[nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and legal requirements.
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Mon Mar 3 16:34:33 UTC 2014
With respect, such a mandate would be virtually unenforceable.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Suzanne Germano
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:29 AM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and
legal requirements.
In my computer science degree, we are required to take a course in computing
ethics. There is one chapter that touches on accessibility but it isn't
much. I believe from day one of computer science classes the student should
be taught how to make the program accessible. I am legally blind and have
taken several programming courses yet I do not know how to ensure a piece of
software I develop is accessible. I know how important it is yet I dont'
know how to do it, so how can we expect people who don't even think about it
to know how to do without being taught. It should be mandatory as part of
all computer science programs.
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Mike Freeman <k7uij at panix.com> wrote:
> How can education teach what can't even be defined?
>
> Mike Freeman
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nancy
> Coffman
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 5:40 AM
> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards,
> and legal requirements.
>
> The education system needs to teach about accessibility. It is not
> fair to those who need it for accessibility to be learned as on-the-job
training.
>
> Nancy Coffman
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com> wrote:
> >
> > Like I said, learn to disagree in public.
> >
> > We're not talking about contracts here. If the government has
> > contracted
> to write an app then accessibility ought to be a requirement -- even
> if the department receiving the program doesn't have any blind people
> working there. I'm sure we can agree that this is a good idea and that
> it's not hapening right now.
> >
> > What I'm talking about are startups, or other situations where a new
> > app
> is getting off the ground. In the very beginnings of this apps
> lifecycle (a few product designers or just developers trying to build
> something brand new), it's not yet the right time to think hard about
> accessibility or security.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 08:40:48PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, you're just making no sense. In your world, a bank president
> >> goes
> to the programmers. He says, "How's that on-line banking app going?"
> The programmers say, "Really good. We have the ability for our
> customers to pay bills, transfer money from one account to another, check
their balances.
> the
> only thing we can't do yet is keep hackers from getting in and
> stealing all their money. Other than that we are ready to go."
> >>
> >> You know that if you want to sell a computer system to the
> >> Department of
> Defense, you have to meet certain security standards, right? why do
> you think that is? Imagine a defense contractor trying to sell the
> Pentagon a new missile system. The contractor is like, "this missile
> is so fast can get anywhere in the world in two minutes and so
> accurate that deliver its payload to withing 2 feet of its target."
> The Pentagon says, "Yeah, but the control system is insecure. They
> enemy will just take control and fire it back at us." The contractor
> replies, "Yeah, but look how fast and accurate it is."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 7:34 PM, Jim Barbour wrote:
> >>>
> >>> and John I think you're looking at it wrong, so you and I may just
> >>> have
> to learn to disgree in public <grin>
> >>>
> >>> I would, in fact, argue that paying too much attention to security
> concerns early in a product's design cycle can stifle innovation.
> >>>
> >>> If a product can't be released as a 1.0 product unless it's deamed
> "secure" by a security audit, that's going to be too high a bar for a
> lot of folks. The same question gets asked about security a lot that
> I'm asing about accessibility. That is, when is the product deemed
> "worthy of going through a security audit"
> >>>
> >>> Your kernel patch comment is interesting, but off topic. I'll
> >>> start a new thread asking more about that.
> >>>
> >>> Jim
> >>>
> >>>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:06:46PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> >>>> I think you're looking at it wrong. Would you argue that security
> concerns are stifling innovation with respect to on-line banking? Of
> course not. It's simply something that has to be there or the
> technology simply isn't ready to go. Accessibility is no different
> than other features like stability and security. Would Google have
> released gmail before they had security issues pretty well in hand? :Okay,
here's your new email account.
> We don't really know how to keep people from stealing your password
> and reading your mail but we're working on that."
> >>>>
> >>>> Just as companies tend to pay lip service to security issues
> >>>> until
> they
> get bitten by them, they don't pay attention to accessibility until
> they have to. The only issue is how to change tthat.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been struggling to get a patch into the linux kernel that
> >>>> makes
> hardware speech synthesizers work at boot time. Some of the kernel
> developers don't get what the big deal is. But would they release a
> version of the operating system that didn't have video at boot time?
> Imagine an operating system where the users had to wait until the
> computer started up and then type a command to get the monitor to work.
That would be insane.
> Nobody would say they had to put it out that way because it would take
> too long to fix. It just wouldn't be considered to be done until that
> problem was addressed.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Jim Barbour wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <note> I'm starting a new thread about this topic because
> >>>>> frankly I
> don't know if what I'm about to say applies to new versions of MS office.
