[nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues

Tracy Carcione carcione at access.net
Wed Jun 18 11:39:30 UTC 2014 

So Nicole, it's up to us blind employees to make a stink until things get 
accessible? I've been complaining for several years about my company's 
inaccessible training.  I've sent emails about it to everyone I can think of 
who might do something.  I've spoken up in meetings, and discussed it with 
my boss, who's discussed it with the responsible department, in this case, 
the morons in Human Resources.  And my efforts have had zero effect.  That 
only thing I see left to do is file a lawsuit, and, as Gary has elloquently 
pointed out, that can cause serious problems for me, and could lose me my 
job, or make my work relationships very uncomfortable.
So, if you have a way to make a company pay more than lip service to 
accessibility, or a way for the blind employee to find the person who can 
actually make a difference, well, say on.
Tracy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nicole Torcolini via nfbcs" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
To: "'Mike Jolls'" <mrspock56 at hotmail.com>; "'NFB in Computer Science 
Mailing List'" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues


> Kind of coming into this thread a little late, but I still would like to 
> add
> my two cents about both the original article and some of the responses.
>
> I thought that the original article was mostly well written.
> In regards to the Bit 9 problem, I am not sure if this is what
> causes it to be inaccessible, but I know that most other operations that
> take place during/before start up, such as scan disk, are inaccessible
> because there is no operating system yet, which is needed for the screen
> reader to function. So this is not something that the screen reader
> manufacturers could easily fix on their own.
> On a slightly different note, the Bit 9 problem also points out the
> fact that security and accessibility often seem to be at odds with each
> other, although they don't have to be. For some reason, people tend to
> gravitate toward the less accessible forms of security, such as captchas.
> Java is supposed to make applications portable on more than one
> operating system, but, JMHO, if it requires something like Java Access
> Bridge in order to be accessible, that does not count. If the SWT library 
> is
> used, JAB is not necessary, but the SWT library is not distributed with 
> the
> Java installation, and it has certain problems that make it undesirable 
> for
> certain uses. Going back to the JAB itself, one of the reasons that I 
> don't
> consider having to use it as being valid accessibility is that it can be
> hard to use. Yes, it comes with Java now, but the planets have to be
> perfectly aligned for it to work right. If I remember correctly, the path
> variable has to be set correctly. If you for some reason need to have a 32
> bit version of Java on a 64 bit machine, you have to install the 64 bit 
> Java
> as well as the 32 bit Java because the 32 bit Java will not cause the JAB 
> to
> be activated. Finally, it is turned off by default. If it does not have a
> negative effect on anything, then why is it disabled by default?
>
> Perhaps some corporations don't want to make their software
> accessible, but I think that people are over looking one possibility. It 
> is
> possible that a company, for whatever reason, made inaccessible software 
> in
> the past and is currently working on making it accessible; it's just that
> there have not been any noticeable changes yet. Adding in accessibility 
> does
> not happen over night, and it can be very hard to add accessibility to an
> existing piece of software without breaking it, especially if the core
> functionality of that software is inaccessible by nature.
>
> For several reasons, I think that having the government fund
> accessibility work is a bad idea. Do you really think that the government
> has enough money to do that? There is already a major struggle in some
> states to keep funding for various services for the blind, so I highly 
> doubt
> that the government is about to throw money at this problem, especially
> since there is not a definitive solution. Even if there was such a program
> by the government, it would not work. Companies don't want external people
> working on their code, even if it was under NDA. In addition, most 
> companies
> have way too much code for someone from the outside to come in and learn
> enough to make affective changes. And then how long would this person 
> stay?
> Forever? What testing would this person perform? Often, for testing to be
> useful to a company, it needs to be done using the testing framework of 
> the
> company, so that it can be processed and documented in a meaningful way.
> Perhaps having an API for doing certain things might help, but,
> unless you strictly say, "You can use this API and only this API", it's 
> not
> going to help. You can have an API, but people are always going to want 
> more
> and better and to be free of restrictions, so they will go outside of the
> API and build their own stuff, sometimes completely from scratch, 
> sometimes
> using pieces of the API in the right way, sometimes using pieces of the 
> API
> in the wrong way.
