COMPUTER SCIENCE UPDATE - SUMMER, 1997


                          Published By

                National Federation of the Blind
                       in Computer Science

                     President, Curtis Chong
                     20 Northeast 2nd Street
                          Apartment 908
               Minneapolis, Minnesota  55413-2265

                     Phone:  (612) 379-3493
                Internet: [log in to unmask]


=================================================================

                        Table of Contents



JAVA; ANOTHER DIMENSION TO CONSIDER FOR GUI ACCESS
by Brendan McKeon

Using TELNET in the GUI Environment
by Darrell Shandrow

The Bumpy Road to Full Internet Accessibility
by Nancy Massey
[log in to unmask]

More Correspondence with the Shodor Foundation
by Curtis Chong

               =================================================================

       JAVA; ANOTHER DIMENSION TO CONSIDER FOR GUI ACCESS
                        by Brendan McKeon

     Editor's Note:  The following article was posted on the
     Internet on the GUISPEAK LISTSERV.  Brendan McKeon is a
     second year graduate student at Trinity College in
     Dublin, Ireland.  He is involved in a project aimed at
     exploring novel approaches to GUI access for the blind.
     He is currently "playing" with Microsoft Active
     Accessibility and hopes to have his Masters thesis and a
     "semi-usable" prototype screen reader accompanying it.
     Inquiries should be directed via e-mail to Brendan McKeon
     at [log in to unmask]

Since Java is so new, there is a lot of confusion over what it is,
never mind where it is going. This is an attempt to explain what
Java is and some of the accessibility related issues involved with
it.

To begin with, Java programs run in what is called a "virtual
machine"--essentially, this means that the Java program is
completely unaware of the operating system that it is running on.
So, a Java program can run as happily on a PC as it can on a Mac or
a Unix box; from the Java program's point of view, they all look
the same.

Secondly, in order for Java programs to be able to do anything
useful, a set of system classes are provided. Classes are the
building blocks of Java programs.  The system classes provide
facilities ranging from input and output to security management and
user interface components.  All of these classes look the same from
the Java program's side, but the implementations differ depending
on the actual system that the Java program is running on. These
classes tend to use the native system facilities to provide
whatever it is that that class is supposed to provide.

For example, suppose we have a Java program that uses a Push
Button.  It does this by creating an instance of the Java Push
Button class. On a windows machine, the system-provided Java push
button class responds by creating a native Windows button, and does
whatever is necessary to make the Windows button appear like a Java
button to the Java program. Similarly, on a Mac, the system classes
will end up creating a Mac push button, but again, as far as the
Java program is concerned, the button is just a standard Java
button.

(This is obviously a big advantage, programmers; you only have to
write your program once, and it will then be able to run on a PC,
a Mac or a Unix machine without any changes.)

The Java standard provides quite a few such classes: for user
interface elements such as push buttons, radio buttons, check
boxes, list boxes and so on.

So, if a Java program only uses these comparatively few
system-provided elements, when running on windows, the end result
is that the corresponding standard windows controls will be used.
In other words, if a Java program creates a Java list box, a real
Windows list box is created, and any running accessibility programs
will be able to treat it as they would any other standard Windows
list box.

Now things get awkward.  Unfortunately, the initial Java standard
only provided for a few simple user-interface elements--push
buttons and so on. There were no tab controls, no tree views, no
toolbars, and no status bars. And, just as happened with Windows
3.1 a while ago, programmers decided to write their own.

Lack of a given element isn't the only reason for going the D.I.Y.
(do it yourself) route.  Since the various Java implementations
tend to use native controls, elements will look different across
the different platforms that the applet is run under. The only way
to get a consistent look across all platforms is to write your own
versions of the elements.

This D.I.Y. approach basically involves using Java's low-level
graphics primitives to draw something that visually looks like a
toolbar using lines, pixels, boxes and bitmaps. So, the result is
something that may visually resemble, say, a toolbar but which
looks to the system like nothing more than a collection of lines
and dots.

In other words, in Java, while the system provided controls tend to
be accessible, as their Windows counterparts are, these custom
controls are every bit as inaccessible as their Windows
counterparts are. It's the same old story, just a different
location.

Recently, Microsoft introduced "Active Accessibility" for Windows.
This is a standard which, in theory at least, allows programmers to
make their D.I.Y. controls accessible to screen readers. So,
despite the fact that a programmer may create a custom toolbar
built from raw lines and bitmaps, the system can still find out
that it is actually a toolbar and that it contains so many buttons,
each having certain names.

Well, that's the story as far as Windows programming goes. But what
about Java programming?  So far, there's nothing. Currently, any
Java applet which uses the do-it-yourself approach will be
inaccessible, and it won't have any way of making itself accessible
either.

