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

Wed Mar 5 19:34:25 UTC 2014

Hi Jim.

I agree completely that open source projects come and go, but I don't
really see much difference in the amount of abandonware between open
and closed source projects.  In short, I don't really see this as an
insurmountable issue.

I agree that third party support will be a hard sale, but I suspect
that when given the choice between a $800+ license fee, or a $100-200
optional support contract, most folks will do the math and reach the
obvious conclusion, or decide that they might not need support after
all.

Anyway, I don't want to come across as argumentative on this.  I just
think that there are very compelling reasons for us to be throwing our
weight behind these open source efforts.

Aaron

On 3/5/14, Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com> wrote:
> One really big problem with open source is the challenge of making sure
> there's long term engagement to keep a product going.  I've seen lots
> of open source offerings that died on the vine due to developers
> moving on to other, usually paying, gigs.
>
> If you look at the GNU project, it's full of abondonware.
>
> Linux -- along with the compilers, libraries, tools, and the 3rd party
> support organizations that keep it going it -- is probably the best example
> of successful open source projects.  Smaller projects such as quitter, have
> a harder time surviving.
>
> Also, getting agencies and blind folks to pay a 3rd party support
> organization to support an open source screen reader will likely be a
> difficult sell.  Before anybody objects, I agree it shouldn't be.
>
> Jim
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 01:05:34PM -0600, Aaron Cannon wrote:
>> Hi Mike.
>>
>> I agree with you that tech support is very important.  However, I
>> don't see open source and technical support as being mutually
>> exclusive.  One can currently buy support for many different open
>> source applications, sometimes provided by the companies or
>> individuals behind those projects, sometimes not.  I don't see why
>> this couldn't work just as well for NVDA.
>>
>> 73's
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>>
>> On 3/5/14, Mike Freeman <k7uij at panix.com> wrote:
>> > Aaron:
>> >
>> > Although I have a fond place in my heart for open-source software also,
>> > I
>> > deem it impractical in this instance because the end-user is going to
>> > expect
>> > a level of guaranteed technical support that won't happen with
>> > open-source
>> > software.
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Aaron Cannon
>> > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:14 AM
>> > To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>> > Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards,
>> > and
>> > legal requirements.
>> >
>> > 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.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/cannona%40fireantproducti
>> > ons.com
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nfbcs mailing list
>> > nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> > nfbcs:
>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > nfbcs mailing list
>> > nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> > nfbcs:
>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/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/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/cannona%40fireantproductions.com
>