On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 12:31:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> >> redundant information eases parsing of potentially MTA mangled > >> >> ballots > >> > >> > It eases the parsing of occasional corner cases with some voters, > >> > yes, but if forces *all* voters to read something that is > >> > inherently confusing. > >> > >> [ ] Choice 1: Foooo [ ] Choice 2: Baar > >> > >> Is inherently confusing? To whom? Are you personally confused? or > >> are you speculating? > > > That is inherently confusing because you also have to use the > > numbers 1 and 2 for the rankings. Using the same set of options for > > two different things, where you could use two distinct sets of > > options for each different thing, is what is inherently confusing. > > Actually, I used numbers for lots more things. I used numbers > to count money to pay for my coffee this morning. One dollar, Two > dollars. I, however, failed to get confused with the rankings for my > vote with the money I counted out.
Well, let me provide a more accurate analogy - if you pay several bills with that money, the bills don't have numbers assigned to them that you have to know about, they simply have the names of the recipients. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]