Re: Consensus of the OVC

From: Jeff Almeida <spud_at_spudzeppelin_dot_com>
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 13:56:24 CDT

Also Sprach Alan Dechert:

>> Alan, read my next message where I talk about the "compromise" of
>> allowing multiple contests on one screen (preferably in one column),
>> rather than a full-face selection,

>Okay. Now what about the ballot that has only 5 - 10 contests (fairly
>common)? Do you still resist full-faced and require pagination just to avoid
>multiple columns?

This is becoming (FMM) unreasonably predictive. Why try and limit the
implementation to one method or the other, even with the wide variety of
use cases you're presenting?

It seems to me that this is something that is best left to the person
writing the ballot config for a particular election: if it's conf'd to
"full-face" or "minimal page turns" or whatever, great; if it's conf'd to
"73-page ADD special" that's fine too. For all we know, the Belgians
might have guidelines that state the exact opposite of the FEC: "Not to
exceed one contest per page" or something similar.

We should impart our design with the flexibility of a thousand gymnasts,
if we really want it to be maximally effective from California to
Calcutta....

jeff :)

-- 
************************************************************
Jeff D. "Spud (Zeppelin)" Almeida
Corinth, TX
spud@spudzeppelin.com
==================================================================
= 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