[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

# RE: Accu-Vote Releases 1.94v and 1.94f@

- To: <support@gesn.com>
- Subject: RE: Accu-Vote Releases 1.94v and 1.94f@
- From: "Ken Clark" <ken@gesn.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:37:44 -0600
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <36D70EC6.1829581C@gesn.com>

> If you have any strong opinion that we haven't heard yet, please voice on this support@ list. Should we go with a truncated race title or drop this feature outright? For anyone dealing with this as a required feature, what exactly is required? Is ambiguity in the title acceptable?

I don't think it makes sense to drop the feature outright. The only reason that this has come into question is the 1.94v reject behavior.

I believe that ambiguity in the title is acceptable using the obvious logic: no matter how ambiguous it is, it will give us more information than we currently provide, which is just the race number. No matter what solution we choose, we can never be worse off than the old display, as long as other behaviors (such as rejecting immediately) are not changed. People who don't like this feature can simply ignore it. It won't effect poll workers SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) one iota, which is to look up the race number. It will still be there.

I think it would be a shame to loose this useful feature due to all the confusion.

Ken

- References:
  - Re: Accu-Vote Releases 1.94v and 1.94f@
    - From: Guy Lancaster <glanca@gesn.com>

- Prev by Date: Re: Firware for Minnesota accounts
- Next by Date: Minnesota firmware
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread