[nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
Steve Jacobson
steve.jacobson at visi.com
Fri Jun 20 13:42:46 UTC 2014
John,
I always thought of you as being an optimistic guy. <smile> I was not trying to hold you responsible for Java
applets, though. I don't think we have any choice but to try to keep doing what we are doing to make gains in
accessibility, but I have seen so much struggling by entities who want to make things accessible that I think we
have to try to look further down the road. No offense was intended.
Best regards,
Steve Jacobson
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:43:37 -0500, John G. Heim wrote:
>Who is this John you keep talking about as being optimistic? Not me.
>Certainly, I never said anything about expecting java applets to be
>accessible anytime in the near future.
>On 06/19/14 13:36, Steve Jacobson via nfbcs wrote:
>> Mike and all,
>>
>> Java is one of the reasons I am not as optomistic as John is about being able to lay out standards and getting
>> things to conform. I remember being part of a small discussion group about Java back in 1998 at Closing the
Gap
>> at which there was a lot of excitement about the move to make Java accessible. Some of us were told by people
>> from Sun Micro Systems that all we had to do was to get screen reader developers on board. We suggested that
it
>> would be helpful if Sun, who was the driving force behind the evolution of JAVA at the time, would help us by
>> underwriting the work to make one of the JAVA-Based office sweets conform with what they were doing with
>> accessibility as that would create an incentive for screen reader developers. There was no interest in doing
>> that. Even now, over fifteen years later, reviews seem mixed regarding the Open Office software, although
>> certainly progress has been made. Oracle may help us out some in time, but it's been fifteen years and I still
>> generally assume that if software is JAVA-based that it won't work for me unless it is known that accessibility
>> was considered. FLASH is another problem area. Adobe has worked to include accessibility and has really made
>> significant effort to document how to make FLASH accessible, but again, there are so many versions of FLASH and
>> variables with how they match up with versions of browsers and versions of screen readers that results are
>> inconsistent, and there is a lot of FLASH that is used in such a way as to not be accessible. To add to the
>> frustration, we had years of living with a FLASH updater that was not very accessible because of unlabeled
>> buttons, pretty easy to correct, although at least at one point, Window-Eyes and JFW didn't read them but NVDA
did
>> somehow. Go figure.
>>
>> I've written here before about the challenges of which I am aware that have to be overcome by some corporations
>> to make their web pages accessible. Those with whom I have spoken say that getting anything that is not pretty
>> basic to work correctly with both Window-Eyes and JFW under Internet Explorer and FireFox usually involves some
>> specific logic and I'm sure this is true in general. Now if you start to throw in Chrome and Safari, along
with
>> Chromevox and VoiceOver and you throw Android into the mix, I think we are facing a fairly challenging future
for
>> accessibility as it currently exists. Even look at something as basic as what needs to be conveyed through the
>> user interface of Windows virus checkers. How many have difficult or inaccessible interfaces. Some that we
have
>> liked in the past have gone inaccessible, and as far as I have heard, the big players in that arena do not seem
to
>> care.
>>
>> I congratulate the work that has apparently achieved success with Intuit and Quickbooks by The Blind Spot, but
>> and others could not get them to do anything about problems with TurboTax software some years back and some of
us
>> worked to try to make progress there for over five years. . They did make changes to their web site, I
>> acknowledge that, though.
>>
>> I was a very happy user of the CoolEdit sound editing program which became Adobe Audition. While I'm reading
>> between the lines on some of this, Adobe decided they needed to be able to handle displaying of information
>> themselves because of limitations of Windows and in the process Audition became less accessible. However, they
>> did make an attempt to convey information needed to screen readers by other means, but since there are other
audio
>> editing programs in use, screen readers didn't really want to put in the time it would have taken to make it
all
>> work and Adobe did not get a lot of feedback. When information is conveyed to us other than by what is
directly
>> displayed, there is the potential for the information we get to be more reliable, but when there are gaps we
are
>> left without alternatives. It would have been time-consuming to work through all this, and I believe there are
>> some Audition JFW scripts and a Window-
>> Eyes app that makes use of some of the information conveyed, but this was not a trivial effort and we're
talking
>> about significant effort for just one piece of software.
>>
>> As I have said before, I believe we need to explore two paths. First, we need to do what you suggested and try
to
>> figure out whether it might be possible at some point in time to have information on a screen interpreted
>> accurately and quickly enough to provide platform-independent ways of accessing software. Certainly this might
>> imply a camera and OCR, but there are shortcuts that might be taken that could make this job somewhat less
>> challenging. Besides looking into the future,, we also need to get an idea from such exploration if it is
>> possible at all. If it is, it is a direction that has the potential of placing less burden on software
providers.
>> If is seems unlikely to work, we need to know that as soon as we can as well.
>>
>> The other path that needs to be explored is whether we are doing all that we can to process information from
the
>> current accessibility infrastructure. In Windows, we are seeing the off-screen model disappearing for security
>> reasons and for innovation. There are alternatives being provided that give us some of the same information
but
>> who knows whether there is more we could be given that would help us. Most of us are not close enough or
>> knowledgeable enough to know. I understand that in this new world we may loose some of our ability to label
>> graphics. This puts more of the burden on software developers.
>>
>> I am not enough of a visionary to know how all of this could be accomplished, but maybe there are others here
who
>> are. However, I think it is we who need to think about all of this and push for work to be done.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Steve Jacobson
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:05:00 -0700, Mike Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with you totally.
