfaces on Voting Performance and Satisfaction of Voters with and without Vision Loss
abstract
Voting is a glocalized event across countries, states and municipalities in which individuals of all abilities want to participate. To enable people with disabilities to participate accessible voting is typically implemented by adding assistive technologies to electronic voting machines to accommodate people with disabilities. To overcome the complexities and inequities in this practice, two interfaces, EZ Ballot, which uses a linear yes/no input system for all selections, and QUICK Ballot, which provides random access voting through direct selection, were designed to provide one system for all voters. This paper reports efficacy testing of both interfaces. The study demonstrated that voters with a range of visual abilities were able to use both ballots independently. While non-sighted voters made fewer errors on the linear ballot (EZ Ballot), partially-sighted and sighted voters completed the random access ballot (QUICK Ballot) in less time. In addition, a higher percentage of non-sighted participants preferred the linear ballot, and a higher percentage of sighted participants preferred the random ballot.
Seunghyun Tina Lee, Elaine Yilin Liu, Ljilja Ruzic, Jon A. Sanford
CHI3