Accessible voting pilot report: audio and tactile voting devices

• The Welsh Government, in collaboration with The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), Vision Support and local authorities, carried out voting trials with different audio and tactile voting solutions.
• Participants in the trials reported that any of the voting solutions trialled would improve their voting experience, enabling them to vote independently and secretly. Participants showed a slight preference to the audio accord device and tactile voting device.
• Participants also reported in the trials that further considerations would be beneficial if they could be made to audio and tactile solutions tested to improve these ahead of their use in polling stations.
• Participants in the trials raised further considerations beyond the solutions trialled that would help improve voting experience including polling station staff training, polling station environment, and awareness and promotion of available solutions.

The Elections Act (2022) was passed by the UK Parliament and included provision which aimed to improve the accessibility of the process of registering to vote and voting. Previously, polling stations were legally required to have a tactile voting device (TVD) available to enable blind and partially sighted people to vote independently and in secret.

The Elections Act (2022) intended to introduce more flexibility in assistance, replacing the requirement for TVD’s (outlined in the Parliamentary elections rules) with a broader requirement to provide ‘such equipment as is reasonable’ to allow blind or partially sighted persons to vote independently (this may still include but is no longer limited to the provision of TVD’s). This is designed to enable the potential for better technology to be introduced to enable blind and partially sighted people to vote independently.  The Elections Act 2022 also placed a requirement on the Electoral Commission to produce guidance for returning officers in relation to this new duty.

Amongst other changes, it is intended that the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025 will place a duty on returning officers to make local provisions by providing such equipment as is reasonable to enable blind and partially sighted people to vote independently, and in secret to mirror the Elections Act (2022) provision, including the requirement on the Electoral Commission to produce guidance to returning officers. It is also intended that similar changes are made to the Local Election (Principal Areas) (Wales) Rules 2021. To support these legislative changes, it is important to explore and test alternative technologies and voting solutions that could be provided to enable blind and partially sighted people to participate fully in the democratic process and vote independently and in secret.

In 2024 The Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) published a report exploring voting experiences of blind and partially sighted people during the July 2024 General Election. The report found that only a quarter of blind and partially sighted people felt the current electoral system enabled them to vote independently and in secret. In addition, only half of blind and partially sighted voters were satisfied with their voting experience, around three-quarters (73%) did not know they could request reasonable adjustments, and two-thirds (66%) of blind and partially sighted people who voted at a polling station had assistance from either a companion or member of polling station staff. The report also provided a set of recommendations which included ensuring audio and tactile voting solutions are made available at every polling station and accessible voting solutions continue to be proactively identified.

The Welsh Government, in collaboration with RNIB, Vision Support, Cardiff Council and Wrexham Council electoral services teams, conducted two accessible voting trials in Cardiff and Wrexham in February 2025. The trials tested three audio and two tactile voting solutions with 13 participants to assess whether these voting solutions would enable blind and partially sighted people to vote independently and secretly.

Voting solutions

The 3 audio solutions tested aimed to help participants access the information presented on the ballot paper. All audio solutions were used to play a recording of the information presented on the ballot paper. These included:

• QR code (linking to a YouTube video).
• An automated telephone information line.
• Audio accord device (USB player).

The 2 tactile voting solutions tested aimed to help participants cross the box on the ballot paper to cast their vote. These included:

• Cardboard ballot paper overlay developed in Scotland.
• Tactile voting device (TVD).

Ballot paper

The mock ballot paper used for the event was based on the existing ballot paper for regional elections.  This does not precisely match the proposed ballot paper designed to reflect the new Senedd electoral system as introduced under the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order.  The mock ballot paper listed 10 political parties and showed the full list of candidates for those parties and two individual candidates.  The purpose of this was to mimic more closely the ballot paper for Senedd elections from 2026, with all candidates on a list being included on the recordings available through the different audio solutions.

Participants

Participants were recruited through the vision impairment charities RNIB or Vision Support to take part in the trials and had varying levels of visual impairments. There were 8 participants recruited by the RNIB for participation in the trials in Cardiff, and 5 participants were recruited by Vision Support to take part in the trials in Wrexham. All participants, except for one, tested each audio device with both tactile voting solutions (6 trials per participant).

