Re: Alternatives to a single bar code

From: Arthur Keller <arthur_at_kellers_dot_org>
Date: Wed May 05 2004 - 12:07:28 CDT

At 9:45 AM -0700 5/5/04, Alan Dechert wrote:
>Arthur,
>
>> 2. Multiple hardware configurations makes it harder to certify the
>> equipment. If *any* jurisdiction requires a 2-D bar code, then
>> that's what we need to get certified. We won't have the bandwidth to
>> support multiple hardware and software configurations, multiple
>> scanning codes, multiple etc.
>>
>I disagree. If we take your suggestion to the extreme, we'll wind up with
>$4,000 machines.
>
>We have to support multiple everythings. It's a mess but that's our job.

Perhaps the OVC can manage that process. The UC-based research
project will build a single series of reference implementations for a
one or two hardware reference configurations. If there are a myriad
of certified configurations, then the OVC will need to do that.
After all, the proposal to the California Secretary of State will
have the subcontractor to UCSC arrange to have the software federally
and state certified as necessary for use in an election.

Best regards,
Arthur

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur M. Keller, Ph.D., 3881 Corina Way, Palo Alto, CA  94303-4507
tel +1(650)424-0202, fax +1(650)424-0424
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:15 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:15 CDT