[nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and legal requirements.
Nicole Torcolini
ntorcolini at wavecable.com
Tue Mar 4 04:02:35 UTC 2014
A large part of accessibility is user experience. It certainly is not all of
it, but a large number of the problems with which I deal probably would not
exist if the user experience part was better.
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Jim Barbour
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:33 AM
To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility, standards, and
legal requirements.
Hey Suzanne,
A more germane course is probably a course on usability, sometimes called
human computer interaction.
In there, you'll see the challenges of designing and building apps that are
usable by a large cross section of the population. This includes people who
speak different languages, have differing educational backgrounds, different
physical impairments, etc.
Since it turns out to be really hard to bring all these people together to
test your apps, app designers/developers have to come up with really good
best practices for how to design and built programs. Often these practices
do not include accessibility, but it is likely the right place for a
discussion of it.
This whole model though only works well for mature software development
teams, and not for folks who are working on brand new ideas.
Good luck on your degree, Suzanne. I like seeing more blind people get into
this industry.
Jim
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:28:52AM -0700, Suzanne Germano wrote:
> In my computer science degree, we are required to take a course in
> computing ethics. There is one chapter that touches on accessibility
> but it isn't much. I believe from day one of computer science classes
> the student should be taught how to make the program accessible. I am
> legally blind and have taken several programming courses yet I do not
> know how to ensure a piece of software I develop is accessible. I know
> how important it is yet I dont' know how to do it, so how can we
> expect people who don't even think about it to know how to do without
> being taught. It should be mandatory as part of all computer science
programs.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Mike Freeman <k7uij at panix.com> wrote:
>
> > How can education teach what can't even be defined?
> >
> > Mike Freeman
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nancy
> > Coffman
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 5:40 AM
> > To: NFB in Computer Science Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Innovation, Usability, Accessibility,
> > standards, and legal requirements.
> >
> > The education system needs to teach about accessibility. It is not
> > fair to those who need it for accessibility to be learned as on-the-job
training.
> >
> > Nancy Coffman
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:30 AM, Jim Barbour <jbar at barcore.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Like I said, learn to disagree in public.
> > >
> > > We're not talking about contracts here. If the government has
> > > contracted
> > to write an app then accessibility ought to be a requirement -- even
> > if the department receiving the program doesn't have any blind
> > people working there. I'm sure we can agree that this is a good idea
> > and that it's not hapening right now.
> > >
> > > What I'm talking about are startups, or other situations where a
> > > new app
> > is getting off the ground. In the very beginnings of this apps
> > lifecycle (a few product designers or just developers trying to
> > build something brand new), it's not yet the right time to think
> > hard about accessibility or security.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > >> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 08:40:48PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well, you're just making no sense. In your world, a bank
> > >> president goes
> > to the programmers. He says, "How's that on-line banking app going?"
> > The programmers say, "Really good. We have the ability for our
> > customers to pay bills, transfer money from one account to another,
check their balances.
> > the
> > only thing we can't do yet is keep hackers from getting in and
> > stealing all their money. Other than that we are ready to go."
> > >>
> > >> You know that if you want to sell a computer system to the
> > >> Department of
> > Defense, you have to meet certain security standards, right? why do
> > you think that is? Imagine a defense contractor trying to sell the
> > Pentagon a new missile system. The contractor is like, "this missile
> > is so fast can get anywhere in the world in two minutes and so
> > accurate that deliver its payload to withing 2 feet of its target."
> > The Pentagon says, "Yeah, but the control system is insecure. They
> > enemy will just take control and fire it back at us." The contractor
> > replies, "Yeah, but look how fast and accurate it is."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 7:34 PM, Jim Barbour wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> and John I think you're looking at it wrong, so you and I may
> > >>> just have
> > to learn to disgree in public <grin>
> > >>>
> > >>> I would, in fact, argue that paying too much attention to
> > >>> security
> > concerns early in a product's design cycle can stifle innovation.
> > >>>
> > >>> If a product can't be released as a 1.0 product unless it's
> > >>> deamed
> > "secure" by a security audit, that's going to be too high a bar for
> > a lot of folks. The same question gets asked about security a lot
> > that I'm asing about accessibility. That is, when is the product
> > deemed "worthy of going through a security audit"
> > >>>
> > >>> Your kernel patch comment is interesting, but off topic. I'll
> > >>> start a new thread asking more about that.
