Re: Preliminary Architecture document

From: <Adechert_at_aol_dot_com>
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 23:51:04 CDT

In a message dated 9/11/03 12:31:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
voting-project@gnosis.cx writes:

> This is very initial (please help). I created an Architecture link at:
>
> http://evm2003.sourceforge.net
>
> That is, it goes to:
>
> http://evm2003.sourceforge.net/architecture.html
>
This looks like an excellent start.

A few comments:

> [[7]] Despite what Alan proposed in the referenced post, I believe that
> non-selected items SHOULD NOT be modified at all after a voter
> selection is made in a race.
>
I guess that's okay, so long as it is very very obvious who/what has been
selected and who/what has not been selected.

I wouldn't rule out dimming non selected items after a selection is made,
however. Psychologically, it's important for the voter to feel like they are
getting through the ballot. The real answer to this will only be achieved in a
full scientific usability study. U of Maryland currently is starting an NSF
funded usability study and we might run it by them (I have been in contact with
Ben Bederson and Paul S. Herrnson there).

For the demo, we can't do much of a detailed usability study but use our best
judgement while utilizing information from reliable people that have studied
the issues.

> [[8]] In fact, contrary to Alan's referenced post, any web version of a
> voting system CANNOT be identical to the polling place version.
> Not all users will have a screen that displays exactly 1280x1024.
> Moreover, .....
>
Right. It can't be exactly the same. I should have said, "as much like the
standalone system as we can make it."

A more general comment. This is based on my experience, which is clearly
different for yours and that of other developers on this project. I noticed that
you are more-or-less skipping what I consider a "specification." It seems to
me that this "architecture" document is really what I would consider the
specification. The requirements document is usually high-level not very
technical. The spec gets into the details. I don't really understand the difference
between specification document and architecture document -- for now I'll assume
they're really the same and we won't do what I think of as a specification.
All of this will go into the architecture document. In other words, a lot of
the dialog I have been engaged in after the "What the Demo Will Demonstrate"
document (a subset of the requirements document) has been leading up to and
flushing out details for the specification. For example, the dialog about
barcodes is leading to a detailed description of how that is supposed to work. I
was thinking that this would go in what I call the specification but now it look
like that will go in the architecture document.

Is that what you think too?

Alan D.
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Sep 30 23:17:03 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 23:17:09 CDT