> I
> truly don't know if MS is innovating their user interfaces or if
> they're just being lazy, and would like for *that* conversation to
> take place on the other thread.
> >>>>> </note>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I was having a similar discussion about innovation with Tim
> >>>>> Elder
> this
> weekend.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is my rather strong opinion that allowing innovation does,
> >>>>> pretty
> much by definition, require that we allow new ideas to grow and
> flourish before accessibility can be brought into the picture.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would say that this applies to most areas of broad usability
> requirements such as Internationalization, localization, varying color
> palettes, ergonomic menu placement, etc., etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My favorite example of innovation that would have been stopped
> >>>>> cold
> by
> accessibility standards is the whole AJAX/web 2.0 model that Google
> introduced with their gmail product in 2004.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Google could not have released gmail in 2004 if they had been
> required
> to make it accessible. They couldn't have, even if they'd wanted to.
> The technology needed to make AJAX accessible, what we now call the
> ARIA roles, hadn't been invented yet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What basically had to happen was a rather long set of
> >>>>> conversations
> amongst web browser developers, screen reader developers, and web app
> developers to figure out how to communicate the necessary information
> through the necessary channels so that screen readers could get the
> right information at the right time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Within the general web usability community, AJAX/web 2.0 is
> >>>>> pretty
> much the big step for web apps becoming truly user friendly web apps,
> rather than clunky, text based, app like web pages.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Therefore, it's pretty easy to argue that AJAX/web 2.0 was a
> >>>>> very
> necessary usability step for the general user community, that the
> blind were (sometimes still are) hurt by this usability improvement,
> and that screen reading technology has to catch up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is pretty much the same dynamic that we've seen over and
> >>>>> over
> again. When DOS become windows 3.0, UNIX started using X-windows and
> session managers, phones switched from keypads to touch screens, and
> probably a few examples I missed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, where is the point at which a webapp stops being
> >>>>> experimental and
> starts being an entity that is expected to provide reasonable
> accomodations for disabled users?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Is it when you have to acknowledge license agreement or terms of
> service page? Is it when you are expected to give them a credit card
> number? Is it when the site is made available to the general public,
> as apposed to a limited beta? I can argue for and against each of
> those suggestions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do know that the Department of Justice is wrestling with this
> question, along with other questions about how does a web site
> provider know for sure that they've made their website accessible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm pretty sure that however the rules come down, they're going
> >>>>> to
> seriously hamper webapp providers and in turn give us relief from much
> of the inaccessible web content we as blind people have to deal with
> on a very regular basis. I hope we keep both sides of this in mind
> when the DOJ developes, releases, and begins enforcing these regulations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In other words, I'm hoping we can figure out a way to go after
> Google,
> facebook, United airlines, and the US government to get their web
> sites more accessible; without also harassing tech startups,
> non-profits, and my high cusin who just put up a really cool
> visualization tool for how he and his friends listen to music.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Take Care All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> JIm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:26:25PM -0600, Gary Wunder wrote:
> >>>>>> Dear Mike:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps one of the things we need to address is whether or not
> making
> things
> >>>>>> screen reader compatible truly does limit innovation. Is screen
> reader
> >>>>>> technology so far behind state-of-the-art technology that this
> >>>>>> is
> the
> case,
> >>>>>> or are we talking about the failure to add a few lines of code
> >>>>>> in
> this new
> >>>>>> technology that makes it play well with the assistive
> >>>>>> technology we
> need? I
> >>>>>> lack the expertise to answer this question, but it seems to me
> >>>>>> to be
> all
> >>>>>> important. We go to Congress each year with the message that
> accessibility
> >>>>>> is easy and doable. I have never heard the software companies
> >>>>>> argue
> to the
> >>>>>> contrary. What I do often hear from software developers is that
> >>>>>> it
> is
> too
> >>>>>> costly to go back and modify their legacy code but that new
> development will
> >>>>>> certainly incorporate accessibility. Only recently have I heard
> >>>>>> the
> idea
> >>>>>> that demanding accessibility threatens innovation. Can someone
> >>>>>> with
> some
> >>>>>> expertise in state-of-the-art coding and state-of-the-art
> >>>>>> screen
> reader
> >>>>>> technology set me straight. It seems to me that this argument,
> >>>>>> if
> true,
> >>>>>> changes where we need to place our emphasis. If it is false, it
> needs
> to be
> >>>>>> revealed as such. If it is true, then we need to place more
> >>>>>> emphasis
> on
> >>>>>> bringing the screen readers into the second decade of the
> twenty-first
> >>>>>> century.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike
> Freeman
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:00 AM
> >>>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gary:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I confess that I am beginning to think we're running up against
> something we
> >>>>>> ought to be familiar with, being Federationists, but that we
> >>>>>> don't
> want to
> >>>>>> face. That "something" is that we, the blind, are a minority.
