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

Wed Mar 5 21:00:32 UTC 2014

I can't.  However, i attribute that to good, critical thinking, not negativism.

Put differently, maybe you can give me a list of the ideas that have gotten a reaction like "the will never work."

I will say up front that the number is greater than 0, but less than a majority.

Jim

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 01:52:58PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 