>>
>>> But I do think things are getting to a point where we might want to again
>>> think of some sort of software package to actually interpret what's on a
>>> screen with a camera rather than trying to insist that all software be
>>> amenable to or have built-in accessibility hooks.
>>
>>> And while I agree with you on java, I agree with Nicole that the way java is
>>> implemented these days, one must be born under the right sign, have the
>>> correct rabbit's foot, adhere to the "correct" religious belief and roll the
>>> correct value on the dice in order to get it to work. I have found software
>>> training materials and the like that rely upon java *extremely* iffy insofar
>>> as getting them to work with screen-readers. There are just too many
>>> variables such that the way things *appear* on a screen may have very little
>>> with what a computer actually detects.
>>
>>> I realize that many will disagree with me which is why I'm being farily
>>> cryptic here but I still suspect that ultimately, we're going to have to
>>> establish *exact* standards that will be resisted to the hilt in that they
>>> will imply constraints on innovation.
>>
>>> I fervently hope I'm wrong.
>>
>>> Mike Freeman
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Steve Jacobson [mailto:steve.jacobson at visi.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 2:00 PM
>>> To: Mike Freeman
>>> Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>
>>> Mike,
>>
>>> As you know, I agree with you on many of the points you made, but I think we
>>> do see cases where laws are being violated. For example, JAVA software with
>>> no accessibility is pretty solid. If software is being purchased by the
>>> government with no review process whatsoever, it is pretty hard for them to
>>> maintain that the law isn't specific enough. Beyond that, though, I don't
>>> think we can afford to decide to do nothing until everything is well
>>> defined. This means, of course, that actions that are taken will have to be
>>> selective because not every complaint can be resolved by existing laws.
>>
>>> I am not entirely sure what you mean by rethinking accessibility, but I
>>> believe that we do need to understand the limits of the present
>>> accessibility infrastructure better than we do. It feels to me that screen
>>> readers are kept so busy trying to keep up with the next versions of Windows
>>> or IOS version for that matter that there isn't time to think of ways to
>>> broaden their power in a way that might make more software accessible.
>>> That's one example.
>>> However, where we have opportunities to push ahead, where a path is fairly
>>> clearly defined that allows us to apply some pressure to increase
>>> accessibility, we have to do it. If we don't do anything, we will
>>> effectively not be standing still but moving back.
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>
>>> Steve Jacobson
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 11:04:26 -0700, Mike Freeman wrote:
>>
>>>> Steve:
>>
>>>> I'm not sure the laws are specific enough. And were they specific
>>>> enough, they would be made obsolete all-too-quickly. Moreover, they
>>>> don't address the problem of certain constructs being accessible using
>>>> one screen-reader but not another. Nor do they address the problem of
>>>> increasing consciousness of security. I'm thinking of my agency where
>>>> even I wouldn't have countenanced putting remote JAWS on every server I
>>>> would have had to administer. To be sure, we have to nip in the bud
>>>> contentions of such firms as Kaskersky that accessibility and security are
>>> inherently incompatible.
>>>> But what if Kaspersky is right? Are we then back to Rammi Rabby's
>>>> problem with the Foreign Service?
>>
>>>> Moreover, Mike Jols' example may or may not be relevant in that he
>>>> cited a case where everyone knew what he/she wanted. I maintain that
>>>> accessibility or even useability isn't nearly as easily defined. But
>>>> I've warn that argument out so I won't belabor the point.
>>
>>>> And, John, forgive me, it isn't as simple as just enforcing the law if
>>>> the law is fundamentally inexact and thus not enforceable.
>>
>>>> I stick to my guns. If nothing else, I think we're going to have to
>>>> rethink the whole accessibility issue over the coming few years.
>>
>>>> And part of our problem is that people don't put a premium on esoteric
>>>> knowledge anymore (just look at GM cars) but appear to value far more
>>>> highly playing with complex graphical widgets to narrow down thousands
>>>> of choices that have already been mapped out for programmers and such.
>>
>>>> GRRR!
>>
>>>> Mike Freeman
>>
>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Steve
>>>> Jacobson via nfbcs
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 9:38 AM
>>>> To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>
>>>> Jim,
>>
>>>> I think we're talking about two different things here. What you say is
>>>> true, and we should not let accessibility problems stop us if we can
>>>> manage it with a reader. However, the bigger question is how long
>>>> should we need to use a reader to compensate for particularly
>>>> government employers who are knowingly violating the law and are
>>>> unwilling to try to comply? How long should my tax dollars go to pay
>>>> for software purchased by the government where the buyer and the seller
>>>> know they are violating the law? In some instances, that is what is
>>>> happening. Of course, there are cases where it isn't as clear cut as
>>>> that, but I think we are seeing a pattern of disregard for laws that
>>>> are already in place in some cases.
>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>
>>>> Steve Jacobson
>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 06:46:00 -0700, Jim Barbour via nfbcs wrote:
>>
>>>>> Depending on what the training is, or how often you have to do it, one
>>>>> way
>>>> to deal with this problem is just use
>>>> a reader.
>>
>>>>> Not everything needs to be independently done by you, just needs to be
>>>>> done
>>>> by you :-)
>>
>>>>> Jim
>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Tracy Carcione via nfbcs
>>>>>> <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Nicole, it's up to us blind employees to make a stink until
>>>>>> things get
>>>> accessible? I've been complaining for
>>>> several years about my company's inaccessible training. I've sent
>>>> emails about it to everyone I can think of who might do something.
