[nfbcs] Open Office

[Steve Jacobson]

Ryan,

Thank you.  If you do more with it, it would be interesting to hear about your experience.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Sun, 22 Jun 2014 22:03:24 -0400, Ryan Mann wrote:

>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