[nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development

Thu May 23 13:10:08 UTC 2013

Good morning Everyone,

I gave this issue a great deal of thought before deciding to file a complaint. I have talked with other blind employees who have issues with our online training. I really hate to say this, but if I were in private industry instead of working for the USDA, I think I would be gone. If any of you have not read the first article in the May Monitor please read it. Gary really did a fantastic job of describing Section 508. The government must be the driving force in this matter. It is supposed to be a model employer. In the "old" days my extra benefit to the group was being able to just say how long a file was kept and where it went to next. I had those job charts memorized. Now I have a hard time saying I bring anything extra to the table. The last thing I discovered was my inability to use our project tracking software. If we step back from this issue all will be lost. None of us can afford that to happen. What I am doing will help our future blind generations. Actually all the supervision, my boss and up the food chain, support my effort. They feel if we are expected to code accessible software everyone else should be held to the same standard.

Susie Stanzel

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve Jacobson
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 4:04 PM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development

I've been sitting back reading this discussion for some time because it is a very important discussion to have.  As I said in another note, accessibility is in a difficult place just now and we need to do some careful and frank thinking about the problems we face.  There is probably adequate reason in this note for both of you, John and Jim, to get mad at me, thereby keeping you from one another's throats, but that's okay.  <smile>  I might even be able to get Mike freeman on my case as well.  We'll see.

First, is accessibility all that important.  In the past when printed material was not accessible we hired a reader.  I think Mike Freeman has occasionally made the point with which I agree that we shouldn't let something that is important but not accessible stop us.  I'm thinking in particular of people who drop programming classes because a third of the class involved learning an inaccessible environment.  We can't forget that we need to use the tools that we have always used to get things done.  However, with the ways technology has become so integrated into our lives, I don't think that depending upon a reader as a substitute to making things accessible is a viable long-term path.  Let me give you a non-software example.  My employer just installed an elevator system where you call the elevator from a touchpad and you specify your floor when you call the elevator.  The elevators no longer have functioning buttons insice the elevator, except I assume the alarm probably still functions.  <smile>  Before elevators had braille or raised letters, or even floor beeps, I figured out ways of using them.  I saw making elevators accessible as a nice thing, perhaps, but not a necessity, not like wheelchair ramps or bathroom stalls that were wide enough for wheelchairs.  I could work around an unlabeled elevator, or even label them myself if I needed to.  The only alternative that I can see with this new system without some kind of accessibility built in is using the steps.  Certainly if someone else is waiting with me on the same floor I could ask them to enter my floor, and I am willing to do that, but if I am waiting on a floor alone, there just are really no options that I am aware of.  Fortunately, the system that was installed here has a means of activating a voice and a means of entering my floor is possible.  It is somewhat clunky, and if someone else is there it is still faster to have them touch the floor on the touchpad, but at least I am not stranded.  The accessibility of such elevator systems is much closer to being analogous to steps and wheelchairs than anything I've seen before.  This is an example of the kind of change I am seeing in how technology has been integrated in a way that impacts us.  Not all technology is quite so black and white where accessibility is concerned, but I think it is safe to say that the role of technology has changed.

On the job, for example, I used to be able to get some help from the department secretary with paperwork, and I could honestly point out that I saved the secretary work in other areas because I did my own typing.  Well, there are really no secretaries any more, and most paperwork has been moved on-line.  Some of it is even accessible, but not all of it.  I used to take classes at work with an instructor.  Materials were generally not accessible, but I could work with another student and get what I needed.  Most exercises that were done in these classes were group exercises and I felt I could pull my weight pretty well, sometimes even functioning as the group leader.  Live instructors are almost non-existent where I work now and all classes are now on-line.  Some of these classes are sort of accessible and some are not.  I have sometimes used readers to complete these and I can get by with that to some degree, but since it is now cheaper and easier to pump out on-line classes, and for regulatory reasons, we're having to take more of them than we had to when there were instructors.
Still, it isn't unmanageable, but it illustrates a trend.  In short, if we're going to remain in the mainstream of society, I think we need to get as much access as we can to technology, realizing there are trade-offs and that we have to prioritize what we request to some degree.