>>>> I've spoken up in meetings, and discussed it with my boss, who's
>>>> discussed it with the responsible department, in this case, the morons
>>>> in Human Resources. And my efforts have had zero effect. That only
>>>> thing I see left to do is file a lawsuit, and, as Gary has elloquently
>>>> pointed out, that can cause serious problems for me, and could lose me
>>>> my job, or make my work relationships very uncomfortable.
>>>>>> So, if you have a way to make a company pay more than lip service to
>>>> accessibility, or a way for the blind
>>>> employee to find the person who can actually make a difference, well,
>>>> say on.
>>>>>> Tracy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicole Torcolini via nfbcs"
>>>> <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>> To: "'Mike Jolls'" <mrspock56 at hotmail.com>; "'NFB in Computer
>>>>>> Science
>>>> Mailing List'" <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 1:17 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind of coming into this thread a little late, but I still would
>>>>>>> like to
>>>> add
>>>>>>> my two cents about both the original article and some of the responses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought that the original article was mostly well written.
>>>>>>> In regards to the Bit 9 problem, I am not sure if this is what
>>>>>>> causes it to be inaccessible, but I know that most other operations
>>>>>>> that take place during/before start up, such as scan disk, are
>>>>>>> inaccessible because there is no operating system yet, which is
>>>>>>> needed for the screen reader to function. So this is not something
>>>>>>> that the screen reader manufacturers could easily fix on their own.
>>>>>>> On a slightly different note, the Bit 9 problem also points out the
>>>>>>> fact that security and accessibility often seem to be at odds with
>>>>>>> each other, although they don't have to be. For some reason, people
>>>>>>> tend to gravitate toward the less accessible forms of security,
>>>>>>> such as
>>>> captchas.
>>>>>>> Java is supposed to make applications portable on more than one
>>>>>>> operating system, but, JMHO, if it requires something like Java
>>>>>>> Access Bridge in order to be accessible, that does not count. If
>>>>>>> the SWT
>>>> library is
>>>>>>> used, JAB is not necessary, but the SWT library is not distributed
>>>>>>> with
>>>> the
>>>>>>> Java installation, and it has certain problems that make it
>>>>>>> undesirable
>>>> for
>>>>>>> certain uses. Going back to the JAB itself, one of the reasons that
>>>>>>> I
>>>> don't
>>>>>>> consider having to use it as being valid accessibility is that it
>>>>>>> can be hard to use. Yes, it comes with Java now, but the planets
>>>>>>> have to be perfectly aligned for it to work right. If I remember
>>>>>>> correctly, the
>>>> path
>>>>>>> variable has to be set correctly. If you for some reason need to
>>>>>>> have a
>>>> 32
>>>>>>> bit version of Java on a 64 bit machine, you have to install the 64
>>>>>>> bit
>>>> Java
>>>>>>> as well as the 32 bit Java because the 32 bit Java will not cause
>>>>>>> the
>>>> JAB to
>>>>>>> be activated. Finally, it is turned off by default. If it does not
>>>>>>> have
>>>> a
>>>>>>> negative effect on anything, then why is it disabled by default?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps some corporations don't want to make their software
>>>>>>> accessible, but I think that people are over looking one
>>>>>>> possibility. It
>>>> is
>>>>>>> possible that a company, for whatever reason, made inaccessible
>>>>>>> software
>>>> in
>>>>>>> the past and is currently working on making it accessible; it's
>>>>>>> just
>>>> that
>>>>>>> there have not been any noticeable changes yet. Adding in
>>>>>>> accessibility
>>>> does
>>>>>>> not happen over night, and it can be very hard to add accessibility
>>>>>>> to
>>>> an
>>>>>>> existing piece of software without breaking it, especially if the
>>>>>>> core functionality of that software is inaccessible by nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For several reasons, I think that having the government fund
>>>>>>> accessibility work is a bad idea. Do you really think that the
>>>> government
>>>>>>> has enough money to do that? There is already a major struggle in
>>>>>>> some states to keep funding for various services for the blind, so
>>>>>>> I highly
>>>> doubt
>>>>>>> that the government is about to throw money at this problem,
>>>>>>> especially since there is not a definitive solution. Even if there
>>>>>>> was such a
>>>> program
>>>>>>> by the government, it would not work. Companies don't want external
>>>> people
>>>>>>> working on their code, even if it was under NDA. In addition, most
>>>> companies
>>>>>>> have way too much code for someone from the outside to come in and
>>>>>>> learn enough to make affective changes. And then how long would
>>>>>>> this person
>>>> stay?
>>>>>>> Forever? What testing would this person perform? Often, for testing
>>>>>>> to
>>>> be
>>>>>>> useful to a company, it needs to be done using the testing
>>>>>>> framework of
>>>> the
>>>>>>> company, so that it can be processed and documented in a meaningful
>>> way.
>>>>>>> Perhaps having an API for doing certain things might help, but,
>>>>>>> unless you strictly say, "You can use this API and only this API",
>>>>>>> it's
>>>> not
>>>>>>> going to help. You can have an API, but people are always going to
>>>>>>> want
>>>> more
>>>>>>> and better and to be free of restrictions, so they will go outside
>>>>>>> of
>>>> the
>>>>>>> API and build their own stuff, sometimes completely from scratch,
>>>> sometimes
>>>>>>> using pieces of the API in the right way, sometimes using pieces of
>>>>>>> the
>>>> API
>>>>>>> in the wrong way.
