[nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and legal requirements.

Tue Mar 4 14:48:29 UTC 2014

Nicole, could you expand on this statement?  It sounds like an interesting
perspective, but I'm not really sure what you mean.
Tracy

> A large part of accessibility is user experience. It certainly is not all
> of
> it, but a large number of the problems with which I deal probably would
> not
> exist if the user experience part was better.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jim Barbour
> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:33 AM
> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and
> legal requirements.
>
> Hey Suzanne,
>
> A more germane course is probably a course on usability, sometimes called
> human computer interaction.
>
> In there, you'll see the challenges of designing and building apps that
> are
> usable by a large cross section of the population.  This includes people
> who
> speak different languages, have differing educational backgrounds,
> different
> physical impairments, etc.
>
> Since it turns out to be really hard to bring all these people together to
> test your apps, app designers/developers have to come up with really good
> best practices for how to design and built programs. Often these practices
> do not include accessibility, but it is likely the right place for a
> discussion of it.
>
> This whole model though only works well for mature software development
> teams, and not for folks who are working on brand new ideas.
>
> Good luck on your degree, Suzanne.  I like seeing more blind people get
> into
> this industry.
>
> Jim
>
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:28:52AM -0700, Suzanne Germano wrote:
>> 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%40c
>> > harter.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%40earthli
>> > nk.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%40earthli
>> > nk.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.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
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> _______________________________________________
>> > >>>> 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%40barco
>> > >>>> re.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
>> > .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/nancy.l.coffman%4
>> > 0gmail.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.ed
>> > u
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/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
>