> > >>>
> > >>> Jim
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 07:06:46PM -0600, John G. Heim wrote:
> > >>>> I think you're looking at it wrong. Would you argue that
> > >>>> security
> > concerns are stifling innovation with respect to on-line banking? Of
> > course not. It's simply something that has to be there or the
> > technology simply isn't ready to go. Accessibility is no different
> > than other features like stability and security. Would Google have
> > released gmail before they had security issues pretty well in hand?
:Okay, here's your new email account.
> > We don't really know how to keep people from stealing your password
> > and reading your mail but we're working on that."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Just as companies tend to pay lip service to security issues
> > >>>> until
> > they
> > get bitten by them, they don't pay attention to accessibility until
> > they have to. The only issue is how to change tthat.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I've been struggling to get a patch into the linux kernel that
> > >>>> makes
> > hardware speech synthesizers work at boot time. Some of the kernel
> > developers don't get what the big deal is. But would they release a
> > version of the operating system that didn't have video at boot time?
> > Imagine an operating system where the users had to wait until the
> > computer started up and then type a command to get the monitor to work.
That would be insane.
> > Nobody would say they had to put it out that way because it would
> > take too long to fix. It just wouldn't be considered to be done
> > until that problem was addressed.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Mar 2, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Jim Barbour wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> <note> I'm starting a new thread about this topic because
> > >>>>> frankly I
> > don't know if what I'm about to say applies to new versions of MS
office.
> > I
> > truly don't know if MS is innovating their user interfaces or if
> > they're just being lazy, and would like for *that* conversation to
> > take place on the other thread.
> > >>>>> </note>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I was having a similar discussion about innovation with Tim
> > >>>>> Elder
> > this
> > weekend.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It is my rather strong opinion that allowing innovation does,
> > >>>>> pretty
> > much by definition, require that we allow new ideas to grow and
> > flourish before accessibility can be brought into the picture.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would say that this applies to most areas of broad usability
> > requirements such as Internationalization, localization, varying
> > color palettes, ergonomic menu placement, etc., etc.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> My favorite example of innovation that would have been stopped
> > >>>>> cold
> > by
> > accessibility standards is the whole AJAX/web 2.0 model that Google
> > introduced with their gmail product in 2004.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Google could not have released gmail in 2004 if they had been
> > required
> > to make it accessible. They couldn't have, even if they'd wanted
> > to. The technology needed to make AJAX accessible, what we now call
> > the ARIA roles, hadn't been invented yet.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What basically had to happen was a rather long set of
> > >>>>> conversations
> > amongst web browser developers, screen reader developers, and web
> > app developers to figure out how to communicate the necessary
> > information through the necessary channels so that screen readers
> > could get the right information at the right time.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Within the general web usability community, AJAX/web 2.0 is
> > >>>>> pretty
> > much the big step for web apps becoming truly user friendly web
> > apps, rather than clunky, text based, app like web pages.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Therefore, it's pretty easy to argue that AJAX/web 2.0 was a
> > >>>>> very
> > necessary usability step for the general user community, that the
> > blind were (sometimes still are) hurt by this usability improvement,
> > and that screen reading technology has to catch up.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This is pretty much the same dynamic that we've seen over and
> > >>>>> over
> > again. When DOS become windows 3.0, UNIX started using X-windows
> > and session managers, phones switched from keypads to touch screens,
> > and probably a few examples I missed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So, where is the point at which a webapp stops being
> > >>>>> experimental and
> > starts being an entity that is expected to provide reasonable
> > accomodations for disabled users?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Is it when you have to acknowledge license agreement or terms
> > >>>>> of
> > service page? Is it when you are expected to give them a credit
> > card number? Is it when the site is made available to the general
> > public, as apposed to a limited beta? I can argue for and against
> > each of those suggestions.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I do know that the Department of Justice is wrestling with
> > >>>>> this
> > question, along with other questions about how does a web site
> > provider know for sure that they've made their website accessible.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I'm pretty sure that however the rules come down, they're
> > >>>>> going to
> > seriously hamper webapp providers and in turn give us relief from
> > much of the inaccessible web content we as blind people have to deal
> > with on a very regular basis. I hope we keep both sides of this in
> > mind when the DOJ developes, releases, and begins enforcing these