>>>>>>> So how do you make a company make accessible software? To some
>>>>>>> extent, you can use requirements. Saying that inaccessible software
>>>> can't be
>>>>>>> used in schools seemed to have worked kind of well. Perhaps more
>>>>>>> laws
>>>> like
>>>>>>> this, such as inaccessible software cannot be used in the
>>>>>>> workplace,
>>>> would
>>>>>>> help. Also, in addition to accessible, software needs to be usable.
>>>>>>> If I spend two hours trying to do something and finally accomplish
>>>>>>> it, but
>>>> not
>>>>>>> without pulling half my hair out in frustration, does that still
>>>>>>> count
>>>> as
>>>>>>> being accessible?
>>>>>>> Pressure to make software accessible also needs to come from within.
>>>>>>> Major companies need to have blind employees. These employees need
>>>>>>> to be willing to make a stink about it when the internal products
>>>>>>> and the
>>>> products
>>>>>>> that are being released are not accessible. Blind employees also
>>>>>>> need to know who to talk to in order to get things changed.
>>>>>>> Sometimes, finding
>>>> the
>>>>>>> right person and going up the chain of command can have major
>>>>>>> effects. I have also found that doing demonstrations for sighted
>>>>>>> peers can be a
>>>> real
>>>>>>> eye opener (no pun intended). Employees need to push for
>>>>>>> accessibility
>>>> to be
>>>>>>> included in the products, and they need to find sighted employees
>>>>>>> who
>>>> are
>>>>>>> willing to help them. Companies need to teach their employees about
>>>>>>> accessibility, especially that accessibility has to be built in
>>>>>>> from the ground up. Often things are inaccessible because the
>>>>>>> accessibility was retrofitted. Accessibility needs to be
>>>>>>> incorporated into product
>>>> testing.
>>>>>>> Sometimes, this can be automated, but sometimes it has to be done
>>>> manually,
>>>>>>> which means that someone who actually knows how to work with
>>>>>>> assistive technology needs to do the testing. If this is not
>>>>>>> possible, then the
>>>> tester
>>>>>>> needs to be given very specific instructions and guidelines.
>>>>>>> Companies
>>>> need
>>>>>>> to have a central resource for accessibility as well as a
>>>>>>> department
>>>> that
>>>>>>> works on accessibility, particularly if that company has
>>>>>>> accessibility features in their software, such as self voicing. If
>>>>>>> possible, each
>>>> product
>>>>>>> area in a company needs to have a person responsible for working on
>>>>>>> accessibility.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nicole
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike
>>>>>>> Jolls
>>>> via
>>>>>>> nfbcs
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 12:48 PM
>>>>>>> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to disagree that a standard API would interfere with
>>> development.
>>>> I
>>>>>>> think I would agree that it would have an impact on the timeliness
>>>>>>> of innovation, but I don't think it would have to bring it to a
>>>>>>> grinding
>>>> halt.
>>>>>>> Let me cite a case for argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where I work, we have a standard for transmitting EDI (Electronic
>>>>>>> Data
>>>>>>> Interchange) messages. All major railroads sat down and analyzed
>>>>>>> what
>>>> data
>>>>>>> would be required for all different transactions they wanted to
>>>>>>> exchange with the other roads. After much discussion the roads
>>>>>>> agreed and
>>>> published
>>>>>>> a standard. They then started writing applications and wrote the
>>>>>>> code
>>>> to
>>>>>>> match the standdards for each transaction type. All data elements
>>>> within
>>>>>>> each transaction met the standard. Innovation was NOT hindered.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a new requirement came up, the major players in the roads had
>>>>>>> to
>>>> meet
>>>>>>> to agree on how the changes would affect the standard. Once the
>>>>>>> changes were agreed upon, they published the updated standard and
>>>>>>> then everyone
>>>> went
>>>>>>> back to their respective railroads and started making changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This process did add a layer of delay to innovation and deployment,
>>>>>>> but
>>>> it
>>>>>>> did not hinder the innovation process completely. It did add some
>>>>>>> extra time, but that extra time did allow the other roads to
>>>>>>> consider their requirements so when the meeting was held, everyone
>>>>>>> could voice their concerns. The EDI process has been going on for
>>>>>>> some years now. We've
>>>> even
>>>>>>> expanded to transmitting data information via XML, but the same
>>>>>>> thing happens. There is a standard for transactions and the
>>>>>>> railroads all
>>>> observe
>>>>>>> it. If a railroad REALLY needs to add new data elements to
>>>> transactions,
>>>>>>> there is an agreed method to encode the element so it can be
>>>>>>> transmitted without affecting the other roads.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I gave that example to say that when changes are being proposed in
>>>>>>> say Microsoft Land, or Google Land, a convening board could meet.
>>>>>>> In
>>>> addition
>>>>>>> to that board meeting, an accessibility group could be part of that
>>>> meeting.