> So how do you make a company make accessible software? To some
> extent, you can use requirements. Saying that inaccessible software can't 
> be
> used in schools seemed to have worked kind of well. Perhaps more laws like
> this, such as inaccessible software cannot be used in the workplace, would
> help. Also, in addition to accessible, software needs to be usable. If I
> spend two hours trying to do something and finally accomplish it, but not
> without pulling half my hair out in frustration, does that still count as
> being accessible?
> Pressure to make software accessible also needs to come from within.
> Major companies need to have blind employees. These employees need to be
> willing to make a stink about it when the internal products and the 
> products
> that are being released are not accessible. Blind employees also need to
> know who to talk to in order to get things changed. Sometimes, finding the
> right person and going up the chain of command can have major effects. I
> have also found that doing demonstrations for sighted peers can be a real
> eye opener (no pun intended). Employees need to push for accessibility to 
> be
> included in the products, and they need to find sighted employees who are
> willing to help them. Companies need to teach their employees about
> accessibility, especially that accessibility has to be built in from the
> ground up. Often things are inaccessible because the accessibility was
> retrofitted. Accessibility needs to be incorporated into product testing.
> Sometimes, this can be automated, but sometimes it has to be done 
> manually,
> which means that someone who actually knows how to work with assistive
> technology needs to do the testing. If this is not possible, then the 
> tester
> needs to be given very specific instructions and guidelines. Companies 
> need
> to have a central resource for accessibility as well as a department that
> works on accessibility, particularly if that company has accessibility
> features in their software, such as self voicing. If possible, each 
> product
> area in a company needs to have a person responsible for working on
> accessibility.
>
> Nicole
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jolls via
> nfbcs
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:48 PM
> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>
> I have to disagree that a standard API would interfere with development. 
> I
> think I would agree that it would have an impact on the timeliness of
> innovation, but I don't think it would have to bring it to a grinding 
> halt.
> Let me cite a case for argument.
>
> Where I work, we have a standard for transmitting EDI (Electronic Data
> Interchange) messages.  All major railroads sat down and analyzed what 
> data
> would be required for all different transactions they wanted to exchange
> with the other roads.  After much discussion the roads agreed and 
> published
> a standard.  They then started writing applications and wrote the code to
> match the standdards for each transaction type.  All data elements within
> each transaction met the standard.  Innovation was NOT hindered.
>
> When a new requirement came up, the major players in the roads had to meet
> to agree on how the changes would affect the standard.  Once the changes
> were agreed upon, they published the updated standard and then everyone 
> went
> back to their respective railroads and started making changes.
>
> This process did add a layer of delay to innovation and deployment, but it
> did not hinder the innovation process completely.  It did add some extra
> time, but that extra time did allow the other roads to consider their
> requirements so when the meeting was held, everyone could voice their
> concerns.  The EDI process has been going on for some years now.  We've 
> even
> expanded to transmitting data information via XML, but the same thing
> happens.  There is a standard for transactions and the railroads all 
> observe
> it.  If a railroad REALLY needs to add new data elements to transactions,
> there is an agreed method to encode the element so it can be transmitted
> without affecting the other roads.
>
> I gave that example to say that when changes are being proposed in say
> Microsoft Land, or Google Land, a convening board could meet.  In addition
> to that board meeting, an accessibility group could be part of that 
> meeting.
> The accessibility group ... made up of leaders from say the NFB, ACB, 
> those
> who have done research and know the requirements for screen readers, etc 
> ...
> could be part of the meeting.  They could voice their concerns and request
> accomodations in the software standard so that these standards could be
> agreed upon and returned to the players that write the accessibility
> software.  Perhaps Microsoft and Google wouldn't want to meet together,
> especially if so doing would reveal new features to the other competitor
> prematurely.  OK, that wouldn'thave to happen.  But regardless of who met,
> the standards could be examined to make sure the proposed software met the
> standard.  And, if it didn't, if the current software standards got in the
> way of accessibility, Google or Microsoft or IBM or whoever would still
> agree to put out a standard that could be published that accessibility
> vendors could program to.  And that could give the accessibility players a
> chance to ensure that a standard was being proposed that could work with
> accessibility software.
