Re: Stuff from the spring workshop planning (accessibility)
Hello, all - I just caught up on my weekend email and had some
thoughts to offer on the subject. I sent this email out earlier this
morning, but it didn't make it too far, so here's a re-try. As for
computer-based vote casting, I know a couple of computerphobics who would
not vote if they were forced to use a computer - probably a tiny minority,
but would they be considered "disabled"? Not trying to throw a monkey
wrench into the discussion, just a "what if" question. Now to my original
email:
Is there a requirement that casting votes must be computer-based? If
not, then other methods can be provided for those with special needs. It
appears to me from reading the emails, that there is some disagreement or
confusion over requirements (what needs to be done) and specifications (how
it will be done). One of the points of contention I see is that we are
trying to turn specifications into requirements.
I believe that we must first identify the requirements: the system
shall provide data integrity; the system shall provide an audit trail for
all actions; the system shall be accessible to all individuals who chose to
vote, regardless of their disability...etc. The requirements would apply to
the voting system universally. Once the requirements have been developed,
then specifications can be derived from them, which can then become the
standards that are published and implemented; specifications might include
individual State criteria, computer-based IO, etc. By specifying that
computers (or any method, for that fact) is a preferred method of casting
and tabulating votes, we are talking about specifications rather than
requirements.
Let me know what you think,
Robert Murphy