RE: new site update

From: Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) <"Popkin,>
Date: Wed May 26 2004 - 15:58:29 CDT

Cool. Assuming no other issues are reported, we'll (Erik?) make these
changes and swap the site into production.

The FAQ looks like all of the TOC links are full, absolute links that go
back to the original FAQ. They should be changed to relative links within
the document so that the FAQ links are internally consistent no matter what
server the file is on, etc.

The Bylaws have h1/2/3's around the section headers. We should probably use
CSS to make the formatting a bit nicer (and to more accurately represent the
structure of the document, since plain HTML without CSS doesn't support
different levels of body text as semantic markup). Adding CSS would make
indenting, etc., possible, which would make the bylaws more readable.
Hopefully this isn't a priority for today. :-)

- LP

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net
[mailto:owner-voting-project@afterburner.sonic.net]On Behalf Of David
Mertz
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 4:39 PM
To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
Subject: Re: [voting-project] new site update

> here is what we have: http://openvotingconsortium.org/new/

Looks nice. Clean. Accessible.

Few things though:

(1) Home page. Please change:

     The systems will also support voter verified ballots...

   to:

     The system will produce voter verifiable ballots...

(2) Please have "Software" link directly into the EVM2003 site. I.e.,
instead of:

     <li>Software</li>

   Use:

     <li>Software</li>

(2a) I wonder if the word "Developers" might be better than the word
"Software" in describing this link. But I defer on this.

(3) The FAQ behaves in a funny manner. If you click on any of the TOC
items, it gets rid of the left navigation tabs and the OVC logo. From
there, there's not even a link back to the OVC pages. I would suggest
keeping the left indent/navigation unless a reader clicks Karl's
"Printer Friendly version" link.

(4) The TOC for the Bylaws seems a bit messed up. I presume the nested
sections should each be in their own <h3> tags, or at least in <p>s or
<br/>s. Actually, all the body paragraphs should really be in <p> tags
too. But this isn't critical, just "should get around to."

==================================================================
= 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 23:18:07 2004

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