regulations.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> In other words, I'm hoping we can figure out a way to go after
> > Google,
> > facebook, United airlines, and the US government to get their web
> > sites more accessible; without also harassing tech startups,
> > non-profits, and my high cusin who just put up a really cool
> > visualization tool for how he and his friends listen to music.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Take Care All,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> JIm
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:26:25PM -0600, Gary Wunder wrote:
> > >>>>>> Dear Mike:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Perhaps one of the things we need to address is whether or
> > >>>>>> not
> > making
> > things
> > >>>>>> screen reader compatible truly does limit innovation. Is
> > >>>>>> screen
> > reader
> > >>>>>> technology so far behind state-of-the-art technology that
> > >>>>>> this is
> > the
> > case,
> > >>>>>> or are we talking about the failure to add a few lines of
> > >>>>>> code in
> > this new
> > >>>>>> technology that makes it play well with the assistive
> > >>>>>> technology we
> > need? I
> > >>>>>> lack the expertise to answer this question, but it seems to
> > >>>>>> me to be
> > all
> > >>>>>> important. We go to Congress each year with the message that
> > accessibility
> > >>>>>> is easy and doable. I have never heard the software companies
> > >>>>>> argue
> > to the
> > >>>>>> contrary. What I do often hear from software developers is
> > >>>>>> that it
> > is
> > too
> > >>>>>> costly to go back and modify their legacy code but that new
> > development will
> > >>>>>> certainly incorporate accessibility. Only recently have I
> > >>>>>> heard the
> > idea
> > >>>>>> that demanding accessibility threatens innovation. Can
> > >>>>>> someone with
> > some
> > >>>>>> expertise in state-of-the-art coding and state-of-the-art
> > >>>>>> screen
> > reader
> > >>>>>> technology set me straight. It seems to me that this
> > >>>>>> argument, if
> > true,
> > >>>>>> changes where we need to place our emphasis. If it is false,
> > >>>>>> it
> > needs
> > to be
> > >>>>>> revealed as such. If it is true, then we need to place more
> > >>>>>> emphasis
> > on
> > >>>>>> bringing the screen readers into the second decade of the
> > twenty-first
> > >>>>>> century.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> > >>>>>> Mike
> > Freeman
> > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:00 AM
> > >>>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In
> > >>>>>> Progress
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Gary:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I confess that I am beginning to think we're running up
> > >>>>>> against
> > something we
> > >>>>>> ought to be familiar with, being Federationists, but that we
> > >>>>>> don't
> > want to
> > >>>>>> face. That "something" is that we, the blind, are a minority.
> > >>>>>> This
> > is
> > >>>>>> something we're going to come up against more and more as the
> > general
> > >>>>>> universe seeks bling more than information.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I confess that I'm beginning to suspect that unless and/or
> > >>>>>> until we
> > come up
> > >>>>>> with *absolutely* iron-clad legislation that, in effect,
> > >>>>>> limits what software vendors are allowed to do to those
> > >>>>>> things wherein we can
> > guarantee
> > >>>>>> accessibility -- in effect, limiting innovation -- something
> > >>>>>> which
> > I
> > >>>>>> obviously know won't happen -- we're going to be behind the
> > >>>>>> eight
> > ball even
> > >>>>>> with vendors who claim to put accessibility first.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I think more and more we will find ourselves forced to old,
> > tried-and-true
> > >>>>>> but much-forgotten and much-maligned strategies -- such as --
> > >>>>>> gasp
> > --
> > use of
> > >>>>>> readers.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I believe Deborah Kent-Stein and I talked about this a while
> > >>>>>> back
> > and
> > *she*
> > >>>>>> thinks we'll eventually have to come round to a
> > >>>>>> TapTapSee-like app
> > that
> > >>>>>> allows us to point a camera at indecipherable screens and
> > >>>>>> have
> > someone tell
> > >>>>>> us what's going on. I don't think even that would work as
> > corporations would
> > >>>>>> frown on their networks being used for such things and might
> > >>>>>> balk at
> > the
> > >>>>>> possibilities of theft of corporate secrets or intellectual
> > property.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Mike Freeman
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> > >>>>>> Gary
> > Wunder
> > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 7:09 AM
> > >>>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In
> > >>>>>> Progress
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I still respectfully suggest that we put Microsoft on the
> > >>>>>> agenda and
> > try to
> > >>>>>> find out why accessibility always seems to be at the bottom
> > >>>>>> of their priority list. Did screen reader developers have a
> > >>>>>> look at this
> > before it
> > >>>>>> came on the market? Why is it that we were still wrestling
> > >>>>>> with
> > problems in
> > >>>>>> Outlook 2007 when Outlook 2010 hit the market? Is there any
> > >>>>>> kind of consistency between the statement "computing for all"
> > >>>>>> and the kind
> > of
> > >>>>>> release strategy we see from Microsoft?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Gary
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> > Elizabeth
> > >>>>>> Campbell
> > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 8:08 AM
> > >>>>>> To: 'NFB in Computer Science Mailing List'
> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In
> > >>>>>> Progress
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hello Curtis,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am using Office 13 at home on my laptop running Windows 8.