>
> The bottom line here is that we are kept in the loop and at the very least
> have time to react rather than a vendor puts out a new technology and we
> have to scramble to keep up.  That puts a blind person in the dark for at
> least as long as it takes the accessibility vendors to get cracking and
> scramble and react to the change.
>
> I really don't see a problem keeping the blind community informed ... once
> the software vendors know what they're going to do and can clue us in to 
> how
> the standard is going to change.  I don't see publishing a standard as
> interfering with them.   But that's my opinion.
>
> Any comments are welcome.
>
> From: k7uij at panix.com
> To: mrspock56 at hotmail.com
> Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:30:30 -0700
>
> Mike: I agree with you. But I don't even think a standard API would work. 
> I
> realize I may be viewed as an extreme pessimist on this one but I suspect
> that a standard API wouldn't fly because what we would, in effect, be 
> saying
> is "You do not have permission to innovate!". Standards inevitably and of
> necessity fix software, to some extent, in a mold. Were this to happen,
> there'd be a great deal of resistance on the part of programmers, 
> developers
> and web designers. The only alternative would be to have some evaluative
> body that *all* web pages and software would have to be submitted to and
> this certainly wouldn't fly, not least because inaccessibility is one of
> those things, like the late Justice Potter Stuart said of pornography: "I
> can't define it but I know it when I see it!" As all too many people have
> heard me say: what we need is Mr. data from STNG. Mike Freeman  From: Mike
> Jolls [mailto:mrspock56 at hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 11:12 AM
> To: Mike Freeman
> Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues Mike
>
> I agree with you.  The cost vs. benefit for a corporation to do these
> changes (strictly from the money viewpoint) doesn't make sense.  I'll bet
> there's probably only a handful of disabled people at our company.  So 
> while
> the company will go purchase Jaws, Magic, extra monitors, etc ... they 
> don't
> see the benefit of making these accessibility changes since it would only
> affect 3 or 4 people out of thousands.  That's why I don't think companies
> are going to spend the money to make all of their software accessible. 
> They
> just don't see the cost justification for changes that only affect a 
> handful
> of people.  And that's why I said have the government fund it, although I
> get the whole thing about "government involvement, oversight, etc.....).
>
> Now on the other hand, if a standards group defined a standard API that
> should be programmed to so that any application programming to that
> specification would guarantee that an application is accessible, maybe 
> that
> would work.  Then the company could do that without doing a lot of extra
> work, and that might fly.  But then how do you enforce it?  Well, that's
> another topic.
>  > From: k7uij at panix.com
>> To: mrspock56 at hotmail.com; nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:27:18 -0700
>>
>>
>> There aren't enough of us to warrant corporations listening to us
>> unless there are substantial legal and financial penalties meted out
>> if they do not.
>>
>> IMO we are truly beginning to experience the real meaning of being a
>> minority which we've maintained since our founding.
>>
>> Mike Freeman
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike Jolls
>> via nfbcs
>> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:41 AM
>> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>
>> I still contend that private corporations would not want to do this.
>> While the corporation I work for does (because of law) provide
>> accomodtions for me .. accessible software for my workstation ... they
>> DO NOT put much effort in making their software accessible.
>> If this was done at the corporate level, there would probably have to
>> be a department whose sole purpose was to develop the components that
>> other developers would use and call that would make the regular
>> systems accessible. But at least with the companyI work for ... they
>> are so focussed on "getting the projects done yesterday" and "making
>> that profit line" that I don't think they'd do it unless there wer
>> incentives or a law that forced the issue, or both. I think the last
>> 36 years that I've worked here speaks to what they want to do .. and
>> nothing has been done to make their systems accessible. They do what
>> they have to as far as purchasing accessible accommodations, but beyond
> that, you're on your own.
