hello jeff,

regarding a part of your recent message:

We're building Active Accessibility interfaces into common controls
and programming tools, so that new applications will be accessible
automatically, and the inevitable special cases will be easy to make
accessible.

yes, you make my point in a way all can understand,  the core
functionality of windows needs to be fixed, not push off
responsibility onto software and adaptive technology folk.   as output
devices, printers can rely on a common windows functionality as can
monitors.   speech and braille devices should have no less basic
output functionally on which to operate.   i applaud and encourage ms
in realizing windows requires repair and can be repaired.  the
ultimate software source of the problem has never been in doubt.
windows was not designed to have other then various printer, and video
outputs. a little later you write:

We have a comprehensive plan which is supported by blind-user
advocates who know what they're talking about.  We're fixing the
problem.

Jeff With Microsoft Corporation

are you working with advocates who think ms is dragging it's feet to
minimize resource investment and maximize public relations by the
announced adding convenience features over a period of years method?
do they have these advocates in all pivotal design and policy
meetings? i bet the accounting and marketing people are there.   the
in house access folk must be team players with advocacy input to
match..  the outside advocacy people you have are buffered from direct
input at the level that would make a difference and the top managers
are equally buffered from them. do advocacy folk have opendoor access
to the top management in any practical sense of the word?  last fall
the office 98 folk made it clear, they want not to use the api patch
because they know their products can't use it any time soon.

i don't doubt ms wants to get this monkey off it's back.   this
discussion is about who,where, when, and in what amount to invest the
resources to make it happen.  microsoft has a vested interest to try
to make themselves the sole arbiter of this question.  access is a
civil right, not an lay away installment plan dictated by the bean
counters. do it with the same intensity as the explorer browser
project.   if increasing by 3 based on what was mostly a mild letter
and email response to the explorer bomb is any gauge, what would
determined advocacy in all of it's forms do? does microsoft see access
as a civil right or a series of guidelines for charitable behavior?
what does the legal department advise?

as for the "who know what they are doing" crack above, blind folk are
well aware of the "we know what is best for the poor crippled folk"
sentiment.   the user is in the end the expert.   if an average user
was given each new block of code to try and says, "nope, it don't work
as it should, it should do it this way...", this would be more
valuable then 10 sighted software engineers second guessing what is
needed.  please, no more, "we are aware, we are sensitive, we are
working, we are expert" statements.

i'm sure you are aware you personally are not the target of my remarks
and their tone.   and i hope it does not impede microsoft engaging in
real dialog in venues such as these mailing lists.  i think a good
place for ms input is to discuss, in everyday language, what features
and their access solution is under discussion and development.  will
access talk anyway soon?  do you agree, that having the name of the
flagship ms database entitled "access", is a particularly bitter
irony?

regards,

dan

ps,  there are some of us who do know, but this is not the place to
discuss the technical merits of software structure and coding
approaches.