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

[John G. Heim]

It isn't that difficult to generate a good list of the bugs that need 
the most attention. The list doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. 
Someone might correctly suggest that bug A is more important than bug B 
but if bug B gets fixed instead, it's still a good thing. And you can 
generate all the fake bug reports you like, it's not going to make any 
difference. We're not *that* stupid.

One thing that strikes me about the conversations on this list ... There 
sure is a lot of negativism. Practically every idea is met with the 
response, "Oh, that will never work." You'd think us blind people were 
still using clay tablets. But innovations occur every day that move us 
forward. You might argue it's one step forward and two back. But if that 
was the case, I wouldn't be here. none of  us would. It certainly is my 
impression that things have gotten considerably better over the past 20 
years, not worse. And there is a lot of reason for hope that the future 
will be better still.

I think it hurts our cause for so many people to focus so much on the 
failures especially when there are so many successes to look at. 
Focusing on the failures makes us afraid to try.

On 03/05/14 12:21, Doug Lee wrote:
> Whatever else may be said, I confess there's a certain amusing appeal
> to the concept of a bounty-hunter mentality to open-source bug fixing.
> I can see now, bug reports being submitted by someone nicknamed Boba
> Fett... or would it morph to Boba Git, because of the popular version
> control system? But surely I digress... :-)
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 12:04:02PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> At www.iavit.org, we have been contemplating putting a "bounty" on
> certain bugs in orca and nvda. We don't have any money but the idea is
> that you get $50 or $100 for contributing code that fixes a particular
> bug.
>
> But the real hope is for legislation similar to the Twenty-First
> Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act  that requires
> operating system vendors to supply a certain level of accessibility in
> their applications. This suggestion will no doubt be met with a great
> deal of skepticism on this list. But so was the Twenty-First Century
> Communications and Video Accessibility Act.   People on this list once
> said that bill would never pass. Yet it did.
>
> Actually, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video
> Accessibility Act already contains some regulations that might help.
> Smart  phones have to come with a screen reader. But smart phones are
> essentially little computers. The difference between a laptop and a
> smart phone is blurring. Soon the difference between a smart phone and
> a desktop is will start to blur.
>
> Even so, it's possible that still more legislation will be required
> and there will be the usual fight over that. And enforcement is going
> to be an issue. By no means am I saying the problem is essentially
> solved and all we have to do is wait. But I do think the real hope is
> for legislation to be passed. All you have to do is look at how much
> the 508 regulations helped to see that regulations are the best hope.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 03/05/14 11:13, Aaron Cannon wrote:
>> Hi Steve.
>>
>> Speaking specifically about external funding for screen reader
>> manufacturers, I think if any such funding were to come from the
>> government, or the NFB for that matter, I think it would require
>> something in turn from the screen reader owners.  I don't know exactly
>> what that should be, but I can say that I would have a big problem
>> supporting any substantial grant of funding to a company like Freedom
>> Scientific, without some major strings attached.  On the other hand,
>> were that same money given to the folks behind NVDA, I would be
>> ecstatic.
>>
>> I truly believe that open source is the way forward.  I believe it is
>> the only sustainable way for us to keep up with the rest of
>> technology.  Not just in screen readers either.  The BrailleBlaster
>> project is another instance where I think open source is going to
>> really shake things up for the blind.
>>
>> One reason I think that open source is the way forward is due to how
>> much more efficient organizations backing open source projects appear
>> to be with money.  I don't know how much money FS has made from
>> licensing and upgrade fees for Jaws, but I don't think there's any
>> doubt that the amount FS has received dwarfs the amount raised by the
>> folks behind NVDA.  Sure that there's no question that Jaws has many
>> more features than NVDA, and that FS has done some innovative things
>> with Jaws. but when you consider how much the NVDA devs have
>> accomplished with comparatively so little, I think it's indisputable
>> that dollar for dollar, NVAccess has provided a far better value than
>> FS.
>>
>> I have no problem with for-prophet organizations like FS and Duxbury,
>> I just don't believe that they are the long term solution for us.
>>
>> Aaron Cannon
>>
>> On 3/4/14, Steve Jacobson <steve.jacobson at visi.com> wrote:
>>> This subject is generating a lot of notes, but I frankly think this is