> > >>>>>> I must
> > confess
> > >>>>>> that I did not have the installation headaches as I
> > >>>>>> purchased my
> > system and
> > >>>>>> software from Bestbuy. The store in my area has a very
> > >>>>>> helpful geek
> > squad,
> > >>>>>> and I explained that I wanted to put the computer through its
> > >>>>>> paces
> > using
> > >>>>>> JAWS and so forth before I purchased it.
> > >>>>>> The Best Buy folks took care of all of the installations for
> > >>>>>> me as I purchased a year of tech support for my devices.
> > >>>>>> I primarily use office 13 for Outlook and Word. I am a fan of
> > outlook, so I
> > >>>>>> was very disappointed to see that it often crashes, sometimes
> > >>>>>> while
> > I'm
> > >>>>>> reading or writing a message then mysteriously restarts. IN
> > >>>>>> Word, I
> > haven't
> > >>>>>> used the return address features since I'm creating documents
> > >>>>>> for
> > use
> > at
> > >>>>>> home or at work, and I send 99 percent of my correspondences
> > >>>>>> via
> > email.
> > >>>>>> However, I've had a lot of frustration accessing documents
> > >>>>>> that are protected.
> > >>>>>> JAWS will start reading the file and then stop. I believe
> > >>>>>> what
> > happens is
> > >>>>>> that Word shuts down and then restarts because I get a prompt
> > >>>>>> about recovering files which I can never find.
> > >>>>>> Interestingly enough, I ran in to this problem last week when
> > accessing some
> > >>>>>> documents for a Newsline seminar.
> > >>>>>> I believe there is a way to unprotect files, but I haven't
> > >>>>>> found it
> > yet.
> > >>>>>> Curtis, I agree that Office 13 is very much a work in
> > >>>>>> progress, and
> > I
> > hope
> > >>>>>> Microsoft does come out with a service pack that will repair
> > >>>>>> these
> > bugs
> > >>>>>> which make it almost impossible to use Office reliably.
> > >>>>>> At work, I an using Windows 7 and Office 2007,and I haven't
> > >>>>>> had the
> > same
> > >>>>>> frustrations.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Best regards.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Liz Campbell
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>>>>> From: nfbcs [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
> > >>>>>> Curtis
> > Chong
> > >>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 11:06 AM
> > >>>>>> To: nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> Subject: [nfbcs] Office 2013: Very Much A Work In Progress
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Greetings and felicitations:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Early this month, I took the rather bold step of upgrading
> > >>>>>> from
> > Microsoft
> > >>>>>> Office 2010 to Microsoft Office 2013. I am running the 64-bit
> > version
> > of
> > >>>>>> Windows 7 Professional.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I am interested in hearing from anyone out there who has
> > >>>>>> taken a
> > similar
> > >>>>>> journey. Permit me to provide a brief summary of my
> > >>>>>> experiences so
> > far.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> To begin with, the upgrade was not at all a trouble-free
experience.
> > The
> > >>>>>> first thing that Office 2013 wanted me to do was to link to
> > >>>>>> either
> > an
> > >>>>>> existing or new Microsoft account. There appears no way to
> > >>>>>> avoid
> > this
> > step.