Methodology

Following each trial, participants were asked to complete a questionnaire reflecting on their voting experience, including whether they were able to select their desired choice, if they were able to vote independently, and if they were able to vote in secret. The questionnaire also measured how confident participants felt using the solutions, how easy they were to use, and if they would be happy to use them during future elections. Following the completion of the trials, participants took part in a focus group to provide further context and understanding of their previous experiences of voting and their experiences during the trials. The focus groups were facilitated by social researchers from the Welsh Government and lasted around 45 minutes and were recorded using an audio recorder. During the focus groups written notes were recorded and these compared against the audio recordings to ensure that they provided an accurate representation of the discussion. The discussion guide for the focus group is included at Annex 1, and included questions relating to previous experiences of voting, their perceptions of the devices and voting solutions used in the trail and broader perceived challenges when voting.

Analysis

Participant responses from the questionnaires were collated and descriptive statistics were used to analyse the responses. The data collected through the focus groups were transcribed and analysed to identify common themes.

It is important to consider the findings alongside the potential caveats of this research. Participants in the trials tested the audio and tactile solutions in combination with each other, therefore, scores for each audio or tactile solution may have been influenced by the device they were tested in combination with. Participants also reported in the focus groups that they felt more confident after using the solutions several times, which may impact participants ratings as participants progressed through the trials. Participants trialled the solutions in different orders, so this would have helped mitigate the impact of this to some extent.

The sample size of participants in these trials was relatively small and cannot therefore reflect the full range of experiences of visual impairment. Moreover, it is important to note that those that were engaged in the focus groups were recruited because of their existing engagement with either the RNIB or Vision Support and as such were already engaged with support services. It is acknowledged that this may have created a sampling bias which may have affected the types of responses received in the focus groups. Therefore whilst the trials provide useful insight to the voting solutions tested, the results presented here cannot be said to be representative of the broader experiences or opinions of people with vision impairment.

The percentages reported below are from all the trials carried out (n = 77), although it is worth noting that 1 participant only completed 5 trials. Participants reported that in 94% of trials they successfully voted for their desired choice, in 83% of trials participants were able to vote independently, and in 91% of trials, participants were able to vote secretly. It is important to note that during the focus groups, participants discussed how the definition of independent and secret voting differed between individuals. Some individuals felt they could vote independently or secretly if they could mark the ballot paper with their choice regardless of whether assistance was needed in aligning the tactile voting solution with the ballot paper. Conversely others expressed that it is not truly independent if assistance was provided to align the tactile voting solutions. 

Audio solutions

The averages presented below include scores from using both the overlay and TVD in combination with the audio solutions. Participant scores reflect that there was a slight preference for the audio accord device. Averaging scores across measures of confidence, ease of use, and happiness to use the device in future, participants scored the audio accord the highest at 10.8 out of 15, followed by the telephone information (10.5), and the QR code (9.7). Participants scored the audio accord device highest on average on ease of use (3.5), and happiness to use the device in the future (4.0), out of 5. The telephone information line scored the highest on confidence, with a score of 3.7 out of 5. 

The discussion in the focus groups supported the findings from the questionnaires, where participants showed a slight preference towards the audio accord device. Generally, participants felt that all the audio voting solutions were better than what is currently available, however, there are some considerations needed if these audio solutions were made available in polling stations. 

Participants reported that the ability to pause, rewind, and skip through the audio on the accord device was beneficial as the audio recording was long and covered lots of information. This was evidenced through participants quotes such as “It was good to have the option where you could go up down so you could listen to it again, that was useful to me to easily flick through”. Participants also reported similar positive views relating to the QR code as the YouTube video also provided this functionality, however, participants reported that this was slightly more difficult to do on the YouTube video compared to the audio accord device. When trialling the telephone ballot paper information line, participants reported that they liked the option to listen in English or Welsh, however, they reported that the inability to pause, rewind, or skip when using the telephone impacted their experience. 

There were a few practical limitations noted in relation to each of the audio voting solutions in terms of their ease of use. For the audio accord device it was noted that while the buttons were embossed the device would have benefitted from other ways of identifying the buttons, including greater contrast between the buttons and the device or to make the buttons larger. However, participants did note that once the buttons had been located the device was easy to use and operate. With the QR code, participants noted that there was an initial challenge in locating the QR code and it was also difficult for some participants to effectively align their phone camera on the QR code with some requiring assistance to do this. Moreover, participants reported that the use of QR codes are more dependent upon people’s familiarity with technology which may affect certain voters. In terms of the telephone recording, some participants noted that there were some practical challenges to the process of voting specifically in terms of using the pencil, keeping the ballot paper and voting device steady while trying to hold the phone to their ear and possibly managing the lead for their guide dog. 