I must say that I disagree with Jim's earlier categorical assertion that holding up innovation hurts society.  Jim, if that is an inaccurate portrayal of what you said, please let me know.  First, many of the problems all people are having with computers, particularly in the Windows environment, as well as some of the features we enjoy, are do to unbridled innovation.  It's a mixed bag, not all beneficial.  Beyond that, though, I don't think what we need would have to hold back all innovation.  To say that accessibility holds back innovation across the board is really exaggerating the effect.  Having made the above statement, I also believe that what I think probably matters very little.  The fact is that if it is perceived that we are holding back innovation to any great degree, our needs likely will be ignored, at least where laws don't apply.  I do not share the feeling that some have that we will get laws that can really force accessibility into the private sector as we might like.  We might have a chance if we could define accessibility in a way that was truly stable and measurable, but I don't think we can right now.  That's another of Mike Freeman's points with which I agree, and I think Jim has illuded to that as well.  The target is moving all the time, and we don't really have a good handle on what is accessible and what is useable, either.  I fear that tying accessibility to usability will create a huge barrier for accessible software.
There are websites that are confusing for those who are sighted, too, so there is no reason to assume that we can't have sites that might be accessible but difficult to use for other reasons.  The same can be said of software for that matter..  .  The problem is that what may be perfectly good visually may be difficult to use nonvisually even though all information on the page is accessible.  Our screen readers help us sort through information, but I don't think any screen reader has a search that simply finds links that stand out visually.  Sometimes that which makes a web site very hard to use is overcome by a new feature in the next version of the screen reader.  This is particularly embarrassing when one makes a big fuss and causes a company to spend time and money on changes that a few months later are no longer a problem.  An old example was how we used to say that frames on web pages were not accessible and companies even created non-frame versions of pages.  However, changes in browsers and screen readers soon actually took advantage of frames for navigation.  How do we know when we should be placing blame on screen readers for not implementing a feature rather than asking a web designer to avoid a particular approach?  Screen reader developers are not about to tell us what they may soon overcome because they don't want to tip their hand to their compettitors.  If one talks about accessibility particularly of websites with persons involved in creating them, you will find that sometimes solutions work with one screen reader but not another, one browser and not another, even one version of a screen reader but not a later version.  In the long run, this cannot work.

How can screen readers find the resources to develop innovative solutions that might save other developers time when they are constantly dealing with new versions of Windows that change radically, new versions of the Office suite, new versions of Internet Explorer, and the seemingly weekly new versions of FireFox to name just a few?  Do we try to direct more funding into screen reader development somehow?

The apple model offers a lot of advantages, and Apple needs to be recognized for the work they have done.  The same is true, if to a lesser degree, of the NVAccess project that has resulted in NVDA.  I would not want to retreat to a point before these two entities were on the scene.  Still, both depend upon developers to play by the rules more than has been the case in the past under Windows.  It should be noted that current and future Windows apps will probably have to play by the rules to be accessible, too, with there being less ability to work around inaccessible areas.  However, my job requires that I use a couple of pieces of software that both Window-Eyes and JFW handle pretty well, but which NVDA does not handle.  To my knowledge, there is still no way to interact directly with a spreadsheet in the Apple world even though there are work-arounds.  How do we preserve our ability to be able to use what we need to on the job to keep our jobs?

We need to continue to challenge the lack of accessibility where laws apply, and where we can broaden laws we should.  However, I think that we really need to look at the current model of accessibility and try to figure out how it can be improved.  There has to be better ways for JAVA and other cross-platform languages to be accessible if we're going to get more accessibility there.  We need to understand better what the practical limits of screen reading technology really is.  Can realtime OCR and screen analysis do more to overcome accessibility barriers than is done today?  Are those who create the tools that are used to develop software and websites doing as much as they can to make accessibility easy and the default setting when possible?  What degree of the lack of accessibility do we need to consider accepting simply because we are a fairly small population?  How do we make certain that our need to keep jobs is at least as important as our ability to buy the latest releases from iTunes or Amazon?  While ethics certainly are important, there needs to be a way to make the ethical path easier to follow than it is now.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Tue, 21 May 2013 09:50:03 -0500, John G. Heim wrote:

>Jim, you're just repeating your point of view over and over without
>even acknowledging  the argument I've already made against it.  It's
>like you're saying two plus two equals four, I am pointing out that
>four isn't really a very big number, and you respond by repeating  that
>two plus two equals four. You can dispute that four isn't a very big
>number but please don't just keep saying that two plus two equals four.
>Nobody is saying that accessibility isn't costly. It's not as hard as
>you are making it out to be but that's not really the point.