But (a big but) in theory, there is no reason why a Java version of
"Active Accessibility" can't be introduced. If that happens, then
Java programs would be able to tell the system "Oh, that mess of
pixels over there is actually a toolbar," and so on.

Right now, there does seem to be a window of opportunity; Microsoft
recently announced a set of Java classes--called "AFC"--which
provide many of the user interface elements missing from the
original Java standard. If these classes catch on (which looks
likely), and if they support this hypothetical "Java Active
Accessibility" standard, then, as if by magic, Java programs that
use AFC would be accessible.

This would be wonderful.  But at the moment, this is just a dream.
Firstly, this "Java Active Accessibility" standard does not yet
exist.  Secondly, this standard would have to be put into the AFC
classes; this would obviously take a while to happen.  Thirdly, and
perhaps more importantly, it will always be possible for people to
write inaccessible Java programs.

How do you persuade programmers to make their programs compatible
with "Java Accessibility?"  (Remember that while Microsoft could
potentially require accessibility before awarding an application
the Windows logo, they have no say whatever over what goes on in
the world of Java.) My guess is that ultimately, if Java does
succeed in becoming a big software platform, then mostly only those
programs released by the big players will really be accessible.
And there's probably always going to be a set of Java programs
written by college students designed solely for the purposes of
making their home pages look "better" or trendier. The chances of
these ever being accessible are pretty small. (to be quite honest,
in the majority of cases, you're not missing much.) At the moment,
however, these comprise the majority of Java applets that people
come across in their day-to-day web browsing.

So to summarize the above, right now, Java programs that only use
the simple system provided user interface elements should be
accessible. Those which take the do-it-yourself approach will not
be accessible. But if a "Java Accessibility" standard is
introduced, these programs have the potential to be made
accessible. Furthermore, if this standard is used by Microsoft's
AFC package--which fills some of the holes in the current Java
standard--and if Java programmers use AFC instead of going the
do-it-yourself route, then Java accessibility will be greatly
improved.

I hope some of that made sense.  If you've any questions, feel free
to e-mail me at [log in to unmask]


               Using TELNET in the GUI Environment
                       by Darrell Shandrow

     Editor's Note:  Darrell Shandrow can be reached via
     e-mail at [log in to unmask]

I am a member of the National Federation of the Blind and the
technology specialist at the Colorado Center for the Blind in
Denver.   My position includes, among many other things, training
blind people to use screen access hardware and software to
accomplish their educational and vocational goals.  Of course, I am
moving my students to the graphical user interface, where we are
encountering many successes--and challenges. Please feel free to
ride along on yet another interesting journey into the challenges
of accessing the GUI as a blind person.  Oh, by the way, please
don't forget to drop by afterwards to leave your comments and
suggestions.

This article addresses the problem of using text-based Telnet
programs in a graphical environment.  As blind computer users, we
face special challenges when using these text-based programs in a
non-text-based environment where all the "standard" DOS stuff is,
so to speak, "out the window."  Here are some of my views on the
situation.

Traditionally, blind people use the Internet via text-based UNIX
shell accounts.  We run DOS-based terminal emulation programs such
as Procomm, Telix and Commo.  All the prompts and text are spoken
automatically because they are written to the screen using standard
BIOS calls.  This fact, along with robust screen reading software
for the DOS environment, makes it fairly straightforward to use
many Internet services such as   E-mail, Telnet, FTP, IRC, Lynx,
and anything else one can use in UNIX.  If you hear too much
information being spoken, you can easily silence your speech and
use screen review commands.

When we use our Unix shell accounts to run IRC to chat with users
or Telnet to access bulletin board systems, the text written to the
screen is typically sent through DOS BIOS.   Thus, we have good
automatic speech.  This works extremely well, and the use of these
two Internet services almost always goes smoothly.

Today, the Internet and other computer applications are moving to
graphical platforms such as Windows, OS/2, and the Apple Macintosh.
These platforms have varying degrees of accessibility.  In a
growing number of situations, it is possible for blind computer
users to do many things as well as sighted users.  With varying
degrees of success, we can use screen access software in Windows to
browse the World Wide Web with Netscape, Internet Explorer, or just
about any other graphical web browser.  We can easily use Eudora to
read and send electronic mail.  However, my experience has been
that in the graphical environment, terminal emulation (as in VT-100
emulation) is still a problem.

