Re: Specifications

From: Ken Pugh <kpughmisc_at_pughkilleen_dot_com>
Date: Wed Dec 15 2004 - 18:27:18 CST

At 11:54 PM 12/14/2004, you wrote:

>Let us not forget ADA compliance. Vision impaired voters would interact
>with the system via voice prompts. Motion impaired, a la Steve Hawkens,
>could respond via voice prompts and air puffs or other widgets.

You're absolutely right. I need another use case. The use case I gave is
the one for voters who are not visually or motor impaired. The use case
for a impaired voter would include steps like:

a.) The system says each candidate's name.
b.) The voter responds with an affirmative action when the selected
candidate's name is spoken.

The affirmative action could be a mechanical action or a verbal action.

The reason I'm heading along the technology independent line is to be able
to produce a a set of requirements that a state could use to evaluate
systems. OVC's system should meet these requirements. However any
implementation that meets the requirements should be acceptable.

I do have a question on what the use case would look like with the
Markomatic.

After the ballot is printed, if the ballot is not correct, then what?
Does the voter go back to the poll workers to get another ballot, thus
restarting this use case. Do they notify the system that the ballot is
incorrect and they wish to alter it?

Ken

OVC discuss mailing lists
>Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org

_______________________________________________
OVC discuss mailing lists
Send requests to subscribe or unsubscribe to arthur@openvotingconsortium.org
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Fri Dec 31 23:17:15 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Dec 31 2004 - 23:17:22 CST