>Making electronic accessibility a normal part of our infrastructure is
>an effort equivalent to making wheelchair accessibility part of our
>physical infrastructure.  You can quibble about the details but those
>two things are in the same ballpark. Yes, one takes more technical
>skills but that's irrelevant because this is about cost. The only way
>that point could have anything to do with this argument is if you were
>claiming that Amazon couldn't possibly be expected to find the
>technical expertise needed to build a screen reader and I've already
>addressed that point too. The main problem with accessibility is not
>lack of technical skills. It's mainly because almost no effort has been
>made by our society to make electronic accessibility an integral part
>of our electronic infrastructure. The fact is that we're just not trying.

>Maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events... Obviously, the
>ADA forced a dramatic change in our society but it applied only to
>brick an mortar businesses. Over the past 15 years or so, a debate has
>grown up as to whether it should apply to non-physical businesses,
>specifically those that exist primarily on the internet. To me, it
>seems like a no-brainer. Legal issues aside, if the ADA is a good
>thing, and few people would dispute that at this point, then it would
>be good to apply it to electronic businesses as well. I am not a lawyer
>and I don't know if the ADA can just be said to apply to e-business.
>Maybe a judge can just declare that and therefore it would be true. I don't know.
>That's not my point. My point is that if the ADA was so good for brick
>& mortar, how could it not also be a good thing for e-business?

>Every brick & mortar business in this country  is subject to ADA
>restrictions on physical accessibility of their storefront. Porn shops
>have to have wheelchair ramps. Our society has decided that it's worth
>it for even porn shop owners to have to spend their own money making it
>possible for customers in wheelchairs to get into their business. Yet,
>here we are debating whether it's fair to ask a huge business like
>Amazon to put a  screen reader on their e-reader so blind college
>students can use it? There is absolutely a disconnect there. I don't
>know how any blind person can be okay with that.