I am not talking about those job situations--and there are many--in
which we can use terminal emulation under Windows.  In those
situations, as in customer service environments,  the applications
are typically customized, using macros, to allow  the blind
employee to obtain essential information with maximum efficiency.
Automatic speech is  not required and is usually undesirable in
these situations.  What I am talking about is the use of a terminal
emulation interface such as Telnet to access other computers
interactively through the Internet with a Windows-based screen
access program.

The graphical Telnet clients have problems with accessibility when
it comes to the interactive speaking of information.  These
problems result from the lack of BIOS calls in a graphical
environment.  Without BIOS, there is no automatic speech.  Yes,
text is scrolled to the screen as it would be in a text-based (DOS)
environment, but unless the screen reader is designed to deal with
this situation, there is, by default, no automatic speech.  This is
fine for standard controls like dialog boxes and menus, where the
information is fairly specific and predictable; due to the nature
of Windows controls, the screen readers seem to have an easier time
dealing with these things. However, scrolling text from an
interactive connection is much less predictable, and the Windows
screen readers of today don't seem to perform very well.

Since it is unlikely that there will ever be anything similar to
BIOS calls in the graphical environment, I propose the following
choices to solve the problem I have described here.

Text-based Telnet client:

A text-based Telnet client could be written to work much like the
FTP client that comes with Windows 95.  This program is text-based
and works extremely well in a DOS box with a DOS screen reader.
Similarly, a Telnet client could be written to use Windows 95 (or
other GUI) networking resources.  This client should have solid
VT-100 and ansi-bbs emulation, as well as support for file
transfers with Zmodem and kermit. Ideally, it should be able to do
an "rlogin" when that service is required.

Emulating DOS Packet Drivers:

Another possible solution would be to write a program that could
use the built-in networking resources of Windows 95 to emulate a
standard DOS packet driver.  This would work like the cslip and
slipper drivers currently available.  If this were done, programs
like Minuet and NCSA Telnet could be used in a DOS box.  It would
allow for some flexibility.   If this solution were adopted, the
packet drivers should be non-obtrusive, so that one could still use
Windows Internet applications like Netscape, even when the DOS
client is running.

Emulating virtual Com Ports:

The final solution I would suggest is to emulate a virtual com port
so that one could use a DOS-based terminal emulator like Procomm or
Commo over a Telnet connection.  I am not certain how this one
could work. You would need to have a way to specify the address of
the host to which you wanted to connect.  If this solution were
adopted, one could use which ever program they liked and have
complete functionality when connecting to a BBS or attempting to
establish some other interactive text-based session.

Since shell accounts are becoming less and less available, I feel
that this is extremely important.  It will be very useful if a
blind person who has only a PPP connection can still use their
computer to connect to services like GBX and NfbNet.   I hope this
generates some lively discussion and some real solutions.


          The Bumpy Road to Full Internet Accessibility
by Nancy Massey
[log in to unmask]

     Editor's note:  For almost 20 years, Nancy Massey of
     Massey & Associates has been a computer consultant in
     the Philadelphia area. She has worked with businesses
     and nonprofit organizations through initial automation,
     upgrades, conversions and staff training, as well as
     the development and implementation of ongoing system
     strategies. In 1995 she expanded her business to
     include internet training and accessible World Wide Web
     site development. She can be reached at
     [log in to unmask] or (215) 545-8541.

     My initial contact with Ms. Massey came about because
     of an inquiry she made to me regarding the use of Lynx,
     a text-only web browser.  I was intrigued by the work
     that she was doing and asked her to write an article on
     the subject.  Internet purists might argue that we do
     not today have "full" access to the Internet, but Ms.
     Massey's work in this area demonstrates a level of
     commitment and responsiveness which others in the field
     would do well to emulate.

Three years ago in my home town of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, I
attended a convention sponsored by Microsoft. A local group on
that agenda professed the idea that the Internet was the real
future and spoke of an organization just being formed called
LibertyNet. LibertyNet's mission was to bring Internet access to
those who would not otherwise have it. That included nonprofit
organizations, schools and other members of the community who
could not afford computers.  As I listened, I knew I was hearing
about something that would be critical to my future. Little did I
know at the time to what extent.

When LibertyNet went beta, they were offering accounts to a group
of interested nonprofit organizations. As luck would have it, one
of my clients was on the list, and I offered to be part of the
beta test cycle.  That was when I began to experience the
frustrations of following an uncharted path to an unidentified
location. But it was as amazing as it was frustrating. I soon
discovered resources to astounding amounts of information. Using
one of the few books available at the time, I began to learn HTML
so that I could design home pages to put onto the Internet.