>>> perhaps the most important subject facing us as blind people regarding
>>> computers and it has a huge impact upon the future of our employment.
>>> I would like to address the role of innovation to some degree and also the
>>> scope of our accessibility tools because both need to be examined.
>>>
>>> First, Jim, you and I have sometimes disagreed about innovation, but we
>>> agree completely that accessibility isn't a simple thing to implement given
>>> market pressures.  However, I think there is a tendency to
>>> exaggerate the importance of innovation sometimes.  Software is a product,
>>> but innovation has caused it to not be viewed in the same way as other
>>> physical products.  As consumers, not
>>> just blind consumers, we are paying for too many betas.  When I say "pay," I
>>> include free services that are deriving income from our participation by
>>> data that is collected.  Your statement, Jim, that security
>>> shouldn't stifle innovation is a very good example of this.  To some degree,
>>> innovation without adequate concern for security plays a significant role in
>>> the effectiveness of viruses.  That is really beyond this
>>> discussion, though, although it may play a role.  There has to be room for
>>> innovation, but it takes more than innovation to develop solid computer
>>> products.
>>>
>>> If we are going to be effective in protecting our futures, we have to
>>> understand the roles of innovation and accessibility.
>>> That leads me to our accessibility infrastructure, for the lack of a better
>>> term.  If we require that all innovation conform to today's screen readers,
>>> screen readers have no reason to evolve.  They would, in fact,
>>> control innovation not just because of accessibility, but because they could
>>> save money by not looking into the future.  This would be a model that
>>> cannot last.  The fact is that at least some of the time, we say
>>> something is not accessible without really knowing if it could be accessible
>>> with innovation by screen readers.  I took an on-line class a few months ago
>>> that was extremely difficult to use.  I tried Window-
>>> Eyes, NVDA, and a demo of JFW 14.  All three programs handled different
>>> areas well and fell down in different ways.  It occurred to me that if one
>>> screen reader somehow had the strengths of all three, that
>>> class would probably have been accessible.  That is probably not a common
>>> situation, but it made me wonder how much we really know about the limits of
>>> the current accessibility infrastructure?  Someone else
>>> wrote here about the need to research how we can react to information from a
>>> computer in a manner that is similar to how one reacts with vision.  I agree
>>> that this needs to be done.  If we can find ways of
>>> doing a better job of emulating vision when we interact with computers
>>> through our software, more software would be accessible.  We know so very
>>> little, though, about whether this could be done in a
>>> meaningful way
>>>
>>> Coming a little more down to earth, how can screen reader developers turn a
>>> somewhat limited income stream from a relatively small market paying for
>>> upgrades into real innovation.  They have quite a burden
>>> just keeping up with everything Microsoft throws at them, new versions of
>>> Windows, new versions of office, new controls in other software, and that
>>> has to be done at the expense of addressing changes in
>>> other software.  Do we need to find some sort of a funding stream for screen
>>> readers to bear some of the burden of innovation so that it doesn't all fall
>>> on the user but some innovating can happen?  If we're
>>> going to remain employable, I think
>>> something like this has to happen.
>>>
>>> Whether we could ever control innovation to the degree I might think is
>>> appropriate doesn't matter.  We are not going to succeed, in my opinion, of
>>> slowing innovation to the degree it has to be slowed to have
>>> screen readers work well.  We really need to figure out what we can
>>> reasonably expect for the long run and how to fund what is needed to make
>>> accessibility as easy as possible for software developers.
>>> Please remember that many of us depend on a lot of software that is not
>>> using web interfaces.  We can fall into a sort of trap by limiting our
>>> discussion to the web, but in some ways, that makes accessibility
>>> more easily defined than it is when you move out into software written in
>>> other languages.  For now, we have to keep tightening laws, but I really
>>> think we have to understand the infrastructure of accessibility
>>> better and somehow get a more complete sense of how far we might be able to
>>> expand that infrastructure to make accessibility easier for developers.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Steve Jacobson
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 10:51:37 -0800, 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%40charter.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/steve.jacobson%40visi.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/cannona%40fireantproductions.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
>>
>

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