> > >>>>>> Since I had a Microsoft account (which I had never used for
> > >>>>>> years
> > and
> > years)
> > >>>>>> I had to spend considerable time trying to get my password back.
> > This
> > was
> > >>>>>> only the first problem.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Then, Office wanted to set up Sky Drive on my computer, which
> > >>>>>> I
> > allowed at
> > >>>>>> first and have since removed.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> After the install was finished (hours of work), I tried
> > >>>>>> starting
> > Word. Right
> > >>>>>> away, I received a message (which was not spoken by JAWS for
> > Windows)
> > >>>>>> indicating that the program had stopped working. There seemed
> > >>>>>> to be
> > no way
> > >>>>>> around this problem. In the end, I had to contact Microsoft
> > >>>>>> Support
> > over the
> > >>>>>> telephone so that someone could remote into my computer and
> > >>>>>> run some
> > kind of
> > >>>>>> a repair.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> While I am now using Microsoft Office 2013 to do real work, I
> > >>>>>> must
> > point out
> > >>>>>> that using this software is not without its problems. For one
> > >>>>>> thing,
> > there
> > >>>>>> are many situations during which JAWS goes silent and during
> > >>>>>> which
> > one
> > >>>>>> simply has to wait for something to happen. For another,
> > >>>>>> there are
> > frequent
> > >>>>>> instances when either Word or Outlook will crash and then
> > recover--all in
> > >>>>>> complete silence (from a nonvisual access standpoint).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I don't know about the rest of you, but one strategy which I
> > >>>>>> often
> > use is to
> > >>>>>> open a master document from Windows Explorer, bringing it
> > >>>>>> into Word,
> > then
> > >>>>>> save the document under a different name so that I can work on
it.
> > On
> > my
> > >>>>>> system right now, there is no way to do this anymore. As soon
> > >>>>>> as I
> > hit F12
> > >>>>>> to invoke the "Save As..." dialog, Word will immediately crash.
> > >>>>>> Interestingly, this does not happen on the Office 2013 system
> > >>>>>> I am
> > using at
> > >>>>>> work. Go figure.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> There are two other problems worth mentioning. First, in
> > >>>>>> Word, the
> > return
> > >>>>>> and delivery address edit boxes in the Envelopes dialog are
> > >>>>>> not
> > accessible
> > >>>>>> with any screen access program. You simply cannot read the
> > >>>>>> text that
> > may (or
> > >>>>>> may not) be in these boxes. Secondly, in Outlook 2013, the
> > >>>>>> Signature dialog's edit box is just as inaccessible to a
> > >>>>>> nonvisual user as the Envelopes edit boxes in Word.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> These days, for new users, it is just about impossible to
> > >>>>>> acquire
> > Office
> > >>>>>> 2010. This is most unfortunate inasmuch as I consider Office
> > >>>>>> 2013 to
> > be very
> > >>>>>> much a work in progress. I very much am looking forward to a
> > >>>>>> service
> > pack on
> > >>>>>> this from Microsoft.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Cordially,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Curtis Chong
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> > >>>>>> info
> > for
> > nfbcs:
> > >>>>>>
> >
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/batescampbell%40c
> > harter.n
> > >>>>>> et
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> > >>>>>> info
> > for
> > nfbcs:
> > >>>>>>
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40earthli
> > nk.net
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> > >>>>>> info
> > for
> > nfbcs:
> > >>>>>>
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>>>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> > >>>>>> info
> > for
> > nfbcs:
> > >>>>>>
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/gwunder%40earthli
> > nk.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/jheim%40math.wisc
> > .edu
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> > >>>> info for
> > nfbcs:
> > >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barco
> > >>>> re.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> nfbcs mailing list
> > >>> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account
> > >>> info for
> > nfbcs:
> > >>>
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jheim%40math.wisc
> > .edu
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> nfbcs mailing list
> > >> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> > >> for
> > nfbcs:
> > >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore
> > >> .com
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > nfbcs mailing list
> > > nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> > > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
> > > for
> > nfbcs:
> > >
> >
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/nancy.l.coffman%4
> > 0gmail.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/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/sgermano%40asu.ed
> > u
> >
> _______________________________________________
> nfbcs mailing list
> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbcs:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.com
>
_______________________________________________
nfbcs mailing list
nfbcs at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/ntorcolini%40wavecable.co
m
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list