>On 05/20/13 17:28, Jim Barbour wrote:
>> Hey John,
>>
>> You say that I'm making out screen reader usability out to be harder
>> than facilities based (wheelchair) accessibility.  You say that in
>> both cases all that is require is effort.
>>
>> I believe the skill level and attention to detail required of the
>> applications architect building accessible screen applications is
>> significantly greater than that of the facilities architect who is
>> designing accessible buildings.
>>
>> Your pointing out Amazon as an example is interesting, since that
>> work is now done.  I'll point out that the effort amazon put into
>> making the kindle voice over aware was effort that could have gone
>> into adding other features that would have benefitted a larger
>> audience.  Mike's original question of ethics comes starkly into view
>> here.  Do we have the right to demand that Amazon build voiceover
>> awareness into the kindle app, for free no less, costing others
>> whatever features could have been done instead.
>>
>> In this case, I say that this was very ethical because the kindle is
>> being sold to public institutions which means those institutions
>> buying the kindle were in violation of section 508.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:46:11PM -0500, John G. Heim wrote:
>>> First of all, you are disputing a point I never made. I never said
>>> that accessibility is easy. To some degree, it's immaterial
to my point because it's a matter of doing as much as we can within reason. After all, it wasn't easy to make our physical infrastructure wheelchair accessible.
>>>
>>> But besides that, accessibility  is not as hard as you make it out
>>> to be. It's really not that different from wheelchair
accessibility in that absolute perfection is difficult if not impossible. But the problem itself can essentially be eliminated with some effort. If our society put the same amount of attention and effort into electronic accessibility for screen readers as it put into physical accessibility for wheelchairs, the problem could be essentially solved.
>>>
>>> Probably the best example of this was the NFB's lawsuit against the
>>> universities that were going to give all their students
the Kindle book reader even though it wasn't accessible. Asking Amazon to put a workable screen reader on it's device was not asking for the moon. Apple's IOS devices all come with a screen reader and there are several screen readers developed completely by volunteers in their spare time. If they can do it, Amazon, with it's vast resources could have done the same. If you compare what we were asking from Amazon to the huge amount of resources put into making our physical infrastructure wheelchair accessible, there's no contest. We weren't asking for anything tougher for Amazon than we had asked of the thousands upon thousands of businesses that had built or remodeled a brick and mortar structure over the past couple of decades since the ADA was passed.
>>>
>>> PS: I don't understand how the distinction I'm making between legal
>>> and ethical issues can cause so much confusion. The point
I'm making isn't about the specifics of accessibility laws but about whether such laws should exist at all. Some people seem to think it's wrong to legislate accessibility. That's an ethical issue, not a legal one.
>>>
>>> The NFB's Kindle lawsuit is again a good example. It should be
>>> fairly obvious to anyone that you could criticize the NFB's
actions on either legal or on ethical grounds. Regardless of the legal merits of the case, was it ethical and/or fair for the NFB to keep all those students from getting Kindles just because they were inaccessible to a few? My answer, of course, is absolutely yes. My opinion is that it would have been unethical for the NFB to not file suit. I'd say it was unethical for the universities to be willing to leave blind students out like that.
>>>
>>> Actually, the only reasonable way to criticize my argument is to say
>>> that the huge amount of resources we put into making our
country wheelchair accessible wasn't worth it. The benefit from doing that wasn't worth the cost.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 30, 2008, at 10:13 AM, pblackmer27 at gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -original message-
>>>> Subject: [nfbcs] Ethics of screen reader friendly development
>>>> From: Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com>
>>>> Date: 05/13/2013 10:15 AM
>>>>
>>>> John, I'm afraid you've managed to muddle this conversation
>>>> considerably by blurring the lines between ethical and legal.
>>>>
>>>> Of course our society prefers that people be nice to each other and
>>>> help out when possible.  However, our legal system doesn't require
>>>> it because there are times when help is unwanted, or too much of a
>>>> burden for the helper.
>>>>
>>>> As for the ethics of accessibility, it really is hard to pin down.
>>>> One reason it's so hard is that accessibility for blind folks
>>>> doesn't have good requirements.  We talk a lot about something
>>>> being usable by the blind, but what a blind person can use will
>>>> depend largely on the blind person.
>>>>
>>>> There are guidelines, WCAG and others, but nothing a software
>>>> engineer can mark off pn a checklist.  In order to get real
>>>> accessibility, a software developer must be aware of all the
>>>> technology that blind people use, code for those technologies,
>>>> stage a user group of blind folks for testing, and then document
>>>> and support the accessible version of the software.
>>>>
>>>> Imagine if we had the same lack of requirements for other types of
>>>> accessibility such as closed captioning or wheelchair ramps.  My
>>>> guess is we'd have much less of those types of accessibility as well.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, to Mike's point, whether we like to admit it or not we are
>>>> holding back new innovations in order to make or keep products
>>>> accessible for us.  My favorite example of this today is IOS and
>>>> voiceover. Newer IOS apps have started using new gestures to access
>>>> functions. However, since voiceover isn't aware of these new
