Did usability issues change the course of a referendum?

Voters in the Irish Republic went to the polls on October 4^th to vote on a referendum on the status of the upper house of the Irish parliament. The government proposed referendum to the Irish constitution called for the end of the Senate, known in Irish as the Seanad. Those opposing wanted to keep the institution.

The result was a close one with those wanting to keep the Seanad in existence winning by a margin of just 42,500 votes from a total poll of less than 1.3 million.

However, there was confusion in the minds of some voters in how to express their intention and this was not helped by the ballot paper layout and wording.

I was in Ireland on polling day. I heard and read several anecdotal accounts in the media of voter confusion, enough to suggest something was not quite right. 

The referendum was perceived in simplest terms as a question about whether voters wanted to keep the Seanad. So it seems that there were a minority of voters who expressed that they did not want to keep this institution by voting NO – NO to the Seanad. This is essentially what the vote was about. However, the referendum was proposed as an abolition of the institution, essentially a negative act, taking something away.  To agree with this, voters had to vote YES. While the majority of voters understood this and voted in a manner that correctly expressed their preference, there were some who didn’t, particularly on the side of those who did not want the Seanad to continue. 

The referendum commission produced an excellent independent information hand-out (pdf) before the vote. However, many voters would not have read it, particularly as it seemed to bear little immediate relevance to their day-to-day struggle during a time of austerity.

None of this was helped by there being two referenda on the same day, with voters supplied with two very similar ballot papers which referenced the numerical amendments to the constitution without displaying the concept in plain English or plain Irish Gaelic.

These issues of usability probably inflated the eventual NO vote. Were there 21, 251 confused would-be YES voters who voted the wrong way, enough to overturn the result?  That is impossible to say, although nearly all opinion polls before the vote gave the YES camp a substantial lead.

What is clear is the necessity to think about core concepts and how best to address your target audience to get optimal understanding. This applies across referenda, problem solving and day-to-day business processes. Keep it simple. 

Hacking Apple

Apple’s new iPhone 5s comes with a fingerprint sensor, called TouchID. Apple says it promotes the use of the TouchID as an easy and secure way to protect information and privacy given that some 50% of smart phone users who do not secure access to their phone with a passcode. Its fingerprint sensor, built into the iPhone 5s is about the same thickness of a human hair.  The claimed accuracy for their software is that there is only a 1 in 50,000 chance of someone else’s fingerprint being mistaken for one which is registered in their system.

However, despite Apple’s lofty claims, it took only days before hackers in Germany had successfully foiled the TouchID. Using high res photographs, laser printing and a film of wood glue, they were able to create a fake fingerprint copy, enabling them to access the iPhone 5s with ease. 

But that should not come as a surprise. Fingerprint spoofing has been around for quite some time, and recipes for obtaining and faking fingerprints using little more than silicon and gelatine abound on the Internet. Apple’s TouchID is more difficult to hack because of the higher resolution and subsequent higher number of match points checked. But that does not mean their system is fool proof.

So while the TouchID is a reasonable way to protect non-confidential data, you should use multiple methods to secure confidential and high-worth data. Use a combination of fingerprint and passcode or other biometrics such as voice or facial recognition.

Apple may do well to look at how education giant Pearson ensures security at its testing centres. Pearson uses palm vein scanning, a biometric that is much more difficult to hack.  Combined with other security and identity processes, it ensures an extremely high level of confidence in their protocols. This is used in the delivery of a number of high stakes tests, including PTE Academic, a product that I was closely involved with, pre and post-launch, during my time with Pearson.

Facebook Zeitgeist

September 9th saw the rollout of a new suite of conversation mining tools by Facebook. Initially rolled out to select media partners including CNN, BSkyB and Slate, the Public Feed API allows media to integrate a real-time feed of publicly available posts matching keywords. Meanwhile, their media partners can gain rich insight on same using Facebook demographics through the Keyword Insights API.

Undoubtedly, this will not stop with media and content providers. Big brands are already eyeing up an opportunity and it cannot be long before the social media giant makes this suite of trend profiling tools available to the business world. That's one up on Twitter, then.