A little over two years ago, I was approached by Liberty
Resources Inc., a center for independent living in Philadelphia.
They asked if I would be interested in training their people in
WordPerfect 5.1. The day before the first training session, I
heard that there would be a blind user in the class. I knew that
blind people could use computers, but this was my first
experience with hands-on training. I told my contact at Liberty
Resources that I had no experience in this area, but if they were
willing to give me a try, I would handle the training as I always
do -- letting the students tell me what they need.

The woman was using Vocal-Eyes, a speech output screen reading
program for the Disk Operating System (DOS).  I was amazed at the
technology. Her training went very well, and I continued working
with other Vocal-Eyes users, several with low vision. With a
hearing-impaired trainee, I wore a voice amplifier.

It all amounted to a voyage of discovery for me. Through my work
with Liberty Resources, I was introduced to adaptive technology.
Since then I have installed and set up various types of adaptive
technology hardware and software. Apart from professional
enlightenment, the whole experience brought something else of
value home to me. No matter our abilities, we all experience
frustration and exhilaration in working with computers. But in
the end, it is always worth the effort.

After completing my first web page and seeing it live, I went to
the President of Liberty Resources, Fern Moskowitz, and talked to
her about the Internet. She was as excited at the prospect of
full accessibility as I, and with the sponsorship of LibertyNet,
I began work on the Liberty Resources Inc. web site.  The first
blind person I had ever trained, Cecillia, became the point
person for the project.  We began our research. We would be using
a DOS based computer and Vocal-Eyes.

First, we needed communications software. I did exhaustive
searches, scanning over 5,000 use groups, struggling to find
speech-friendly software. I finally came across an amazing group
using Commo software, one of the few speech friendly programs on
the market. I subscribed to the Commo mailing list and began to
learn about this great product. After speaking with many users, I
downloaded a trial copy of the program.  I found that Commo had a
powerful macro language that I knew I would be able to use to
create logon macros, and I recommended Commo to Liberty Resources
as their communication software.

We identified a blind computer consultant who had been using the
Internet. He created a "set" file for us to use with Vocal-Eyes
and Commo. But there were many problems, so it was back to the
Internet for answers. I posted messages and looked for a
solution. It was at that point that I read about Curtis Chong of
the National Federation of the Blind. I e-mailed him and told him
about the problems I was experiencing. He spoke to me about Lynx
and the -show_cursor parameter, which would instruct Lynx to move
the system cursor to any highlighted link.  After much trial and
error, I discovered that our ISP (Internet service provider) was
not speech-accessible.

I went to LibertyNet's webmaster and technical director and
discussed our problem in detail. Due to their server set up, it
would mean changing the server configuration. After several
conversations and further research, LibertyNet became one of the
few fully accessible web servers on the Net. It was a crowning
moment. This change would not only be available for Liberty
Resources, but for all LibertyNet users. It paved the way for
other blind users.  There are now several groups with blind users
enjoying Internet access through LibertyNet.

I found that Cecilia was still having trouble working from the
prompt. Through my participation in the use groups I learned of a
product called Internet in a Macro, available for use with Commo.
It is a marvelous free macro available on the Internet, written
by J.J. Meddaugh, a blind user and long-time proponent of Commo.
The macro won't replace Lynx, but will let you connect to your
favorite sites through a menu interface. I installed the macro
and Cecillia began to surf in earnest.

After Cecilia was comfortable with general web surfing, she asked
to begin using e-mail. I ordered a box, set up the mailing
software used by LibertyNet (Pine), and adjusted the Vocal-Eyes
set file, but it just wouldn't work.  I went back to Curtis and
told him what I was experiencing. He asked me if I had set the
speech-friendly option in Pine. I discovered that the version of
Pine being used by LibertyNet was an older version of Pine which
was not speech-friendly.  So, I researched Pine and found the
version that was speech-friendly. I also found directions for
updating to that version and went back to the techs at
LibertyNet. Within days they had upgraded their server and Pine
was finally speech-friendly.

The entire experience amounted to a tremendous first e-mail
lesson for Cecilia and me. A few days later while checking my
e-mail, there was a message from Cecilia. One small step for
Cecilia, one giant leap for full accessibility.

Through this experience, I have learned a great deal about
accessible web page design. As so little is written on the
subject, I had to blaze my own trail.  I have discovered that it
takes very little effort to create an accessible web page. And,
all I learned I applied to the Liberty Resources site to make it
fully accessible. One great reward was learning that Liberty
Resources Inc. was named Site of the Month for October, 1996, by
LibertyNet -- and as it happens it occurred during Disability
Awareness Month.

This past year has been a long and bumpy road into the unknown,
but for each of us who takes the trip, we pave the way for those
coming behind. Today there is an increasing amount of information
available about Internet access, and there are some marvelous
organizations and user lists available to help along this path.