>>>>>>> The accessibility group ... made up of leaders from say the NFB,
>>>>>>> ACB,
>>>> those
>>>>>>> who have done research and know the requirements for screen
>>>>>>> readers, etc
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> could be part of the meeting. They could voice their concerns and
>>>> request
>>>>>>> accomodations in the software standard so that these standards
>>>>>>> could be agreed upon and returned to the players that write the
>>>>>>> accessibility software. Perhaps Microsoft and Google wouldn't want
>>>>>>> to meet together, especially if so doing would reveal new features
>>>>>>> to the other competitor prematurely. OK, that wouldn'thave to
>>>>>>> happen. But regardless of who
>>>> met,
>>>>>>> the standards could be examined to make sure the proposed software
>>>>>>> met
>>>> the
>>>>>>> standard. And, if it didn't, if the current software standards got
>>>>>>> in
>>>> the
>>>>>>> way of accessibility, Google or Microsoft or IBM or whoever would
>>>>>>> still agree to put out a standard that could be published that
>>>>>>> accessibility vendors could program to. And that could give the
>>>>>>> accessibility players
>>>> a
>>>>>>> chance to ensure that a standard was being proposed that could work
>>>>>>> with accessibility software.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bottom line here is that we are kept in the loop and at the
>>>>>>> very
>>>> least
>>>>>>> have time to react rather than a vendor puts out a new technology
>>>>>>> and we have to scramble to keep up. That puts a blind person in
>>>>>>> the dark for
>>>> at
>>>>>>> least as long as it takes the accessibility vendors to get cracking
>>>>>>> and scramble and react to the change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really don't see a problem keeping the blind community informed ...
>>>> once
>>>>>>> the software vendors know what they're going to do and can clue us
>>>>>>> in to
>>>> how
>>>>>>> the standard is going to change. I don't see publishing a standard as
>>>>>>> interfering with them. But that's my opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any comments are welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: k7uij at panix.com
>>>>>>> To: mrspock56 at hotmail.com
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:30:30 -0700
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike: I agree with you. But I don't even think a standard API would
>>>> work. I
>>>>>>> realize I may be viewed as an extreme pessimist on this one but I
>>>> suspect
>>>>>>> that a standard API wouldn't fly because what we would, in effect,
>>>>>>> be
>>>> saying
>>>>>>> is "You do not have permission to innovate!". Standards inevitably
>>>>>>> and
>>>> of
>>>>>>> necessity fix software, to some extent, in a mold. Were this to
>>>>>>> happen, there'd be a great deal of resistance on the part of
>>>>>>> programmers,
>>>> developers
>>>>>>> and web designers. The only alternative would be to have some
>>>>>>> evaluative body that *all* web pages and software would have to be
>>>>>>> submitted to and this certainly wouldn't fly, not least because
>>>>>>> inaccessibility is one of those things, like the late Justice Potter
>>> Stuart said of pornography:
>>>> "I
>>>>>>> can't define it but I know it when I see it!" As all too many
>>>>>>> people
>>>> have
>>>>>>> heard me say: what we need is Mr. data from STNG. Mike Freeman From:
>>>> Mike
>>>>>>> Jolls [mailto:mrspock56 at hotmail.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 11:12 AM
>>>>>>> To: Mike Freeman
>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you. The cost vs. benefit for a corporation to do
>>>>>>> these changes (strictly from the money viewpoint) doesn't make
>>>>>>> sense. I'll
>>>> bet
>>>>>>> there's probably only a handful of disabled people at our company.
>>>>>>> So
>>>> while
>>>>>>> the company will go purchase Jaws, Magic, extra monitors, etc ...
>>>>>>> they
>>>> don't
>>>>>>> see the benefit of making these accessibility changes since it
>>>>>>> would
>>>> only
>>>>>>> affect 3 or 4 people out of thousands. That's why I don't think
>>>> companies
>>>>>>> are going to spend the money to make all of their software accessible.
>>>> They
>>>>>>> just don't see the cost justification for changes that only affect
>>>>>>> a
>>>> handful
>>>>>>> of people. And that's why I said have the government fund it,
>>>>>>> although
>>>> I
>>>>>>> get the whole thing about "government involvement, oversight,
>>> etc.....).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now on the other hand, if a standards group defined a standard API
>>>>>>> that should be programmed to so that any application programming to
>>>>>>> that specification would guarantee that an application is
>>>>>>> accessible, maybe
>>>> that
>>>>>>> would work. Then the company could do that without doing a lot of
>>>>>>> extra work, and that might fly. But then how do you enforce it?
>>>>>>> Well, that's another topic.
>>>>>>>> From: k7uij at panix.com
>>>>>>>> To: mrspock56 at hotmail.com; nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:27:18 -0700
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There aren't enough of us to warrant corporations listening to us
>>>>>>>> unless there are substantial legal and financial penalties meted
>>>>>>>> out if they do not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO we are truly beginning to experience the real meaning of being
>>>>>>>> a minority which we've maintained since our founding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike Freeman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike
>>>>>>>> Jolls via nfbcs
>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:41 AM
>>>>>>>> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I still contend that private corporations would not want to do this.
>>>>>>>> While the corporation I work for does (because of law) provide
>>>>>>>> accomodtions for me .. accessible software for my workstation ...
>>>>>>>> they DO NOT put much effort in making their software accessible.