In addition to these practical challenges participants noted wider geographic issues relating to the use of the QR code and telephone recording option, in particular the reliance on mobile signal either to access the internet for the QR code option or to call the phone line to access the telephone recording. This was raised as a particular concern for polling stations in more remote locations, but participants also raised the potential challenges of getting signal in some old buildings that are often used as polling stations. While this was not a concern related to the audio accord device and was picked up as a strength of the audio accord device, participants did note that there could still be practical issues with its availability if for instance polling stations did not keep the device charged.

Summary of the strengths and limitations participants raised of audio voting solutions

QR code

Strengths: 

• YouTube video could be paused or skipped through.

Limitations:

• QR codes are not accessible for all blind and partially sighted people.
• QR codes can be hard to find and requires focusing camera on the exact area.
• QR codes are dependent on having internet connection to take you through to the YouTube video with ballot paper information.
• QR codes are dependent on technology skills.

Telephone ballot paper information

Strengths:

• Option to hear information in English or Welsh.
• Could be useful if you could call and listen to information ahead of attending the polling station.

Limitations:

• Dependent on having signal (specific concern in rural areas).
• No options to skip or rewind through ballot paper information so information was very long to listen to.
• Practicalities of holding the phone/pen/voting device/dog etc.

Audio accord (USB player)

Strengths:

• Functions to skip through or rewind information.
• Device was easy to use independently once shown how it works.
• Does not rely on use of having a mobile phone and on having internet connection or signal.
• Quality of the audio recording was clear.

Limitations:

• Reliant on the polling stations having audio accord devices and keeping them charged.
• Buttons on the device could be larger or clearer (better contrast) so users can use this independently.

Tactile voting solutions 

The averages presented below include scores from using both the overlay and TVD in combination with the audio solutions. It is important to note that the width of the cardboard overlay used in the trials was smaller than the ballot paper which may impact participant scores. The cardboard overlay that would be used under normal election circumstances would be the exact size of the ballot paper. Participant scores reflect that there was a slight preference for the TVD compared to the cardboard overlay. Averaging scores across measures of confidence, ease of use, and happiness to use the device in future, participants scored the TVD highest at 10.8 out of 15, compared to a score of 9.8 for the cardboard overlay. Participants scored the TVD higher on average on ease of use (3.4), confidence (3.6), and happiness to use the device in the future (3.8) than the cardboard overlay. 

This was not reflected as saliently during discussions in the focus groups as there was no clear preference for either tactile voting solution, appearing to be dependent on personal preference. Participants felt that both devices improved their voting experience, however, changes or considerations would need to be put in place before making either solution available in polling stations. These are outlined in the summary of strengths and limitations below. 

Participants reported that with both tactile devices the more they used either solution, the more confident they felt using it, and the easier the process became. This was evidenced in the focus groups where participants reported “It boosts your confidence when you have tried something, and you know how it works” when discussing the tactile devices. Participants also reported that once either tactile device was explained to them, they were able to use the devices easier. Participants reported that the braille or embossed numbers on the TVD or cardboard overlay were helpful to guide them to the correct box, however, they also reported that this was heavily dependent on the TVD or cardboard overlay being aligned correctly to the ballot paper. Participants reported some difficulties aligning both the cardboard overlay and TVD with the ballot paper, often needing assistance from someone else to align the voting solutions or to check the alignment was correct. 

In terms of the cardboard overlay, participants noted several advantages. Participants reported that it was easy to feel where the open squares were and therefore where they had to record their vote on the ballot paper. This was further strengthened by the presence of the large print numbers alongside the open squares which helped participants identify the appropriate box for their numbers. 

Some participants also reported that one of the strengths of the cardboard overlay was that it was possible for it to be aligned to the ballot paper independent of support. This was seen as particularly important for some participants as the ability to register the overlay with the ballot paper without help provided greater confidence in the ability to record your vote accurately as it was possible for them to check that it was aligned properly. However, it is important to note that this is only possible if participants are familiar with how the cardboard overlay works and are instructed on how to align it correctly. 

As noted above, some participants did require support in aligning the cardboard overlay and were not told how the overlay should be aligned. Moreover, some participants noted some challenges in accurately aligning the overlay with the ballot paper. A suggestion raised by a couple of participants was whether the cardboard overlay could be modified to include a fold or envelope structure against which the ballot paper could be pressed up against to assist in accurately aligning the ballot paper. 

