Digital Voting

14/01/2026

End-to-end verifiable elections that stay anonymous for voters yet auditable for organisers. Designed for inclusion, accessibility, and transparency.

We explore this notion through various students projects. This is what we learned so far:

Trust is layered and contextual.

The project showed that trust is not only about correct app behavior. It also depends on transparency about data use, a recognizable sender such as the municipality, and consistent communication around the app. When institutional context is missing, users may doubt the system, even if the interface itself is clear.

Simplicity increases accessibility, but has limits.

Lowering the language level to B1 and removing complex diagrams improved understanding and calm. At the same time, it proved difficult to remove text completely. In a sensitive process like voting, explanation remains necessary to build trust.

Confirmation and feedback are crucial in critical interactions.

Multiple confirmation moments, clear feedback, and visual confirmation after voting strongly supported user trust and sense of control.

Freedom versus guidance requires conscious choices.

Offering multiple routes and login moments increases autonomy, but can also create confusion. Test feedback showed that too much freedom can conflict with the need for structure, especially for vulnerable users.

Designing for inclusion goes beyond language choice.

In addition to multilingual support and simple language, questions arose about visual, auditory, and non text based interaction. This shows that inclusion is broader than text alone and requires multimodal design strategies.

The app does not stand alone.

It is easy to loose yourself in the app design only. Whereas, implementation, onboarding outside the app, physical or social context such as events or guidance, and a clear connection to existing structures are essential for trust and adoption to emerge. These should be taken into account too.

These lessons learned come from these projects: