Re: Critical analysis of VoteHere

From: Alan Dechert <alan_at_openvotingconsortium_dot_org>
Date: Sat Dec 20 2003 - 11:57:13 CST

David,

> * Open Source
> * Paper ballots
> * Blind accessible voting interface
> * Independent ballot verification (visual and blind-accessible) without
> reliance on the same machine that creates ballots.
>
> If you don't want those, you're not part of OVC. Some other things are
> *probably* good ideas in the production time frame, but are not totally
> unchangeable:
>
Well said. We need to stay a little more focused on the core OVC concepts.
If someone wants to support a non-OVC project, then they should do that --
perhaps elsewhere.

One slight but significant refinement to your bullets: As Doug Jones
implied, we should modify the terminology like "blind accessible." It's
really more like "reading impaired." The system we've been calling the
"Vision Impaired Interface" will probably be used by a variety of people
including some that can see perfectly well but can't read (or can't read any
of the languages available for the ballot) or can't read very well.

> * Use of barcodes
> * Particular toolchain for application (Python, wxWindows,
> touchscreens, X11, Linux, etc)
> * Ballot signing/cryptography (not there in demo)
> * XML formats
>
> Nonetheless, even things that might eventually change in production are
> decided as working assumptions; they won't change -soon- or -easily-.
>
> Still... building a good Security document that is rich with relevant
> comparisons of different systems is probably a necessary step towards
> any later modifications of OVC protocols.
>
Good.

Alan D.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Wed Dec 31 23:17:15 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Dec 31 2003 - 23:17:19 CST