>>>>>>>> If this was done at the corporate level, there would probably have
>>>>>>>> to be a department whose sole purpose was to develop the
>>>>>>>> components that other developers would use and call that would
>>>>>>>> make the regular systems accessible. But at least with the
>>>>>>>> companyI work for ... they are so focussed on "getting the
>>>>>>>> projects done yesterday" and "making that profit line" that I
>>>>>>>> don't think they'd do it unless there wer incentives or a law that
>>>>>>>> forced the issue, or both. I think the last
>>>>>>>> 36 years that I've worked here speaks to what they want to do ..
>>>>>>>> and nothing has been done to make their systems accessible. They
>>>>>>>> do what they have to as far as purchasing accessible
>>>>>>>> accommodations, but beyond
>>>>>>> that, you're on your own.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While I do agree with your philosophy that it would be "another
>>>>>>>> opportunity for government mishandling" ... I'm just not sure I
>>>>>>>> see the private sector doing this ... at least not wide-spread.
>>>>>>>> That's why I said have an entity that is solely focussed on
>>>>>>>> accessibility so that the company doesn't have to incur the cost.
>>>>>>>> I suppose another way to do that would be for the government to
>>>>>>>> give tax incentives to corporations that make their software
>>>>>>>> accessible. Now you have less government involvement, but you're
>>> talking money to these corporations.
>>>> If
>>>>>>> my theory is right, then they'd listen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Other comments?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From: mbaldwin577 at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> To: mrspock56 at hotmail.com; nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility
>>>>>>>>> Issues
>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:18:32 -0500
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL, another government department. The government can't get
>>>>>>>>> much right now, why would this be any different. It is better to
>>>>>>>>> add jobs to the private sector, not to the government.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Government involvement would best be done with a simple law that
>>>>>>>>> makes it mandatory for software companies over a certain gross
>>>>>>>>> sales level to make their software accessible. Also have
>>>>>>>>> guidelines for receiving an exemption on certain software.
>>>>>>>>> Example, it would not be necessary to make software that truck
>>>>>>>>> drivers use in their truck to enter log data accessible with screen
>>> readers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The big issue would be how to define accessible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Mike
>>>>>>>>> Jolls via nfbcs
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 08:28
>>>>>>>>> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility
>>>>>>>>> Issues
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here are some thoughts about how to make accessibility in
>>>>>>>>> computer software a reality
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I believe we have seen, given the track record of most
>>>>>>>>> corporations, the lack of interest of most corporations in
>>>>>>>>> providing accessibility in their products. It all comes down to
>>>>>>>>> the dollar. There are some exceptions such as Apple, but for the
>>>>>>>>> most part I think the business views the investment of money in
>>>>>>>>> making their computer software accessible as counter-productive
>>>>>>>>> to their profit margin. Therefore, they don't do it. And if they
>>>>>>>>> do, they do minimal work so that they can legally say that they have
>>> fulfilled the requirement.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since private industry has shown this track record, my thought
>>>>>>>>> is that if we want accessibility in the software we use, such
>>>>>>>>> work needs to be funded through the government.
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a solution would be to have a government agency whose
>>>>>>>>> sole function is to provide programmers that can work on
>>>>>>>>> accessibility issues. These individuals would work for the
>>>>>>>>> government, get paid by the government, but would be loaned out
>>>>>>>>> to major corporations (Oracle, IBM, etc) to work with the
>>>>>>>>> product engineers to make the products accessible. In this way
>>>>>>>>> the corporations would not be impacted by the cost of doing such
>>> development to a large degree.
>>>>>>>>> There would be some impact because the accessibility programmer
>>>>>>>>> would have impact on the design of the product, and the product
>>>>>>>>> engineer would have to make changes according to what the
>>>> accessibility
>>>>>>> engineer requested.
>>>>>>>>> However, the cost incurred by the corporation would be minimal.
>>>>>>>>> There would of course have to be a standards organization in the
>>>>>>>>> government that would analyze the requirements of such
>>>>>>>>> accessibility programming to define what standards should be in
>>>>>>>>> place. Then the accessibility
>>>>>>>> programmer would use those standards in their programming.
>>>>>>>>> You might also need to have blind and visually impaired testers
>>>>>>>>> that would test the software to make sure it met the standard.
>>>>>>>>> Of course, this function might be automated if the software
>>>>>>>>> systems were correctly
>>>>>>>> set up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think without such an infrastructure setup, you're simply
>>>>>>>>> going to see more of the same that is currently going on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please comment. if
>>>>>>>>> you think my line of reasoning is valid, how do we get this going?
>>>>>>>>> Talk is cheap. How could the blindness advocacy organizations
>>>>>>>>> help to make this a reality?
>>>>>>>>> Putting feet on this would help solve the problems. Personally,
>>>>>>>>> I'd love to have a job like this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your comments?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To: gui-talk at nfbnet.org; blinux-develop at redhat.com;
>>>>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2014 20:08:09 -0500
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [nfbcs] Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>>>>>>>> From: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have attached a four page paper which I would like to submit
>>>>>>>>> to the Braille Monitor. I have also pasted the note below my
>>> signature.
>>>>>>>>> Please let me know about any errors. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Title: Commercial IT Blindness Accessibility Issues
>>>>>>>>> Author: Louis Maher (ljmaher at swbell.net, 713-444-7838)
>>>>>>>>> Date: June 12, 2014
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In a modern commercial environment, several blindness-related
>>>>>>>>> accessibility issues remain. Generally these issues can be
>>>>>>>>> grouped into lack of access
>>>>>>>>> to: graphical user interfaces (GUIs), graphically displayed
>>>>>>>>> data, and mathematically-based books and journals. I will focus
>>>>>>>>> primarily on the effects of not being able to access GUIs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bit Locker Encryption
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In Microsoft Windows seven, Bit locker encryption is a Microsoft
>>>>>>>>> system for encrypting all the information on a computer's hard disk.