I have been fortunate to be a part of this exciting time. I have
watched those who thought they would never be able to use a
computer surf the Internet and access the abundance of
information on the web. I've seen them discover a whole new
world. They can share the wonders of automation and e-mail. They
can reach out to others with common interests, no matter where
they are on the planet. They can enjoy unprecedented access to
information through outstanding resources such as the Internet's
Electric Library, a speech-friendly library on-line.

Through the aid of individuals known only to me by their e-mail
addresses, through issue-sensitive organizations such as
LibertyNet, and through the dedication of individual users like
Cecillia, Liberty Resources Inc. has attained full Internet
accessibility. What next?  Now we know it can be done and we know
what is available to make it happen. So it is imperative that
each of us make the effort to ensure that everyone, regardless of
financial status or ability, gain access to the Internet, the
most powerful and exciting resource of our time.


Resources:

Curtis Chong, President, National Federation of the Blind in
     Computer Science: [log in to unmask]

Commo: http://www.cris.com/~Jmeddaug/commo.shtml

Commo List Serve: subscribe at --
     [log in to unmask]

Internet in a Macro: http://www.cris.com/~jmeddaug
     [log in to unmask]

Electric Library: http://www.elibrary.com

LibertyNet: http://www.libertynet.org

Liberty Resources Inc.:
     http://www.libertynet.org/~libres

Cecillia Ramnathsingh at Liberty Resources, Inc.:
     [log in to unmask]

Accessible Web Page Design Tips:
     http://www.libertynet.org/~libres/ac_form.html


         More Correspondence with the Shodor Foundation
                         by Curtis Chong

Those of you who read the Winter, 1996, edition of Computer
Science Update will remember an e-mail exchange I had with one
Robert Gotwals of the Shodor Foundation.  It dealt with Braille
Remote Learning, an experimental project designed to teach
braille to transcribers over the Internet.  When the announcement
about Braille Remote Learning first hit some Internet mailing
lists, a lot of people criticized the effort because of the
requirement for participants to use a graphically-based web
browser.  They said that this requirement essentially made
Braille Remote Learning inaccessible to the blind.

On behalf of the NFB in Computer Science, I wrote to Bob Gotwals
suggesting that he clarify that the program was intended for
sighted transcribers.  I also suggested that the jury was still
out as to whether or not braille, which is essentially a tactual
medium, could really be taught to a blind person whose primary
interface with the computer was speech.  I had thought that, in
the main, Mr. Gotwals and I had ended our correspondence on a
positive note.  As it turned out, the article which appeared in
the Winter, 1996, issue of Computer Science Update was published
in the Braille Monitor for March, 1997; and it caused a most
surprising reaction.

On Monday, April 21, out of the clear blue sky, I received the
following e-mail message from Mr. Gotwals.  Frankly, it caught me
by surprise.  Here it is:

_________________________________________________________________

To: [log in to unmask]
From: [log in to unmask] (Bob Gotwals)
Subject: March Braille monitor

Saw your article in the March 97 Braille Monitor.  I'm a little
disappointed that nowhere was it stated that the course is and
has been accessible since Day One.  When you and I were having
our conversations, the materials were in development and we
expected to not be able to have them readily accessible in time
for the initial testing of the materials.  We were able to get
them ready, in spite of the fact that we did so at our own
expense.  Your comment " What I do know is that in its present
form Braille Remote Learning is not accessible to the blind--nor
is it meant to be" is therefore in error.  Have you looked at the
pages?

If you wish to chat about this, I can be reached at e-mail or at
(919) 490-1626.  We are both interested in increasing the
awareness and literacy levels of braillists, especially folks
capable of providing that skill. Are you helping or hurting that
goal?  Want my opinion?

_________________________________________________________________

I wrote back to Mr. Gotwals on the same day, and on April 22, he
responded, interspersing his responses in my original text.  The
dialog is reproduced below, with each person's name indicated for
purposes of readability.

_________________________________________________________________

Chong:

     Hello Bob:

     I am sorry that you were disappointed by what appeared in
     the March edition of the Braille Monitor regarding Braille
     Remote Learning. The information I had when the article was
     written was that the course would not initially be usable by
     somebody who could not see pictures of braille output on the
     screen.  As far as I am aware, this is still correct.  If
     you have information to the contrary, and if you have made
     additional efforts to make the course accessible to the
     blind over the Internet, please do provide me with that
     information.  If I was wrong, I will certainly work to see
     that a correction was printed in the Monitor.

Gotwals:

     I appreciate that there is often a delay in getting stuff
     published, and I am sure the Monitor is no different.  Three
     months in the print world is actually quite fast.  In the
     electronic publishing world, three months is an eternity.

