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

Kyle Derr

dblp:36/4124 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2008
—ORCID · none

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

Security and privacy · 1Human-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
Usability and user experience research · 56% Interaction techniques and input · 44%
Network and information security
1 paper
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation
electronic voting
0.112008
VoteBox: A Tamper-evident, Verifiable Electronic Voting System · USENIX Security Symposium 2008
Cryptographic protocols and secure computation › electronic voting
verifiable voting
0.112008
VoteBox: A Tamper-evident, Verifiable Electronic Voting System · USENIX Security Symposium 2008
Usability and user experience research › usability evaluation
subjective vs objective usability measures
0.012008
Electronic voting machines versus traditional methods: improved preference, similar performance · CHI 2008

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

cryptographic protocols · 0.1comparative usability study · 0.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2008 Electronic voting machines versus traditional methods: improved preference, similar performance
abstract
In the 2006 U.S. election, it was estimated that over 66 million people would be voting on direct recording electronic (DRE) systems in 34% of the nation's counties [8]. Although these computer-based voting systems have been widely adopted, they have not been empirically proven to be more usable than their predecessors. The series of studies reported here compares usability data from a DRE with those from more traditional voting technologies (paper ballots, punch cards, and lever machines). Results indicate that there were little differences between the DRE and these older methods in efficiency or effectiveness. However, in terms of user satisfaction, the DRE was significantly better than the older methods. Paper ballots also perform well, but participants were much more satisfied with their experiences voting on the DRE. The disconnect between subjective and objective usability has potential policy ramifications.
Sarah P. Everett, Kristen K. Greene, Michael D. Byrne, Dan S. Wallach, Kyle Derr, Daniel Sandler, Ted Torous
CHI5
2008 VoteBox: A Tamper-evident, Verifiable Electronic Voting System
Daniel Sandler, Kyle Derr, Dan S. Wallach
USENIX Security Symposium2