>>>> gestures, how could it be, these apps are not voiceover friendly.
>>>> We can either try and stop app developers from innovatively trying
>>>> new gestures, or we can push the voiceover developers to keep up with new gestures.
>>>> Keeping up though is a loosing proposition because at some point
>>>> two apps will use the same new gesture for totally different purposes.
>>>>
>>>> So, is it more ethical to hold back innovation or to leave out the
>>>> disabled?  My guess is that there's a middle ground to be figured
>>>> out, but that means we also have to recognize that it's a game of
>>>> negotiation we're playing, not a game of "we should have what
>>>> everyone else has."
>>>>
>>>> Take Care,
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:29:08AM -0500, John G. Heim wrote:
>>>>> Mike, you're trying to take both sides of a logical point here.
>>>>> Is this an ethical question or a strictly utilitarian point you're
>>>>> making?  In other words, are you asking what's ethical or what
>>>>> works? Either way, it isn't as simple as you seem to think.
>>>>>
>>>>> No reasonable person would say it's unethical for a society to
>>>>> demand that it's members go out of their way to help others. Some
>>>>> people seem to think that it's wrong to force people to be nice.
>>>>> But a society just can't operate otherwise. You can't really have
>>>>> a society where it's every man for himself and if you can't cut
>>>>> it, well, too bad, you'll just have to die. You don't get a
>>>>> stronger society that way, you get chaos. And it's neither ethical or practical.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the  question really should be will accessibility work? Will
>>>>> this be a stronger, better society if accessibility laws are
>>>>> passed and enforced? My opinion is that it's an easy yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's fairly obvious that curb cuts and accessible bathrooms have
>>>>> been an unqualified success. Besides bringing people in
>>>>> wheellchairs into the mainstream, it has completely changed the
>>>>> way people in wheelchairs are viewed by society. It's no longer a  strange thing  to see a person in a
>>>>> wheelchair on a bus or in an elevator.  That access   has  completely
>>>>> changed the way our society sees people in wheelchairs. If you are
>>>>> in a wheelchair, you're still expected to get out there and get a
>>>>> job, just like everyone else. It would be absurd these days for
>>>>> someone who has all their faculties except use of their legs to say they can't possibly get a job.
>>>>> Everyone would assume their problem is more in their head than in
>>>>> their legs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those of us on this list may or may not consider it reasonable for
>>>>> a blind person to say they can't get a job because they are blind.
>>>>> But if you think the rest of the population  sees it that way you are very much mistaken.
>>>>> Heck, many people think it's reasonable to kill yourself if you're blind.
>>>>> nd. It's no longer blind people who need to be told that blindness
>>>>> can be a mere nuisance, it's the general public. We need a
>>>>> cultural shift like the one we've seen occur with people in wheelchairs over the past few decades.
>>>>> The way to make that shift happen is for accessibility for the
>>>>> blind to become as much a part of our way of life as it is for people in wheelchairs.
>>>>> Sure, there will be a lot of grumbling but in the long run, we'll
>>>>> all be better off for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ask me if it's ethical for us to ask for laws that require
>>>>> accessibility, my answer is that it's unethical for us not to.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/12/13 17:22, Mike Freeman wrote:
>>>>>> Actually, there's an unspoken aspect to all this that most of us
>>>>>> do not even dare to admit to ourselves: that is, while we want
>>>>>> "equal access" -- whatever that is -- and believe that "the law"
>>>>>> should be enough to guarantee it, what gives us, a small
>>>>>> minority, the right to dictate to the majority (most workers)
>>>>>> what software they can use? It puts us in an awkward position
>>>>>> when great emphasis is placed these days upon "team play" etc. to
>>>>>> say that most of the team can't use certain software because we
>>>>>> can't access it. Of course this begs the larger question as to
>>>>>> whether such inaccessible software should exist or not. But
>>>>>> trying to mandate accessibility in an absolute sense amounts to
>>>>>> fixing what software development techniques and tools can and
>>>>>> cannot be used -- an effort that is, in the long run, doomed to
>>>>>> fail; one cannot stop innovation and by its very definition, screen-reader manufacturers cannot adjust to innovations they don't know about or that haven't been developed yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight for access as the
>>>>>> present lawsuit does; we have no choice if we don't want to be
>>>>>> returned to the rocking-chair. But until someone develops Mr.
>>>>>> Data of STNG, we are going to be faced with that unspoken dilemma
>>>>>> of which I write and it's not an easy thing to figure out how to get around it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike Freeman
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tami
>>>>>> Jarvis
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2013 9:13 AM
>>>>>> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] project tracking software
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tracy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, and I keep hearing these sorts of stories, where the laws
>>>>>> are just flat out not followed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'm really interested in how the lawsuit Mike F. mentioned in
>>>>>> an earlier post will come out after the long slog... It's
>>>>>> depressing in a way, though I guess not all that surprising, that
>>>>>> it's going to take at least as much hard work and effort to get
>>>>>> teeth put in those laws as it was to get the laws in the first
