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

Wed Mar 5 19:52:58 UTC 2014

Well, Jim, maybe you can give me a list of the ideas have that have 
gotten a reaction like, "You know, that is one heck of a good idea."

On 03/05/14 13:12, Jim Barbour wrote:
> So, I don't see a lot of netativism in this thread, which probably means
> I'm right in the middle of it. <sad smile>
>
> I think it is a good idea to critically review ideas that come up and
> indicate why you do or don't think they'll be successful.  This allows
> the idea's advocates to gather information and make better decisions
> about which ideas are worth trying.
>
> It is also, sometimes, valuable to allow all ideas to flourish and see
> which ones bloom.  However, this is often wasteful if a bit of crystal
> balling can tell you which ideas are likely to fail and figure out
> ways to improve their likelihoods of success.
>
> In other words, critical think is a good thing and should not be
> categorized as negativism.
>
> Jim
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 01:04:33PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nfbcs mailing list
>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbcs mailing list
> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>

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