Other limitations noted with the cardboard overlay included the size and opacity of the overlay which meant that it obscured the text and logos of the candidates. While this was not reported as a problem for blind people, for partially sighted people, the ability to see the text or images below the tactile voting device was helpful and this was not possible with the cardboard overly. 

Other issues noted by some participants was that because there was no contrast between the white of the ballot paper and the white of the cardboard overlay this presented challenges for some participants in visually locating the boxes. Possible suggestions for how this could be improved was to either change the colour of the cardboard overlay to contrast with the white ballot paper underneath or to include black lining around the boxes on the cardboard overlay to increase the level of contrast. Some participants also noted that the numbers on the cardboard overlay could be made more pronounced to make them easier to feel for those relying on touch. 

As already noted the presence of both the embossed numbers and braille on the tactile voting device was regarded as useful by participants, as it was noted that not all people with visual impairments are able to read braille, but having the option available for those who do was useful. Noting some of the challenges that participants experienced with the cardboard overlay shifting, some participants reported that one of the strengths of the tactile voting device was its sticky underside which was helpful in keeping the tactile voting device in place and correctly aligned. 

A further strength of the tactile voting device was that unlike the cardboard overlay, it was largely transparent which meant that when aligned with the ballot paper it was still possible to view the text and images relating to the candidates on the ballot paper. For people with partial vision, this ability tosee these images and text was useful in knowing who they were voting for. 

As with the cardboard overlay, participants noted a number of limitations with regards to the tactile voting device. The primary limitation noted by participants was that the correct alignment of the tactile voting device was entirely dependent on the device being placed correctly by polling station staff as it was not possible for people with visual impairments to do this. As noted previously this reliance on a third party to place and align the device was for some counter to their definition of independence. Moreover, it was reliant on staff being confident and appearing confident when aligning the tactile voting device. If this wasn’t the case it would have implications for partially sighted voters’ ability and confidence to vote independently. As such it is necessary for all polling station staff to be familiar and trained with the application of the tactile voting device. 

Other limitations noted by some participants in relation to the tactile voting device were that the plastic tabs covering the squares to record your vote were sometimes stiff and difficult to fold in order to record your vote. This was noted as a particular challenge if trying to do this alongside handling other things, such as a guide dog or phone.  As with the cardboard overlay, some participants noted that the braille and numbers could be made more pronounced to make them easier to feel. 

The below presents a summary of the strengths and limitations participants raised of the tactile voting solutions.

Cardboard overlay

Strengths:

• Possible to align the cardboard overlay with the ballot paper without support but reliant upon familiarity or instructions on how to do so.
• Easy to feel where the open squares were to help cross the ballot paper independently and secretly.
• Numbers on the overlay helped with guiding participants to appropriate box.

Limitations:

• Dependent on lining up the cardboard overlay correctly or having someone else line this up for voters. Suggestion of an envelope or fold so the overlay was easier to line up and this would increase voter confidence.
• Cardboard overlay was white, and ballot paper was white. This contrast was not accessible, but a change of colour could help this issue.
• Numbers could be slightly more pronounced, so they are easier to feel.

Tactile voting device

Strengths:

• Having the numbers and braille options on the device was useful.
• Sticky underside of the overlay helped keep the device in place once it was aligned.
• Transparency of TVD allowed those with some vision to still see text/logos etc.

Limitations:

• Dependent on lining up the device correctly or having someone else line this up for voters. Polling staff would need to be sufficiently trained on how to use this.
• Tabs that covered the boxes could sometimes be hard to use.
• Braille and numbers could be more pronounced to make them easier to feel.

Discussions in the focus groups highlighted some further themes that provide additional context and considerations including staff training, polling station environment, and awareness and promotion of voting solutions. 

Staff training

A common recurring theme that was discussed during the focus groups surrounded the training of polling station staff. Participants felt that any of the solutions tested helped them to vote more independently and secretly, however, it was more important to participants that polling stations staff receive appropriate and sufficient training on how the chosen devices work and how to provide assistance to voters.

Participants reflected that the confidence and trust in using a device can be impacted by the confidence of polling station staff in offering the device or their assistance in helping voters use the devices. Participants noted that if they had any doubt that polling station staff were confident in using the voting solutions, in particular placing the tactile voting solutions for recording their vote appropriately, then this removed any confidence that they were able to vote independently for who they wished to.