>>>>>> place... Sigh. Then again, I remember when those laws were being
>>>>>> developed and then finally passed back in the day. Since I knew I would be blind sooner or later, I paid attention.
>>>>>> But, of course, I was not officially a disabled person then, so I
>>>>>> got to hear the abled folks talk about the horrible imposition in
>>>>>> the free way bigots talk when they assume you are one of Them...
>>>>>> From what I recall of what of that was on my limited radar at the
>>>>>> time, the reason the laws ended up toothless was that that was
>>>>>> the only way they could be passed in the first place. Of course,
>>>>>> I know a lot of you here had real skin in that game, so thanks! I've benefitted from your hard work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But more remains now, for sure, to get penalties for violators.
>>>>>> It's just unfortunate that it takes people who would rather be
>>>>>> working for a living to have to take time out of their lives for lawsuits instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tami
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/11/2013 05:48 AM, Tracy Carcione wrote:
>>>>>>> I know this is a ridiculous thing to say, but there is a law
>>>>>>> requiring the government to only purchase accessible software,
>>>>>>> right?  Yet they're using JIRA, which Susie says is
>>>>>>> inaccessible.  Thus, they're breaking the law.  I just thought it had to be said.
>>>>>>> Tracy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stanzel, Susan - FSA, Kansas
>>>>>>> City, MO" <Susan.Stanzel at kcc.usda.gov>
>>>>>>> To: "NFB in Computer Science Mailing List" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:57 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] project tracking software
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The project lead sometimes has to use HP Quallity Center
>>>>>>>> because the Testing and Certification Office is part of our
>>>>>>>> team. We submit our software to them for their review before it
>>>>>>>> goes to production. It would be handy if I could use it, but more handy if I could use JIRA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Susie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
>>>>>>>> Steve Jacobson
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 2:24 PM
>>>>>>>> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] project tracking software
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Susie,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is interesting that the government is using HP Quality
>>>>>>>> Center.  I had trouble using it but it turned out I didn't have
>>>>>>>> to so I did not pursue it.  However, I thought it was more for
>>>>>>>> developing and executing test cases, although maybe that is just one use.
>>>>>>>> Whether it helps or not, if I have to use it, knowing it is
>>>>>>>> used by the government could give me more of a lever to get
>>>>>>>> them to fix those things that don't appear to be accessible.
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I think some of the problem I have seen with
>>>>>>>> HPQC may have to do with screen readers not keeping up as well as they might with modern web approaches.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steve Jacobson
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 13:59:16 +0000, Stanzel, Susan - FSA,
>>>>>>>> Kansas City, MO wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good moring Everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are two different project and bug tracking programs used at USDA.
>>>>>>>>> They are JIRA which appears not to be accessible and HP
>>>>>>>> Quallity Center which I am not forced to use. Do any of you
>>>>>>>> successfully use project tracking software? I wish all I had to
>>>>>>>> do in my job was code (grin).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Susie Stanzel
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This electronic message contains information generated by the
>>>>>>>>> USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized
>>>>>>>> interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the
>>>>>>>> information it contains may violate the law and subject the
>>>>>>>> violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you
>>>>>>>> have received this message in error, please notify the sender
>>>>>>>> and delete the email immediately.
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
>>>>>>>>> info for
>>>>>>>>> nfbcs:
>>>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/steve.jacob
>>>>>>>>> son%40vis
>>>>>>>>> i.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
>>>>>>>> info for
>>>>>>>> nfbcs:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/susan.stanzel%40kcc.usda.
>>>>>> gov
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
>>>>>>>> info for
>>>>>>>> nfbcs:
>>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/carcione%40a
>>>>>>>> ccess.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
>>>>>>> info for
>>>>>>> nfbcs:
>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/tami%40poodle
>>>>>>> mutt.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.
>>>>>> com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.w
>>>>>> isc.edu
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ---
>>>>> John G. Heim, 608-263-4189, jheim at math.wisc.edu
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.
>>>>> com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/pblackmer27%40gm
>>>> ail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wis
>>>> c.edu
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.co
>>> m
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbcs mailing list
>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wisc.
>> edu
>>

>--
>---
>John G. Heim, 608-263-4189, jheim at math.wisc.edu

>_______________________________________________
>nfbcs mailing list
>nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40vis
>i.com

_______________________________________________
nfbcs mailing list
nfbcs at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/susan.stanzel%40kcc.usda.gov

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.