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

Wed Mar 5 14:41:11 UTC 2014

Yes.  That's so simple, I guess I was taking it for granted and looking for 
something more complex.
If I'm running a program, or visiting a website, I want to spend as little 
effort as possible on figuring out how to make it work.  I just want it to 
do whatever I'm using it to do. I really hate jumping through hoops to make 
something work.
Tracy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nicole Torcolini" <ntorcolini at wavecable.com>
To: "'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards,and 
legal requirements.

> Sure. Whether or not a person has a disability, it should not a take a ton
> of brain power to figure out what controls on a page do. Sometimes, how a
> page is supposed to work is not even obvious to a sighted person. Usually,
> pages like this have accessibility problems that would be fixed or at 
> least
> slightly better if the whole "what is this thing suppose to do" thing was
> fixed. Also, regardless of disability, there is the whole expected 
> behavior
> part. If you are writing in an autocomplete combobox textfield, what 
> should
> happen when you press certain keys?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Tracy Carcione
> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 6:48 AM
> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and
> legal requirements.
>
> 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%40
>>> > c
>>> > 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%40earthl
>>> > i
>>> > 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.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/gwunder%40earthl
>>> > i
>>> > 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.c
>>> > o
>>> > 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.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%40barc
>>> > >>>> o
>>> > >>>> 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.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%40barcor
>>> > >> e
>>> > >> .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.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/sgermano%40asu.e
>>> > d
>>> > 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%40waveca
>> ble.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.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/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
> 