[nfbcs] Open Office

[Ryan Mann]

I have tried Open Office 4.10 with NVDA. I am able to navigate both the 
Writer and the spreadsheet application.  I've just used it a little, so 
I may find some bugs when I use it more.

On 6/20/2014 9:29 AM, Steve Jacobson via nfbcs wrote:
> Ryan,
>
> I was aware that this is the case, but have still heard mixed comments from people who say they have tried it.  Do
> you use it with one of these screen readers, and could you share your experience with it?
>
> Best regardsk,
>
> Steve Jacobson
>
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:55:12 -0400, Ryan Mann via nfbcs wrote:
>
>> Hello. I just want to point out that OpenOffice can now be used with JAWS or NVDA without the JAVA Access Bridge.
>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> On Jun 19, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Steve Jacobson via nfbcs <nfbcs at nfbnet.org> 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
> a
>>> 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
> I
>>> 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/rmann0581%40gmail.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/rmann0581%40gmail.com