>>
>> While I do agree with your philosophy that it would be "another
>> opportunity for government mishandling" ... I'm just not sure I see
>> the private sector doing this ... at least not wide-spread. That's why
>> I said have an entity that is solely focussed on accessibility so that
>> the company doesn't have to incur the cost. I suppose another way to
>> do that would be for the government to give tax incentives to
>> corporations that make their software accessible. Now you have less
>> government involvement, but you're talking money to these corporations. 
>> If
> my theory is right, then they'd listen.
>>
>> Other comments?
>>
>> > From: mbaldwin577 at gmail.com
>> > To: mrspock56 at hotmail.com; nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> > Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>> > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:18:32 -0500
>> >
>> > LOL, another government department. The government can't get much
>> > right now, why would this be any different. It is better to add jobs
>> > to the private sector, not to the government.
>> >
>> > Government involvement would best be done with a simple law that
>> > makes it mandatory for software companies over a certain gross sales
>> > level to make their software accessible. Also have guidelines for
>> > receiving an exemption on certain software. Example, it would not be
>> > necessary to make software that truck drivers use in their truck to
>> > enter log data accessible with screen readers.
>> >
>> > The big issue would be how to define accessible.
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike
>> > Jolls via nfbcs
>> > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 08:28
>> > To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> > Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>> >
>> > Here are some thoughts about how to make accessibility in computer
>> > software a reality
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I believe we have seen, given the track record of most corporations,
>> > the lack of interest of most corporations in providing accessibility
>> > in their products. It all comes down to the dollar. There are some
>> > exceptions such as Apple, but for the most part I think the business
>> > views the investment of money in making their computer software
>> > accessible as counter-productive to their profit margin. Therefore,
>> > they don't do it. And if they do, they do minimal work so that they
>> > can legally say that they have fulfilled the requirement.
>> >
>> >
>> > Since private industry has shown this track record, my thought is
>> > that if we want accessibility in the software we use, such work
>> > needs to be funded through the government.
>> > Perhaps a solution would be to have a government agency whose sole
>> > function is to provide programmers that can work on accessibility
>> > issues. These individuals would work for the government, get paid by
>> > the government, but would be loaned out to major corporations
>> > (Oracle, IBM, etc) to work with the product engineers to make the
>> > products accessible. In this way the corporations would not be
>> > impacted by the cost of doing such development to a large degree.
>> > There would be some impact because the accessibility programmer
>> > would have impact on the design of the product, and the product
>> > engineer would have to make changes according to what the accessibility
> engineer requested.
>> > However, the cost incurred by the corporation would be minimal.
>> > There would of course have to be a standards organization in the
>> > government that would analyze the requirements of such accessibility
>> > programming to define what standards should be in place. Then the
>> > accessibility
>> programmer would use those standards in their programming.
>> > You might also need to have blind and visually impaired testers that
>> > would test the software to make sure it met the standard. Of course,
>> > this function might be automated if the software systems were
>> > correctly
>> set up.
>> >
>> >
>> > I think without such an infrastructure setup, you're simply going to
>> > see more of the same that is currently going on.
>> >
>> >
>> > Please comment. if
>> > you think my line of reasoning is valid, how do we get this going?
>> > Talk is cheap. How could the blindness advocacy organizations help
>> > to make this a reality?
>> > Putting feet on this would help solve the problems. Personally, I'd
>> > love to have a job like this.
>> >
>> >
>> > Your comments?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > To: gui-talk at nfbnet.org; blinux-develop at redhat.com; nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> > Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:08:09 -0500
>> > Subject: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>> > From: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> >
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > I have attached a four page paper which I would like to submit to
>> > the Braille Monitor. I have also pasted the note below my signature.
>> > Please let me know about any errors. Thanks.
>> > --
>> > Title: Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>> > Author: Louis Maher (ljmaher at swbell.net, 713-444-7838)
>> > Date: June 12, 2014
>> >
>> > In a modern commercial environment, several blindness-related
>> > accessibility issues remain. Generally these issues can be grouped
>> > into lack of access
>> > to: graphical user interfaces (GUIs), graphically displayed data,
>> > and mathematically-based books and journals. I will focus primarily
>> > on the effects of not being able to access GUIs.