> >>>>>> This
> is
> >>>>>> something we're going to come up against more and more as the
> general
> >>>>>> universe seeks bling more than information.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I confess that I'm beginning to suspect that unless and/or
> >>>>>> until we
> come up
> >>>>>> with *absolutely* iron-clad legislation that, in effect, limits
> >>>>>> what software vendors are allowed to do to those things wherein
> >>>>>> we can
> guarantee
> >>>>>> accessibility -- in effect, limiting innovation -- something
> >>>>>> which
> I
> >>>>>> obviously know won't happen -- we're going to be behind the
> >>>>>> eight
> ball even
> >>>>>> with vendors who claim to put accessibility first.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think more and more we will find ourselves forced to old,
> tried-and-true
> >>>>>> but much-forgotten and much-maligned strategies -- such as --
> >>>>>> gasp
> --
> use of
> >>>>>> readers.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I believe Deborah Kent-Stein and I talked about this a while
> >>>>>> back
> and
> *she*
> >>>>>> thinks we'll eventually have to come round to a TapTapSee-like
> >>>>>> app
> that
> >>>>>> allows us to point a camera at indecipherable screens and have
> someone tell
> >>>>>> us what's going on. I don't think even that would work as
> corporations would
> >>>>>> frown on their networks being used for such things and might
> >>>>>> balk at
> the
> >>>>>> possibilities of theft of corporate secrets or intellectual
> property.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mike Freeman
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Gary
> Wunder
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 7:09 AM
> >>>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I still respectfully suggest that we put Microsoft on the
> >>>>>> agenda and
> try to
> >>>>>> find out why accessibility always seems to be at the bottom of
> >>>>>> their priority list. Did screen reader developers have a look
> >>>>>> at this
> before it
> >>>>>> came on the market? Why is it that we were still wrestling with
> problems in
> >>>>>> Outlook 2007 when Outlook 2010 hit the market? Is there any
> >>>>>> kind of consistency between the statement "computing for all"
> >>>>>> and the kind
> of
> >>>>>> release strategy we see from Microsoft?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gary
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> Elizabeth
> >>>>>> Campbell
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:08 AM
> >>>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello Curtis,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am using Office 13 at home on my laptop running Windows 8. I
> >>>>>> must
> confess
> >>>>>> that I did not have the installation headaches as I purchased
> >>>>>> my
> system and
> >>>>>> software from Bestbuy. The store in my area has a very helpful
> >>>>>> geek
> squad,
> >>>>>> and I explained that I wanted to put the computer through its
> >>>>>> paces
> using
> >>>>>> JAWS and so forth before I purchased it.
> >>>>>> The Best Buy folks took care of all of the installations for me
> >>>>>> as I purchased a year of tech support for my devices.
> >>>>>> I primarily use office 13 for Outlook and Word. I am a fan of
> outlook, so I
> >>>>>> was very disappointed to see that it often crashes, sometimes
> >>>>>> while
> I'm
> >>>>>> reading or writing a message then mysteriously restarts. IN
> >>>>>> Word, I
> haven't
> >>>>>> used the return address features since I'm creating documents
> >>>>>> for
> use
> at
> >>>>>> home or at work, and I send 99 percent of my correspondences
> >>>>>> via
> email.
> >>>>>> However, I've had a lot of frustration accessing documents that
> >>>>>> are protected.
> >>>>>> JAWS will start reading the file and then stop. I believe what
> happens is
> >>>>>> that Word shuts down and then restarts because I get a prompt
> >>>>>> about recovering files which I can never find.
> >>>>>> Interestingly enough, I ran in to this problem last week when
> accessing some
> >>>>>> documents for a Newsline seminar.
> >>>>>> I believe there is a way to unprotect files, but I haven't
> >>>>>> found it
> yet.