     The course is accessible, and has been since Day one.  We
     expended considerable resources to ensure that the course
     was accessible to all users.  We had to take that time away
     from other braille development work, but we were glad we
     were able to make the materials available.  As I had
     mentioned before, we had proposed that the accessibility
     work be done *after* the materials had been developed, the
     bugs had been worked out, and the courses were ready for
     "production".  Having to do it sooner rather than later did
     make our task more difficult, but we are grateful for the
     visually-impaired folks who are actively participating, they
     are providing substantial assistance to our efforts.

Chong:

     I hope you realize that I can only work with the facts I
     have in hand.  I still do not have any information that
     would indicate that Braille Remote Learning is a tool that
     is usable directly by blind persons on the Internet.  This
     does not detract from the value of the course as a learning
     tool for braille transcribers.  God knows we need more of
     them.

Gotwals:

     I would have hoped that you or someone from the Monitor
     might have checked.  Again, my guess is that the scenario of
     events was that you submitted your article in December after
     our e-mail exchanges, then did not see the article again
     until it "hit the streets".  I was mostly disappointed that
     no one bothered to ask.  It's not like I'm hard to locate.
     The pages are also easily accessible, and any page that uses
     graphics says "Text Version" at the very top of each page.
     We've checked pages using lynx, and have run a number of
     pages through some of the only accessibility checkers, such
     as "Bobby".

Chong:

     I think that with the facts I had, my presentation in the
     Monitor was fair and balanced.  I understand and respect
     that you may not see things that way.  I have not nor do I
     intend to say to anyone that Braille Remote Learning is a
     project without value.  It most certainly has value.
     However, as I said in my article, I do not know whether a
     blind person can really learn braille if auditory output is
     the only means by which information is provided.  There
     needs to be other material available (e.g., braille hard
     copy samples, refreshable braille, etc.).

Gotwals:

     That's part of the experiment.  We're doing this work
     *partly* because we are scientists, and partly because we're
     trying to provide a service.  We won't know if this delivery
     system will meet a variety of braille literacy needs until
     we do the experiment.  The course actually was never
     intended to teach braille to visually-impaired folks, but if
     we can figure out how to make that happen, we'll do so.  We
     don't do anything in terms of reading readiness, i.e.
     tactile discrim exercises, etc.  We've toyed with providing
     Duxbury files that folks can download, but there has not
     been lots of demand for the ones we have made available.

Chong:

     I had thought that we had ended our correspondence on a
     fairly positive note.  I am sure you thought so as well.  I
     regret that what appeared in the Monitor did not meet with
     your approval. However, without additional information, my
     comments still stand.

Gotwals:

     Me too.  I didn't even know about the article until I got
     several pieces of e-mail from folks not even involved in the
     program who saw it, and weren't too happy.  Some of the
     comments I received were not happy with the NFB. I chatted
     with Alison Sherman at the NFB, and conveyed *my*
     impressions.  The article did suggest at the beginning that
     the conversations were friendly, but there was still sort of
     a negative overtone to the article.  We can't do the
     experiment of investigating on-line braille instruction
     without students, including visually-impaired ones.
     Anything that discourages that community from participating
     takes the opportunity out of our hands.

     I don't want to suggest that the journalism was
     irresponsible, but perhaps it could have been a little
     "tighter".

     I *like* to think we're both on the same side, and both want
     the same thing.  I certainly don't mind criticism.  That's
     how things get better. However, I have little patience with
     criticism that is unwarranted. My students know that I've
     been at the receiving end of lots of "comments", and we've
     worked hard to fix what they have suggested.  All in all,
     however, we think things are going pretty well.

Chong:

     Regards,

Gotwals:

     and to you!  Thanks for your reply.

     PS.  I'd encourage you to submit this conversation as well.
     Ask Barbara not to wait three months, however, to publish
     it!  She also might want to solicit the opinions of the 80
     or so folks currently participating in the program.  E-mail
     to [log in to unmask] will reach all participants, program
     staff, and observers.

_________________________________________________________________

On April 22, I wrote again to Mr. Gotwals; and on April 23, he
responded.  Here is the dialog.

_________________________________________________________________

Chong:

     Hello Bob:

     I have been giving considerable thought to our exchange of
     correspondence over the last two days, and I must tell you
     that I am trying very hard not to come away from that
     exchanged feeling annoyed and more than a bit put out with
     the way in which you have chosen to deal with me.  In all of
     my communications with you, I have tried to engender good
     will.  Moreover, I have encouraged members of the National
     Federation of the Blind to support your efforts instead of
     dogmatically insisting that Braille Remote Learning BE 100%
     ACCESSIBLE at the outset.