>> >
>> > Bit Locker Encryption
>> >
>> > In Microsoft Windows seven, Bit locker encryption is a Microsoft
>> > system for encrypting all the information on a computer's hard disk.
>> > At power-up time, the user enters a personal identification number
>> > (PIN) and then the login proceeds. The PIN dialog screen is
>> > completely inaccessible. While my HumanWare Brailliant Braille
>> > display will beep when the pin dialog opens, if I make a mistake
>> > entering the pin, then I cannot recover from this error. I must
>> > power-off
>> my machine, by holding down the power button, and try again.
>> > Often when a machine is abnormally stopped, it goes into a memory
>> > scan screen or setup screen. All these pre-login screens are
>> > inaccessible, even to Microsoft narrator. For this reason, a blind
>> > user cannot turn on their own machine if they make a Bit Locker PIN
>> > entry error. The only way out is to go find a sighted colleague who
>> > can enable the blind employee to login into their own computer.
>> >
>> > The Linux Graphical User Interface (GUI)
>> >
>> > Linux allows for computers, built out of many processors, to solve
>> > large problems. For this reason, most of the hard science problems
>> > are addressed using the Linux operating system. A commercially
>> > popular version of Linux is distributed by Red Hat
>> > (http://www.redhat.com/). Currently my company uses Red Hat version
>> > 5.7. Due to the need for an operating system to work well with all
>> > the company's applications, and the need for a company to have a
>> > stable operating system, operating systems, within a company, change
>> > slowly. An employee's desire to use company software, insures that
>> > the employee must use the company's operating system. For this
>> > reason,
>> the blind employee cannot choose which operating system they wish to use.
>> >
>> > Graphical user interfaces allow users to use a wide variety of
>> > applications with ease. The GUI allows most of the parameters in an
>> > application to use defaults. Only a few parameters within an
>> > application need be set. Also context sensitive help allows the user
>> > to rapidly find out how to set those parameters. GUIs also allow a
>> > user to string many processes together into a dataflow so that
>> > complex tasks can be setup rapidly. For these reasons, the GUI has
>> > conquered
>> computer space.
>> >
>> > Character-based (also called command-line) interfaces are widely
>> > used for computer programming and system administration, and have
>> > provided many blind individuals with excellent career opportunities.
>> > While the character-based interface for Linux is wonderfully
>> > accessible, the Linux GUI is not. Based upon work by the
>> > now-bankrupt Sun Corporation, the Orca Linux screen reader is
>> > available in open source packages
>> > (https://help.gnome.org/users/orca/stable/). Orca is not
>> > automatically distributed with commercially popular Linux systems,
>> > and employees must go through a long risk-assessment process to have
>> > it added
>> to their systems.
>> > Orca also accesses the Gnome desktop (http://www.gnome.org/)while
>> > most commercial organizations would prefer to use the KDE interface
>> > (http://www.kde.org/). Also since there is no commercial
>> > organization caring for Orca, there is no guarantee that it will
>> > work for any one application. People who work on Orca development,
>> > due it out of love of computer science, and as an effort to improve
>> > the world. The developers work on what interests them, and on what
>> > they can find time to
>> accomplish.
>> > Also, Orca can only give access to programs running on the user's
> machine.
>> > It does not allow users to logon to other remote machines using GUIs.
>> >
>> > The Linux Graphical User Interface (GUI) Remote Access Issue
>> >
>> > Linux GUI remote access represents another class of accessibility
>> problems.
>> > As mentioned above, Orca can only give access to programs running on
>> > the user's machine. It does not allow users to logon to other
>> > machines using GUIs. In modern industrial settings, the blind user
>> > will be sitting in front of a Microsoft Windows based machine. The
>> > user can have complete character-based access to Linux through
>> > programs such as SecureCRT
>> > (http://www.vandyke.com/products/securecrt/). However, the blind
>> > user is going to have to access several remote computers, using
>> > graphical user interfaces, to get their work done. While limited
>> > character-based work around exist for some of these applications, in
>> > general, the blind user will have to have their sighted counterparts
>> > do
>> this part of their job, thus reducing the flexibility of the blind
> employee.