> >>>>>> Curtis, I agree that Office 13 is very much a work in progress,
> >>>>>> and
> I
> hope
> >>>>>> Microsoft does come out with a service pack that will repair
> >>>>>> these
> bugs
> >>>>>> which make it almost impossible to use Office reliably.
> >>>>>> At work, I an using Windows 7 and Office 2007,and I haven't had
> >>>>>> the
> same
> >>>>>> frustrations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best regards.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Liz Campbell
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> >>>>>> Curtis
> Chong
> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 11:06 AM
> >>>>>> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> >>>>>> Subject: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Greetings and felicitations:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Early this month, I took the rather bold step of upgrading from
> Microsoft
> >>>>>> Office 2010 to Microsoft Office 2013. I am running the 64-bit
> version
> of
> >>>>>> Windows 7 Professional.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am interested in hearing from anyone out there who has taken
> >>>>>> a
> similar
> >>>>>> journey. Permit me to provide a brief summary of my experiences
> >>>>>> so
> far.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> To begin with, the upgrade was not at all a trouble-free
experience.
> The
> >>>>>> first thing that Office 2013 wanted me to do was to link to
> >>>>>> either
> an
> >>>>>> existing or new Microsoft account. There appears no way to
> >>>>>> avoid
> this
> step.
> >>>>>> Since I had a Microsoft account (which I had never used for
> >>>>>> years
> and
> years)
> >>>>>> I had to spend considerable time trying to get my password back.
> This
> was
> >>>>>> only the first problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then, Office wanted to set up Sky Drive on my computer, which I
> allowed at
> >>>>>> first and have since removed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After the install was finished (hours of work), I tried
> >>>>>> starting
> Word. Right
> >>>>>> away, I received a message (which was not spoken by JAWS for
> Windows)
> >>>>>> indicating that the program had stopped working. There seemed
> >>>>>> to be
> no way
> >>>>>> around this problem. In the end, I had to contact Microsoft
> >>>>>> Support
> over the
> >>>>>> telephone so that someone could remote into my computer and run
> >>>>>> some
> kind of
> >>>>>> a repair.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> While I am now using Microsoft Office 2013 to do real work, I
> >>>>>> must
> point out
> >>>>>> that using this software is not without its problems. For one
> >>>>>> thing,
> there
> >>>>>> are many situations during which JAWS goes silent and during
> >>>>>> which
> one
> >>>>>> simply has to wait for something to happen. For another, there
> >>>>>> are
> frequent
> >>>>>> instances when either Word or Outlook will crash and then
> recover--all in
> >>>>>> complete silence (from a nonvisual access standpoint).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't know about the rest of you, but one strategy which I
> >>>>>> often
> use is to
> >>>>>> open a master document from Windows Explorer, bringing it into
> >>>>>> Word,
> then
> >>>>>> save the document under a different name so that I can work on it.
> On
> my
> >>>>>> system right now, there is no way to do this anymore. As soon
> >>>>>> as I
> hit F12
> >>>>>> to invoke the "Save As..." dialog, Word will immediately crash.
> >>>>>> Interestingly, this does not happen on the Office 2013 system I
> >>>>>> am
> using at
> >>>>>> work. Go figure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are two other problems worth mentioning. First, in Word,
> >>>>>> the
> return
> >>>>>> and delivery address edit boxes in the Envelopes dialog are not
> accessible
> >>>>>> with any screen access program. You simply cannot read the text
> >>>>>> that
> may (or
> >>>>>> may not) be in these boxes. Secondly, in Outlook 2013, the
> >>>>>> Signature dialog's edit box is just as inaccessible to a
> >>>>>> nonvisual user as the Envelopes edit boxes in Word.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> These days, for new users, it is just about impossible to
> >>>>>> acquire
> Office
> >>>>>> 2010. This is most unfortunate inasmuch as I consider Office
> >>>>>> 2013 to
> be very
> >>>>>> much a work in progress. I very much am looking forward to a
> >>>>>> service
> pack on
> >>>>>> this from Microsoft.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cordially,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Curtis Chong
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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/batescampbell%40cha
> rter.n
> >>>>>> et
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> 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/gwunder%40earthlink
> .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/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/gwunder%40earthlink
> .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/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/jheim%40math.wisc.e
> du
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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/jheim%40math.wisc.e
> du
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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.c
> >> om
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/nancy.l.coffman%40g
> mail.c
> om
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/sgermano%40asu.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/k7uij%40panix.com
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list