Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 14:36:30 -0400 From: "Jones, Charles (Buck)" To: sarah@verifiedvoting.org Cc: Will@verifiedvoting.org, "Jones, Charles (Buck)" Subject: RE: Please respond accessibility features of Diebold voting techn ology Sarah, The TSX does allow color change and change of contrast. Since our systems use telephone style keypads for the visually challenged you are judging that as a negative. In working with the blind we have learned that they prefer a device that is not patterned after a rehabilitation device because it does not focus on their disability. Using a telephone style keypad focuses on their capabilities. Almost 100% of the visually challenged use telephones and therefore are familiar with the keyboard layout. This greatly simplifies voter education. Each TSX is capable of providing an audio ballot simply by attaching the telephone style keypad and headphones. You create the impression that it requires a special unit for this function. Yes, it does require a keypad and headphones but those can be moved from unit to unit for economy and to assure that a backup is always available. For example, a jurisdiction using the AutoMark would have only one in each precinct. If that unit does not function properly on election day a backup unit would have to be delivered to the polling place. Let me add, that if a jurisdiction chose to have a keypad and headphones on every TSX that is possible. Our system also provides audio verification of the audio ballot. Additionally you judge that a system that does not provide a VVPAT, in the manner in which you choose, should be judged unacceptable. Numerous options are being considered for voter verification. The form of VVPAT is a policy decision that will possibly be left to the jurisdiction. We are providers of enabling technology not policy makers. Once it was determined by end using jurisdictions that they wanted a VVPAT we provided it. The federal government is now debating this issue and it is still unclear the form that this will take. It is possible that numerous forms will be accepted. This will require that systems be adaptable. That will make adaptability an advantage. You are correct that our unit does not currently provide sip and puff. However, it does allow other functions that are designed to take into consideration accessibility of reach. There is nothing in your chart that takes into consider accessibility of reach aside from sip and puff. Our telephone style keypad is attached by tether which allows a voter who can not reach the voting unit to place the keypad in their hands. The voting tablet is also removable allowing the device to be placed in the voter's lap, on a table or on the floor. Recently, a voter with no arms voted on our unit using their feet. Also, due to the highly accurate calibration of our touch screens we have also had numerous individuals vote using touch sticks because they were able to place the voting device in a comfortable location that made that possible for them. This would be impossible with some of the other systems on your chart. While all polling places are being made accessible in many jurisdictions the voter has the option of voting curbside. Being able to remove the voting tablet from the docking station makes this option available. It is also possible to view the ballot on the screen while using the audio without the use of the keypad if a voter chooses or use the keypad without the audio and view the selections made on the screen. This opens up a range of accessible that is useful for those with reduced vision, limited reach or limited language skills. Regarding language some of the systems that you list provide computer voice only and received a higher ranking on your chart. While a small number in the visually challenged community may prefer a computer voice most do not. Pronunciations are more challenging with names and you are limited as to the number of languages that can be provided with computer generated voices. Diebold has provided as many as 9 languages in Los Angeles and has had no problem with providing little known languages such as Native American languages. We have no limitation regarding the number of languages. While it is apparently your organizations judgment that the Diebold products that you mention do not meet the 2002 voting system standards it is the judgment of the ITA and NASED that they do. I have to assume that this is based on your judgment because I can find nothing on the NASED website confirming some of your statements concerning other systems. Your chart does not take into consideration numerous ranges of accessibility and appears to favor systems that are unproven in the marketplace. I trust that this is not a political issue for your organization. Members of the accessibility challenged community represent every political party as do the employees of Diebold. However, it is notable that Diebold is the only provider of voting equipment to now have a corporate policy preventing political involvement of any kind with the exception of voting. We have asked all of the other companies in the industry to take this same position but so far none have. I sincerely appreciate you allowing Diebold to comment on the information that you are providing on your website. Please let me know if you have questions. Have a great 4th of July celebration. Respectfully, Buck Jones 803-351-7767 bjones@dieboldes.com -----Original Message----- From: sarah@verifiedvoting.org [mailto:sarah@verifiedvoting.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 4:23 PM To: bjones@dieboldes.com Subject: Please respond accessibility features of Diebold voting technology [2nd try, forgot attachment] Dear Mr. Jones: I'm working with an organization, the Verified Voting Foundation, which is doing research about the accessibility of all available voting equipment for people with disabilities. We would like to give your company a chance to verify the information which we have gathered through internet research about the accessibility features of your equipment, and let us know of any errors or omissions. Attached is a chart summarizing our findings about the disabled access features of a sampling of voting systems, including yours. The information we have about the accessibility of your equipment is on our website at the following location: http://www.verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?list=type&type=101 We obtained information from your websites for the Accuvote TS and TSX: http://www6.diebold.com/dieboldes/accuvote_ts.htm http://www6.diebold.com/dieboldes/accuvote_tsx.htm And also from these websites: http://www.voiceofthenationsblind.org/transcripts/55/voting-machine-demonstr ations http://www.afb.org/afbpress/pub.asp?DocID=aw050404&select=1#1 http://www.cvfieldsmbp.org/Voting%20Technology%20for%20People%20With%20Disab ilities.pdf http://www.acb.org/resources/votingbook1.html#ar11 Please contact us by Tuesday July 5th with any comments you have by either replying all to this email, or by sending an email to sarah@verifiedvoting.org with a Cc to Will@verifiedvoting.org. Thank you very much for helping us to check this information. Sincerely, Sarah Glaubman Intern, Verified Voting Foundation