Gotwals:

     I actually think (or perhaps, thought) that we were on "the
     same page".  As you have no evidence that our stuff is
     accessible, I have no evidence that you've been encouraging
     support, but I'll take you at your word!

Chong:

     Do you remember the bashing you took when you first
     announced the project?  Many people criticized the work you
     were doing because participants were required to use a
     graphical web browser.  One of the things you said in
     defense of your work was this:

          "This braille ed program is, by the way, part of a
          larger VI masters degree program that is being
          developed at North Carolina Central University.  The
          idea is to make a large part of that program accessible
          over the net, and the braille course is the first test
          of that concept.  We sure would like a chance to make
          it work....again, if there is a demand that the effort
          be made to ensure 100% accessibility in the
          experimental phase, we can pretty much ensure that the
          experiment will fail."

Gotwals:

     Yep.  And as initially designed, it *was* pretty much
     inaccessible.  We did a re-design (to some degree) and spent
     much more time up front looking at making it accessible than
     we had planned at that stage of the project. Under the terms
     of the grant, we were not funded nor committed to
     accessibility that early on, but I felt, especially after
     conversations with you and others, that it was important to
     do things earlier rather than later.  But what if
     *technologically* it had been difficult to do so, *and* the
     insistence had continued?  What would have been our options?
     Were we willing to risk a lawsuit under ADA or some other
     statute to continue to do the work?  I seriously doubt that
     my board of directors or executive director would have
     supported our continuance of this work if that had been the
     case.  You as a computer scientist understand that the
     technology doesn't always maintain pace with desires,
     dreams, wishes, and best intentions.  As it is, our
     technical solution is adequate, but that's probably all I
     can say for it.  Fortunately, other people are looking hard
     at the accessibility issue of Internet resources, and we
     hope to be the beneficiaries of their labors.  We're not
     charged with that end of the technology.

Chong:

     I interpreted this to mean that during the initial phases of
     the project, your attention would be focused primarily on
     making the program work as opposed to making it fully
     accessible to blind Internet users.  After all, I reasoned,
     the program was aimed primarily at transcribers and
     teachers.  Hence, when I wrote to you, I was trying to
     clarify our position that accessibility by the blind to your
     project was, for us, a secondary concern.  In short, I was
     trying to mitigate some of the criticism you were receiving.

Gotwals:

     That *was* the original intent of the program.  I didn't get
     the sense that it was *your* position that accessibility was
     a secondary concern...I'll certainly go back and re-read
     correspondence, but I'm not sure that position came
     through...

Chong:

     If you recall, one of the recommendations I made was this:

          "I think it is important that your promotional
          materials clarify that Braille Online is not now
          accessible to the blind.  You might even take this
          notion a step further and clarify that the target
          audience for the program consists of sighted people who
          will be teaching or producing braille."

     Your response to this recommendation was a simple, "Done."
     You raised no objection to the statement that "Braille
     Online is not now accessible to the blind."

Gotwals:

     And again, we changed that position.  When you and I were
     conversing in December, that was a true statement.  When the
     course was opened in January, it was not.  Christmas holiday
     wasn't!

Chong:

     Since that time, I received no word from you--no e-mail, no
     phone call, nothing.  Moreover, none of my colleagues in the
     National Federation of the Blind reported reading anything
     from you on any Internet mailing list about any change in
     emphasis for the project.  Based on all of the information I
     had in my possession, there was no reason for either myself
     or the editor of the Braille Monitor to do any further
     checking.  Exactly what should we have done differently?  I
     would have thought that you, knowing that I lead a national
     organization of blind people dealing with computer access
     issues, would have taken the trouble to let me know that a
     significant effort had been made to make your course
     accessible to blind people.  Certainly, if you had written
     to me, I would have done everything possible to change the
     article which ultimately appeared in the Monitor.

Gotwals:

     Guess we're both at fault.  For my part, if I had known our
     e-mail correspondence was being published, I would have
     taken the steps to ensure that authors/editors were aware of
     changes.  I had no idea that the article had been published
     (guess I gotta start reading the Monitor, huh?) until my
     mailbox exploded.  For your part (or that of the editor), I
     guess I would have liked to have had someone contact me
     letting me know the stuff was going in, and/or have looked
     at the pages.

Chong:

     I take exception to your implied criticism of me and the
     National Federation of the Blind for the way in which we
     portrayed your program in the Braille Monitor.  You say that
     the journalism could have been tightened up a bit.  Frankly,
     I don't see how.  As far as we were concerned, all of our
     information was current.