>>>>>>>>> At power-up time, the user enters a personal identification
>>>>>>>>> number
>>>>>>>>> (PIN) and then the login proceeds. The PIN dialog screen is
>>>>>>>>> completely inaccessible. While my HumanWare Brailliant Braille
>>>>>>>>> display will beep when the pin dialog opens, if I make a mistake
>>>>>>>>> entering the pin, then I cannot recover from this error. I must
>>>>>>>>> power-off
>>>>>>>> my machine, by holding down the power button, and try again.
>>>>>>>>> Often when a machine is abnormally stopped, it goes into a
>>>>>>>>> memory scan screen or setup screen. All these pre-login screens
>>>>>>>>> are inaccessible, even to Microsoft narrator. For this reason, a
>>>>>>>>> blind user cannot turn on their own machine if they make a Bit
>>>>>>>>> Locker PIN entry error. The only way out is to go find a sighted
>>>>>>>>> colleague who can enable the blind employee to login into their own
>>> computer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Linux Graphical User Interface (GUI)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Linux allows for computers, built out of many processors, to
>>>>>>>>> solve large problems. For this reason, most of the hard science
>>>>>>>>> problems are addressed using the Linux operating system. A
>>>>>>>>> commercially popular version of Linux is distributed by Red Hat
>>>>>>>>> (http://www.redhat.com/). Currently my company uses Red Hat
>>>>>>>>> version 5.7. Due to the need for an operating system to work
>>>>>>>>> well with all the company's applications, and the need for a
>>>>>>>>> company to have a stable operating system, operating systems,
>>>>>>>>> within a company, change slowly. An employee's desire to use
>>>>>>>>> company software, insures that the employee must use the
>>>>>>>>> company's operating system. For this reason,
>>>>>>>> the blind employee cannot choose which operating system they wish
>>>>>>>> to
>>>> use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Graphical user interfaces allow users to use a wide variety of
>>>>>>>>> applications with ease. The GUI allows most of the parameters in
>>>>>>>>> an application to use defaults. Only a few parameters within an
>>>>>>>>> application need be set. Also context sensitive help allows the
>>>>>>>>> user to rapidly find out how to set those parameters. GUIs also
>>>>>>>>> allow a user to string many processes together into a dataflow
>>>>>>>>> so that complex tasks can be setup rapidly. For these reasons,
>>>>>>>>> the GUI has conquered
>>>>>>>> computer space.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Character-based (also called command-line) interfaces are widely
>>>>>>>>> used for computer programming and system administration, and
>>>>>>>>> have provided many blind individuals with excellent career
>>> opportunities.
>>>>>>>>> While the character-based interface for Linux is wonderfully
>>>>>>>>> accessible, the Linux GUI is not. Based upon work by the
>>>>>>>>> now-bankrupt Sun Corporation, the Orca Linux screen reader is
>>>>>>>>> available in open source packages
>>>>>>>>> (https://help.gnome.org/users/orca/stable/). Orca is not
>>>>>>>>> automatically distributed with commercially popular Linux
>>>>>>>>> systems, and employees must go through a long risk-assessment
>>>>>>>>> process to have it added
>>>>>>>> to their systems.
>>>>>>>>> Orca also accesses the Gnome desktop
>>>>>>>>> (http://www.gnome.org/)while most commercial organizations would
>>>>>>>>> prefer to use the KDE interface (http://www.kde.org/). Also
>>>>>>>>> since there is no commercial organization caring for Orca, there
>>>>>>>>> is no guarantee that it will work for any one application.
>>>>>>>>> People who work on Orca development, due it out of love of
>>>>>>>>> computer science, and as an effort to improve the world. The
>>>>>>>>> developers work on what interests them, and on what they can
>>>>>>>>> find time to
>>>>>>>> accomplish.
>>>>>>>>> Also, Orca can only give access to programs running on the
>>>>>>>>> user's
>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>>> It does not allow users to logon to other remote machines using
>>> GUIs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Linux Graphical User Interface (GUI) Remote Access Issue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Linux GUI remote access represents another class of
>>>>>>>>> accessibility
>>>>>>>> problems.
