Ed,
I am much more keen on combinations of sip/puff, voice, and touch screen than the non-electronic tactile methods. I think they are a good choice when you need a short term solution for one or two elections until something better is available. Longer term, many people lacking either sight or hearing may not be able to use anything else; then, this is a good choice. Otherwise, if physical motion is possible, the 3-way combo of sip/puff, voice, and/or touch screen seems like a better goal. Right now, we have a design (not yet implemented) for a ballot writer with all three forms of access for less than $1,500 and which can seamlessly integrate with ordinary precinct scanners.
Cheers!
-- Dick
"Edmund R. Kennedy" <ekennedyx@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hello:
Read and be prepared to respond.
Here's a good source for information on tactile ballots which are a good counter argument.
-- Thanks, Ed Kennedy 10777 Bendigo Cove San Diego, CA 92126-2510 858-578-8842 Work for the common good. My profile: I blog now and then at: _______________________________________________ OVC-discuss mailing list OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Tue Oct 31 23:17:09 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 23:17:10 CST