             COMPUTER SCIENCE UPDATE - SUMMER, 1994


                          Published By
                                
                National Federation of the Blind
                       in Computer Science
                                
                    3530 Dupont Avenue North
                  Minneapolis, Minnesota  55412

                     Phone:  (612) 521-3202



                        Table of Contents



Message from the President
by Curtis Chong

Minutes of the 1993 Meeting
of the NFB in Computer Science
by Mike Freeman

Message from Microsoft

Correspondence on the GUI Problem

Letters of Support from NFBCS



                   Message from the President
                         by Curtis Chong

Greetings to the members and friends of the NFB in Computer Science.  As you
doubtless know, we have not produced a newsletter in almost two years.  Much of the
reason for this rather significant lack lies in the demands and other pressures placed
on the NFBCS president.  I am hoping to remedy this problem by finding someone
who would be willing to serve as the newsletter's editor.

The articles in this issue of Computer Science Update deal primarily with an issue
that is of concern to the NFB in Computer Science--namely, the graphical user
interface.  Last year, at our meeting in Dallas, we heard from four companies doing
work in this area.  By the time of our meeting in Detroit (less than a month away),
I expect that a number of companies will have announced that they are either
working on or distributing programs to access Windows 3.1.  So, at least with
respect to Windows, we are seeing some progress.   Of course, everybody is
concerned that the progress we have made will be nullified when the next release of
Windows (code named Chicago) is released to the general market.  In this regard,
we will be able to hear from someone representing Microsoft at our Detroit meeting.

All is not sweetness and light with respect to X Windows.  Despite the growing
acceptance of Unix in the workplace, we have yet to see any commercial access
product for the blind computer user who needs to run an X Windows application. 
The Disability Action Committee for X (DACX) is now working on the promulgation
of standards designed to support hooks in X that would allow screen reading
programs to obtain the information they require.  I am happy to report that a good
bit of progress has been made here.  Beth Mynatt, from Georgia Tech University,
is trying to get a commercialization grant to push forward the work she has done
with something called Mercator, the first ever access technology for X.  Although
I was pleased to write a letter of support in my capacity as president of the NFB in
Computer Science, the grant has not yet been approved as of this writing.

As many of you know, IBM has Screen Reader/2, the only screen reading technology
for OS/2 Presentation Manager, its graphical operating system.  Last fall, when it
appeared that priorities within IBM might be shifting and the Screen Reader/2
project might be severely diminished, I wrote a letter of support on behalf of of the
NFB in Computer Science.

So, as you can see, although I have not done as well as I would have liked in terms
of getting a newsletter out, I have been able to establish the NFB in Computer
Science as a positive voice of support for the projects that are of importance to blind
people needing and wanting independent access to various computer platforms.


                   Minutes of the 1993 Meeting
                 of the NFB in Computer Science
                         by Mike Freeman

The 1993 meeting of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science was
held on July 5,  1993 during the annual convention of the National Federation of the 
Blind (NFB) at the Hyatt-regency DFW hotel in Dallas, Texas.  PRESIDENT  Chong
opened the meeting at 1:11 p.m.

President Chong announced that IBM had donated  a copy of either Screen Reader
for MS-DOS or OS/2 to be given away in a  drawing to be held at the end of the
session.  Another copy of either  Screen Reader for MS-DOS or OS/2 has been
donated to NFBCS; this will be  given away during the NFB convention banquet. 
These programs will be  supplied either with or without an adapter card.

David Andrews announced  that TeleSensory will be giving away twelve copies of
ScreenPower as door prizes  during the convention; the program will come out
sometime during the  fall.

President Chong said he would discuss developments at Microsoft.  He  announced
that a representative from Microsoft (one Greg Lowney) would be speaking at the 
meeting of the NFB Research and Development Committee, to be held later in the
week.  Mr. Lowney currently is  speaking to VIDPI.

