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

# RE: Gems - Positioning of Oval

- To: "Rcr List (E-mail)" <rcr@dieboldes.com>
- Subject: RE: Gems - Positioning of Oval
- From: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 12:18:56 -0600
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <01BF51EE.44F1B220@sdn-ar-002neomahP273.dialsprint.net>

    > They
    > would like
    > to be able to position the oval below & centered of the Party Symbol
    > bitmap, not at the top left or right of the Party Symbol.

    Okay, I have talked to a couple of people about this one.  The issue here is
    that the candidate text above and below the oval doesn't really fit into our
    justification model very cleanly.

    The fact of the matter, however, is that Puerto Rico is 2000 units, so if
    they wanted the ovals in gold-leaf we would likely find a way to give it to
    them.

    I ask that some effort be put into convincing PR that a consistent
    justification of ovals by party is the Right Thing(tm).  My understanding is
    that for the upcoming demo at least, this will be the case.  If it becomes a
    deal maker/breaker due to statutory interpretation or whatever (I hope not),
    follow up and we'll see what we can do.

    > They
    > also would
    > like to be able to position the oval at center right or left of the
    > candidate bitmap.

    You mean centered vertically right?  There are a couple of things we can do
    here.

    First, it might be nice for multiple-spaced candidate races to vertically
    justify the oval to top, bottom, or center, snapped to the quarter inch.
    Not a bad feature.  Should it be race specific or global?

    Second, there is a "shift down" quantity by 1/72" under Ballot
    Options->Oval/Box.  It shifts all the race/header boxes down by a given
    quantity, while leaving the oval positions intact.  To get the centered
    effect, we could allow negative shifts, shifting the boxes up instead.  This
    will be a bit tricky to implement, but also doesn't sound like a bad idea.

    Ken

- Follow-Ups:
  - RE: Gems - Positioning of Oval
    - From: "Ken Clark" <ken@dieboldes.com>

- Prev by Date: RE: removal of write-in line (draw options)
- Next by Date: Undervotes to include blank votes (RE: State of Illinois )
- Index(es):
  - Chronological
  - Thread