|
Sue, Congratulations on a successful election. Please review the comments made by Nel,
and also have a look at the latest GEMS and Ballot Station. Then for each topic, open up a feature
enhancement request (RCR) on bugzilla (one topic per
request). In the RCR, describe how
the system currently works, and then describe how you would like it to
work. Do a quick search using the bug
query page to see if your request has already been made. This is general process, and not specific
to your topics below. It is true that one customer’s request might not
substantiate the upgrade, but in many cases, something that works for one
county will be helpful in many others.
We welcome all feature
requests. It costs you nothing to
ask, and the worse that can happen is that your request will be marked as WONTFIX. Even if the request is rejected, we’ll
explain why, and that will answer the question for the next person to ask. The point is to get the requests on
record. We get around to most
requests eventually, sometimes sooner than you’d think. On the other hand, not submitting the
request is the only sure way to see it never gets assigned to anyone. Finally, like Steve, I don’t follow issue 1.c. If you could describe this further
on the support list, rather than just talking to Steve on the phone, that would
be helpful. Maybe also send me a
copy of your database and point out where in GEMS you were making all these
changes. -----Original Message----- Steve et al: I think that we need to consider the process of adopting product improvements. One
customer's request for an upgrade may not substantiate the upgrade. We need to
analyze the request, define the cost/benefit, and determine if the upgrade will improve our product overall. I've found that we have great discussion via e-mail. My hope is that those wise souls in product development will consider our suggestions,
appreciate the feedback in our discussions, and perform the appropriate analysis. Call me on item 3, if you want more info. Sue -----Original Message----- From: owner-support@dieboldes.com
[mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On Behalf Of Steve Knecht Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1:44 PM To: support@dieboldes.com Subject: RE: Feedback from Maryland Sue, Sounds like a great election and you've come away with many good ideas
for improving the product. My
only concern if you are wanting discussion from this email or you are turning in RCR's for these items also. Some discussion: 1. A single source or location for Party display would be
beneficial. I don't think it's necessary to display party on instruction page, but
summary page is a good idea I think, although display should come from a single source field. 2. I would not be a proponent for eliminating the instruction page
myself. I would like to see a section of Ballot Station memory that held instructions seperate from the election memory, so that the
instructions could be loaded, edited, changed seperate from the election data
however. 3. I don't understand the following: "c. The Party designation has to be changed in every district between the Primary and the General, leaving
many opportunities for failure.
Why not have one option that changes them all automatically?" Could you elaborate? 4. Write-ins: sounds like a good RCR. 5. Election Summary Report by Pct: Is there some reason they couldn't
use the SOVC if they wanted an all pcts report? On the other hand, I've encountered this situation also, where we either have "all"
or "one" options. We do need a way
to print a range of pcts if people want the Summary Report Format. I
think this would be a good RCR. -----Original Message----- From: owner-support@dieboldes.com [mailto:owner-support@dieboldes.com]On Behalf Of Sue Page Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 2:13 PM To: Support Subject: Feedback from Maryland Maryland had a terrific election on November 5. 5100 units were implemented in 500 precincts across 4 Counties. Voter turnout was moderately heavy. The R6 units were enthusiastically received by the voters. Montgomery County resolved all of their process issues that caused
delayed openings and closings in the Primary. They were 90% reporting by 10:00, and completed the election at 11:40 (missing only 4 PC Cards). In fact, the 10:00 news showed the "Diebold" Counties as 60% of the early
results, with those Counties consisting of only 40% of the voters. We're working on a detailed report, which will be shared in the
future. For now, however, I wanted to capture the following
issues/comments/suggestions: 1. Party Designation on the
Instructions and Summary Pages One small issue kept the election from being "perfect" in
Maryland. There was one legislative district that retained the party designation from
the Primary, rather than being changed to Non Partisan. Unfortunately, there is no opportunity to catch this in the proofing process, unless you do a
manual L&A (which is nearly impossible on 2600 units). The "Test Count" does not display the Instruction page.
Is this a change that could be made on the front end? a. Why is the Party
designation on the Instruction page and the Summary page? It is in the header
of the ballot. b. Why not eliminate the
Instructions Page all together?
Post printed instructions in the booth.
(This would simplify many issues, such as changing TS Text, and hard coded info on this page.) c. The Party designation
has to be changed in every district between the Primary and the General, leaving many opportunities for failure. Why not have one option that changes them all automatically? 2. Write-Ins the registered candidates - - by precinct. Because this must be done on EACH PC CARD that includes a write-in vote for a registered candidate,
this involved 4000 data entry edits.
2000 edits to remove the "other" votes, and 2000 entries to move the votes to the registered candidate. Is there a better way? 3. Election Summary Report
by Precinct way to print the Election Summary report with all precincts, sorted by precinct. Summary Report 227 times, each time selecting a different
precinct. They printed these reports after the election, after the canvas, and after
the overseas ballots - altogether initiating 681 separate reports (and the
same for the html file, which they posted to their web site). Perhaps this has already been improved in something beyond GEMS 1.17.17
- but if not . . . Sue Page Maryland Project Manager Diebold Election Systems, Inc. suep@dieboldes.com 410-286-2834 cell 443-404-9621 https://www.mdvotes.org/ |