Participants felt that confident and well-trained polling station staff would help contribute to a more positive voting experience. This was discussed more in relation to the tactile voting solutions, but participants felt it was important to both the tactile and audio solutions. This was evidenced in the focus groups where participants stated when discussing their previous voting experience that, “Staff in polling stations have had little to no training on disability awareness and what to do for visually impaired people. They definitely want to help, but when they are asking questions about how to help you, you end up with trust issues about whether they are getting it right based on what you are trying to describe to them”.

Some discussion points were around training on how the devices work with a ballot paper including considering how to align the device with the paper and explaining how the devices work to cast a vote (e.g. lifting the doors on the TVD reveals the ballot paper box below). This was evidenced in focus groups where a participant reported that in their previous voting experience “I have been in the position where I have had to teach them how to position the tactile device onto the paper”.  This was also reflected throughout the trials, for example some participants initially found the tactile voting solutions difficult to use, however, once the device had been explained to participants, they reported feeling more positive about how easy the device was to use and how confident they felt using it.

Polling station environment

Another common theme that was discussed by participants during the focus groups was the impact on polling station environments on voting experience. An environmental consideration that participants discussed was relating to the lighting in the polling station and at polling booths. Participants who were partially sighted suggested that having access to a task light at polling booths could make a big difference to voters, allowing them to cast their vote independently and secretly with little or no assistance from polling station staff or companions. Participants noted that it may be beneficial if one polling booth was set up with tactile, audio, and other solutions such as a task light, in the polling station for blind and partially sighted people to have access to all aids without asking or requiring assistance from polling station staff. This booth could also be used by people without sight impairment, but it would be set up ready for someone with a sight impairment when required. 

Participants in both focus groups also raised the concerns around the colour contrast between items presented on the polling booths. For example, if the pencil provided is a similar colour to the polling booth table, it can be very difficult for people with a sight impairment to find, contributing to a negative voting experience. This could be resolved by ensuring pencils or other equipment are brightly coloured. 

Participants in both groups also noted that from their previous experiences of voting, polling stations can often be inaccessible to them. For example, some participants experienced issues accessing the polling stations via public transport or struggled with accessing the building. Participants observed that if instructions were provided, or arrangements could be made to enable them to access the polling station room in advance, it would help them to feel more confident and help them to find the correct room and route to the polling station on the day.

Participants also questioned whether it would be possible for the information provided through the phone line, QR code or audio recording to be provided in advance. This would enable them to listen to the recordings and the candidate details so that they could be familiar with the list and make their choice prior to attending the polling station. Some participants noted that this option could help alleviate the potential stress of having to navigate the audio recordings for the first time in the polling station environment. 

Awareness and promotion of available solutions

Participants in both focus groups reflected that the more they used the voting solutions trialled, the more their confidence increased with using them. Participants reported that whatever solutions would be used in polling stations, it is important that they were aware of what these would be and suggested it would be beneficial if they could access these before polling day so they could become familiar with the solutions on offer. For example, participants suggested that this could be facilitated through social media and organisations who provide support for blind and partially sighted people. If possible, the voting solutions could be made available to organisations such as RNIB or Vision Support, so blind and partially sighted people could access these through offices, support centres, or events to familiarise themselves with voting solutions on offer to help increase their confidence in using the solutions on polling day. 

The results from the trials suggest that the availability of audio and tactile voting solutions would help improve blind and partially sighted peoples voting experience and would help individuals to cast their vote independently and secretly. Participants in these trials showed a slight preference for the audio accord device and the TVD, however, variation was seen which was largely impacted by personal preference. The focus groups suggested that there are some considerations or changes that could be made to the voting solutions tested that could help improve the devices that would help contribute to a more positive voting experience. The focus groups also highlighted further considerations that could be implemented in polling stations to help improved voter experience such as polling station staff training, the polling station environment, and awareness and promotion of voting solutions on offer. 

Questions

1. What have your experiences of voting previously been like?

(We asked you some questions about each device after you used them, and we’d now just like to revisit some of those questions to get your views on the various voting solutions tested today).

2. What did you think of the solutions tested today?

3. Which of these voting solutions would you be happy to see used at polling stations in the future?

4. Are there any voting solutions that you think should not be considered for use in future? Why?

5. Are there other solutions that you’re aware of that you think need to be considered?

6. If these solutions were available, do you think you’d be able to vote independently or are there other barriers to voting that would still exist?

Debrief

7. Are there any other thoughts or points you would like to raise or discuss before we finish the focus group?