Gotwals:

     As above.  Again, three months is a long time in the
     Internet business, as I suspect you know as a computer
     science professional.  On both of our parts, two minutes
     worth of work would have completely removed all of this time
     (and bad feelings!) that we're spending on this
     conversation.

Chong:

     I hope that you will not misunderstand what I am saying
     here.  I have no quarrel with the work you are doing.  I am
     very glad that you and your colleagues have taken the time
     and effort to work on accessibility concerns.  You should be
     commended for this effort. Because I believe that the work
     you are doing is important to the blind community, I would
     like to know more about what you have done to make it
     possible for blind users of the Internet to participate
     fully in your program.  Those of us who are proficient
     braille users are keenly interested to know how braille
     (which is essentially a tactual experience) can be taught
     using speech output.  I would like to know the specific
     actions you took to ensure accessibility to the project
     during the early stages.

Gotwals:

     Thanks for those words, and again I think (or hope) we're on
     the same page of braille!  We don't know if it will work
     either, that's what we're trying to find out!  If it works,
     we'll extend and publish.  If it doesn't, we'll publish why
     not.  Again, we're hoping that the work of others to improve
     the accessibility of Web pages will have an impact on what
     we're doing.  If not, we'll forge our own path as best we
     can!

Chong:

     Please be assured that all of this correspondence is being
     forwarded to Barbara Pierce, Editor of the Braille Monitor.
     Moreover, if you supply me with more specific information
     about how the program is, today, accessible to the blind, I
     will send that along as well.

Gotwals:

Appreciate that extra effort.  Simply, any page that has any kind
of graphics on it (examples, sentences, exercises, etc.) has a
text version that is the first link on the page.  Other images
have the appropriate "alt" tags embedded.  We're encouraging as
many visually-impaired students as we can, as much as we're
encouraging any participation -- we've advertised to two or three
listservs, and have plenty of participants. That's not to say we
don't want more, but beginning this summer we'll complete some
evaluation work and then promote the course more aggressively!).

Chong:

     In closing, I would like to say that you and I should
     communicate with each other more often and under better
     circumstances.  I think that both of us can do a lot to
     improve our relationship.  I will always endeavor to ensure
     that the information I send to the Braille Monitor about
     your work is complete and accurate.  I don't have a lot of
     time to read the hundreds of messages per day generated by
     the many blindness-related mailing lists.  So please
     understand that anything you distribute to those lists will
     probably not be seen by me unless somebody happens to
     forward a particular item to me.  Therefore, I trust that
     you will continue to keep me informed about the work you are
     doing by writing to me personally.

Gotwals:

     Will do.  Likewise, it's hard to keep up with the listservs.

Chong:

     Yours sincerely,

Gotwals:

     Likewise!

_________________________________________________________________

In closing, I would like to present you with two final pieces of
e-mail correspondence.  In June, I had some time to look at the
http://www.shodor.org site.  True to what Mr. Gotwals said, the
Braille Remote Learning section was fully accessible to my
text-only browser.  Bob Gotwals and his colleagues are to be
commended for putting up a fully accessible web site.  I
encourage everyone reading this article to check it out and send
their comments to Robert Gotwals at [log in to unmask]  Here are
the two notes.

_________________________________________________________________

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 22:36:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Curtis Chong <[log in to unmask]>
To: Bob Gotwals <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: http://www.shodor.org

Hello Bob:

Time has finally permitted me to take a good look at
http://www.shodor.org.  Now that I have looked at the Braille
Remote Learning section, I must compliment you and your
colleagues for doing an excellent job making the material
readable by and accessible to people with text-only browsers.
Also, your initial program announcement deserves commendation.
I, for one, really appreciate the introductory paragraph, which
reads:

     "...the Braille through Remote Learning program is designed
     to prepare sighted educators and current/future sighted
     braille transcribers. All materials are accessible to both
     sighted and visually-impaired students. Text versions of
     graphics-based pages are available."

It makes it abundantly clear that the program, while intended for
sighted braille transcribers, is fully accessible to blind or
visually impaired persons interested in perusing the material.
Congratulations on a job well done!

Yours sincerely,

Curtis Chong
President
National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science
[log in to unmask]

_________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 07:35:40 -0500
From: "Bob Gotwals ('Bob2')" <[log in to unmask]>
To: Curtis Chong <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: http://www.shodor.org

Curtis,

Appreciate your kind note....again, I think we've been on the
same "page" all along, something got lost somewhere...

Wouldn't mind seeing your note in the Monitor, but that is, of
course, your call!

Thanks again!


Robert R. Gotwals, Jr.

                             THE END



.