Re: Bar Codes

From: Richard C. Johnson <dick_at_iwwco_dot_com>
Date: Fri Apr 13 2007 - 16:28:56 CDT

Danny,

I would skip it. We do need some constant printed feature (state name, date of election, whatever) so that the scanner can orient itself towards the features on the page, like the ovals to be marked. Any state that wants the bar code as a security feature can have it. Any that don't want it, no problem.

I don't know if Michelle is correct, but it does not matter since we are not tied to the bar code. If it spooks anyone, that is no good. So...we will simply do the ballot exactly like the sample. Later, if we get the contract, SF makes all the decisions and we implement their design.

Let me know if any other issues emerge.

Cheers!

-- Dick

Danny Swarzman <danny@stowlake.com> wrote: Dick,

I tried to follow this thread. Is Michelle Gabriel correct that California forbids unique identifiers? Or, more exactly, should we skip this subject in our discussions with SF supervisors?

-Danny

On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:48 AM, Richard C. Johnson wrote:

Any state, such as California, wishing not to use the option can simply leave the number and bar code off the ballot. There is then, of course, no control on the provenance of any of the ballots counted.

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Apr 30 23:17:07 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 30 2007 - 23:17:16 CDT