>>>>>>>>> As mentioned above, Orca can only give access to programs
>>>>>>>>> running on the user's machine. It does not allow users to logon
>>>>>>>>> to other machines using GUIs. In modern industrial settings, the
>>>>>>>>> blind user will be sitting in front of a Microsoft Windows based
>>>>>>>>> machine. The user can have complete character-based access to
>>>>>>>>> Linux through programs such as SecureCRT
>>>>>>>>> (http://www.vandyke.com/products/securecrt/). However, the blind
>>>>>>>>> user is going to have to access several remote computers, using
>>>>>>>>> graphical user interfaces, to get their work done. While limited
>>>>>>>>> character-based work around exist for some of these
>>>>>>>>> applications, in general, the blind user will have to have their
>>>>>>>>> sighted counterparts do
>>>>>>>> this part of their job, thus reducing the flexibility of the blind
>>>>>>> employee.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Java
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Java (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/index.html) is a
>>>>>>>>> programming language, supported by Oracle, to make applications
>>>>>>>>> portable on more than one operating system. The blind access
>>>>>>>>> Java applications through the Java Access Bridge (JAB) (for
>>>>>>>>> Windows
>>>>>>>>> (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/tech/index-jsp-13
>>>>>>>>> 6191
>>>>>>>>> .h
>>>>>>>>> tml),
>>>>>>>>> and for Linux
>>>>>>>>> (http://linux.softpedia.com/progDownload/Java-Access-Bridge-Down
>>>>>>>>> load
>>>>>>>>> -2 4104.h tml). I have found that most Java programs are not
>>>>>>>>> very accessible due to the developer's unawareness of the need
>>>>>>>>> to write accessible code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Graphically Displayed Data
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Often commercial Linux packages generate plots to help the user
>>>>>>>>> analyze the data in their processes. These plots are generated
>>>>>>>>> by GUI's buried deep in the commercial packages. If the plots
>>>>>>>>> could be generated, and sent outside of the commercial
>>>>>>>>> application which generated them, then they could be sent to
>>>>>>>>> Braille printers for plotting. Without GUI access, the blind
>>>>>>>>> user cannot generate the plots,
>>>>>>>> nor bring the plots to the outside world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mathematically Displayed Books and Journals
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The news is a little better on the display of
>>>>>>>>> mathematically-based
>>>>>>>> material.
>>>>>>>>> If the blind user can contact the author of a book, and if the
>>>>>>>>> author is willing to share their source files, then the blind
>>>>>>>>> user can read the
>>>>>>>> book.
>>>>>>>>> The best way to get this book would be in Microsoft Word format
>>>>>>>>> where the author would have used the Design Science mathematical
>>>>>>>>> equation editor, MathType (http://www.dessci.com/en/), to write
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> equations.
>>>>>>>>> MathType makes mathematics in Microsoft word completely accessible.
>>>>>>>>> Another accessible mathematical language is Latex
>>>>>>>>> (http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwilkins/LaTeXPrimer/).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mathematics on the web is still not reliable since bugs in the
>>>>>>>>> Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 10 and 11 have kept math
>>>>>>>>> from being displayed. I have heard that the Apple Safari browser
>>>>>>>>> can display math, but an accessible version of the Safari
>>>>>>>>> browser is not
>>>>>>>> available for the Windows platform.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GUI Solution Issues
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is unclear how to approach the Linux GUI issue. If a blind
>>>>>>>>> user wishes to install Orca on a Linux workstation, the user
>>>>>>>>> will have several
>>>>>>>> issues.
>>>>>>>>> 1. The blind individual will have to have a sighted individual
>>>>>>>>> install the software because the Linux GUI environment is
>>>>>>>>> inaccessible out of the
>>>>>>>> box.
>>>>>>>>> Secondly, to be efficient, the blind user will need a Braille
>>>> display.
>>>>>>>>> Braille drivers are not part of the standard Orca package, and
>>>>>>>>> separate software must be loaded for Braille displays. Thirdly,
>>>>>>>>> only system administrators will be allowed to load software on
>>>>>>>>> company
>>>>>>>> computers.
>>>>>>>>> Lastly, bringing new programs into the environment requires risk
>>>>>>>>> assessments which can add months to introducing new software.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am fortunate in that my company will purchase any
>>>>>>>>> accessibility system that exists; however experimenting with
>>>>>>>>> unknown solutions is very tedious and slow. Due to the size of
>>>>>>>>> commercial organizations, it can take up to two years to upgrade
>>>>>>>>> the operating systems of computers. Also, if a blind user
>>>>>>>>> installs Orca on one machine, the user has not achieved much,
>>>>>>>>> for the user cannot access other remote GUI-based processors,
>>>>>>>>> which contain the programs an employee will need. Lastly,
>>>>>>>>> stand-alone work stations are rapidly disappearing from our
>>>>>>>>> commercial environment. Our company is experimenting with remote
>>>>>>>>> graphic servers (RGS)
>>>>>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_Graphics_Software) which
>>>>>>>>> are centrally-located graphics servers which are used remotely
>>>>>>>>> by windows-based users. Perhaps remote GUI accessibility can be
>>>>>>>>> built into
>>>>>>>> such systems.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Conclusions
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Both government and non-government blind employees are
>>>>>>>>> struggling with accessibility because currently no one is
>>>>>>>>> insisting that these systems be accessible. If the government
>>>>>>>>> would follow its own rules, then the accessible solutions would be
>>> available to all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Louis Maher
>>>>>>>>> Phone 713-444-7838
>>>>>>>>> E-mail ljmaher at swbell.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/mrspock56%40h
>>>>>>>>> otma
>>>>>>>>> il
>>>>>>>>> .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/mbaldwin577%4
>>>>>>>>> 0gma
>>>>>>>>> il
>>>>>>>>> .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.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/ntorcolini%40wavecab
>>>> le.co
>>>>>>> m
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>>>> for
>>>> nfbcs:
>>>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/carcione%40acces
>>>>>>> s.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.co
>>>>>> m
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> nfbcs:
>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40vi
>>>>> si.co
>>>> m
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> nfbcs mailing list
>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>> nfbcs:
>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/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/jheim%40math.wisc.edu
>>
>--
>---
>John G. Heim, 608-263-4189, jheim at math.wisc.edu
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list