>> >
>> > Java
>> >
>> > Java (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/index.html) is a
>> > programming language, supported by Oracle, to make applications
>> > portable on more than one operating system. The blind access Java
>> > applications through the Java Access Bridge (JAB) (for Windows
>> > (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/tech/index-jsp-136191
>> > .h
>> > tml),
>> > and for Linux
>> > (http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/Java-Access-Bridge-Download
>> > -2 4104.h tml). I have found that most Java programs are not very
>> > accessible due to the developer's unawareness of the need to write
>> > accessible code.
>> >
>> > Graphically Displayed Data
>> >
>> > Often commercial Linux packages generate plots to help the user
>> > analyze the data in their processes. These plots are generated by
>> > GUI's buried deep in the commercial packages. If the plots could be
>> > generated, and sent outside of the commercial application which
>> > generated them, then they could be sent to Braille printers for
>> > plotting. Without GUI access, the blind user cannot generate the
>> > plots,
>> nor bring the plots to the outside world.
>> >
>> > Mathematically Displayed Books and Journals
>> >
>> > The news is a little better on the display of mathematically-based
>> material.
>> > If the blind user can contact the author of a book, and if the
>> > author is willing to share their source files, then the blind user
>> > can read the
>> book.
>> > The best way to get this book would be in Microsoft Word format
>> > where the author would have used the Design Science mathematical
>> > equation editor, MathType (http://www.dessci.com/en/), to write the
> equations.
>> > MathType makes mathematics in Microsoft word completely accessible.
>> > Another accessible mathematical language is Latex
>> > (http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwilkins/LaTeXPrimer/).
>> >
>> > Mathematics on the web is still not reliable since bugs in the
>> > Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 10 and 11 have kept math from
>> > being displayed. I have heard that the Apple Safari browser can
>> > display math, but an accessible version of the Safari browser is not
>> available for the Windows platform.
>> >
>> > GUI Solution Issues
>> >
>> > It is unclear how to approach the Linux GUI issue. If a blind user
>> > wishes to install Orca on a Linux workstation, the user will have
>> > several
>> issues.
>> > 1. The blind individual will have to have a sighted individual
>> > install the software because the Linux GUI environment is
>> > inaccessible out of the
>> box.
>> > Secondly, to be efficient, the blind user will need a Braille display.
>> > Braille drivers are not part of the standard Orca package, and
>> > separate software must be loaded for Braille displays. Thirdly, only
>> > system administrators will be allowed to load software on company
>> computers.
>> > Lastly, bringing new programs into the environment requires risk
>> > assessments which can add months to introducing new software.
>> >
>> > I am fortunate in that my company will purchase any accessibility
>> > system that exists; however experimenting with unknown solutions is
>> > very tedious and slow. Due to the size of commercial organizations,
>> > it can take up to two years to upgrade the operating systems of
>> > computers. Also, if a blind user installs Orca on one machine, the
>> > user has not achieved much, for the user cannot access other remote
>> > GUI-based processors, which contain the programs an employee will
>> > need. Lastly, stand-alone work stations are rapidly disappearing
>> > from our commercial environment. Our company is experimenting with
>> > remote graphic servers (RGS)
>> > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Graphics_Software) which are
>> > centrally-located graphics servers which are used remotely by
>> > windows-based users. Perhaps remote GUI accessibility can be built
>> > into
>> such systems.
>> >
>> > Conclusions
>> >
>> > Both government and non-government blind employees are struggling
>> > with accessibility because currently no one is insisting that these
>> > systems be accessible. If the government would follow its own rules,
>> > then the accessible solutions would be available to all.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Louis Maher
>> > Phone 713-444-7838
>> > E-mail ljmaher at swbell.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/mrspock56%40hotma
>> > il
>> > .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/mbaldwin577%40gma
>> > il
>> > .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/ntorcolini%40wavecable.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/carcione%40access.net
>

More information about the NFBCS mailing list