Re: Consensus of the OVC

From: David Mertz <voting-project_at_gnosis_dot_cx>
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 13:18:01 CDT

On May 26, 2004, at 1:48 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> Sure we can study it. But I can guarantee that having a screen that
> can
> handle such a everything one one screen is going to add mightily to the
> cost of the system, not only initial cost, but also in terms of cost of
> warehousing, shipping, and setup.

Nah.... a 17" flat screen isn't terribly expensive, nor terribly
difficult to store. We're not talking about a 30" screen here.

> We have an extremely narrow window of opportunity - once printing
> DRE's are purchased our day is done and we become a "could have been"
> technology.

There's definitely something to this window of opportunity thing. But
I'm not sure ruling out compliance with FEC guidelines for minimizing
page turns prompts success.

> Yes, I've seen it - it lacks things like the full paragraph proposition
> descriptions that tend to make up a major part of the ballots in places
> like California. It's also hard to read and use - the sweet spots are
> small and hard to hit.

This is a flaw with the demo as coded, not with the design. The hot
spot for selecting a candidate/choice should not be only the little
circle at left, but the entire square around the candidate name,
including the circle. Given that larger area, even stubby fingers have
a fairly easy time picking a selection.

Full paragraph propositions are definitely not full-face friendly.
However, we probably want a 17" (or larger) monitor for presenting full
paragraphs to voters with aging eyes, even in paginated designs. 18
point fonts are a lot easier to read than 10 point ones.
= 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 23:18:06 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:17 CDT