The first program segment dealt with Optical Character Recognition  (OCR)
technology as it affects the blind.  In his introduction, President  Chong stated that
he gets calls from many blind persons who want to buy  reading machines.  They
don't have the best training in blindness skills  or attitudes about blindness.  They
think that a reading machine will  obviate the necessity to use readers.  This is, of
course, not true.  However, reading machines can be useful.

"Optical Character Recognition Technology and its Practical Application  for the
Blind" was presented by Bill Schwegler of Arkenstone  Corporation.  He said that
new generations of both standalone and  PC-based reading machines are being
introduced.  Consumers will see more  choices of products, increased machine
performance and reduced costs.  Arkenstone's new family of products (introduced
during the last year)  typically are 40% less expensive and have improved
performance, he said.  Improvements in OCR technology during the last year and the
advent of  more powerful PC's at a reasonable cost were responsible for these 
product improvements.  As more powerful PC'S capable of doing  sophisticated
analysis of scanner output become more affordable,  commercial vendors are
increasingly adopting the PC-based approach.  However, card-based products have
not disappeared. TRUESCAN-600 half-size  cards are still available.  But in general,
the focus has shifted from  hardware-based to software-based products--both for
standalone reading  machines and PC-based systems.  New reading machines have
automatic  contrast selection and more automated page-orientation.  There will be 
more "one-touch" reading machines.  The most important thing a person  must do
when considering which reading machine to buy, said Mr.  Schwegler, was to test
the machines on typical documents that the person  will be reading.  No reading
machine is perfect.

Next, Keith Loris, Vice-president for Technology of Xerox Imaging  Systems,
presented a talk entitled "Document Recognition, the  Intelligent Reading
Methodology."  Mr. Loris said that his firm's mission  was document recognition --
the translation of data on paper into forms  useable by a computer.  Documents are
infinitely variable; this makes it  tough for a computer.  A reading system must
decide what should and  should not be read and in what order items should be read. 
Xerox applies  many analysis "engines" to help in this process.  Screen pixels are 
separated into homogeneous regions of space which are turned into text.  Xerox has
developed a font recognizer/lexifier (on which a patent is  pending) which permits
recognition to not be hampered by non-textual  material.  The lexical classifier
extends the notion of a  dictionary-based recognition system (which is text-based)
to include  non-textual objects.  This same technology has yielded a quantum leap
in  language knowledge.  This yields better performance out-of-the-box.

In  the question-and-answer session on this item, David Andrews said that  none of
the reading machines in the International Braille and Technology  Center would read
his bank statement!

"IBM Continues to Attack the GUI Problem" was the next presentation  item. 
Presented  by James Thatcher, Staff Researcher, Thomas J. Watson  Research
Center, IBM Corporation, it concerned how one uses  Screen Reader and what access
to the GUI is like.  Under OS/2, one can  access MS-DOS applications, WINDOWS
applications and applications written specifically for  OS/2--all at the same time. 
One task is in the "foreground"--this  is the task one is currently interacting
with--and the rest are in the  "background."  In addition to knowing such
text-based character  attributes as color, in the GUI environment, one must also
know such things as the  font of characters displayed on the screen.  To select a
different application to be placed  in the foreground, one chooses from a "window
list" of background  applications.  Such GUI artifacts as dialogue boxes and buttons
are  spoken in a useable form (such as questions that can be answered).  There  is,
however, a fly in the ointment.  Mr. Thatcher said that a critical  problem for access
software developers is emerging: how does one find  the focus of interaction for an
application (such as where one types on  an insertion bar or where the software
cursor is)?  Different  applications use different graphical symbols to represent this. 
In  answer to a question, Mr. Thatcher said that windows access via AIX was  "going
slowly."

The next agenda item was the NFBCS business session, which began at 2:53  p.m. 
The minutes of the 1992 NFBCS meeting were approved as published in  the NFBCS
newsletter.  President Chong said he had spoken twice before  "the rehab folks" at
conferences sponsored by Mississippi State University.  "We all know how the  braille
agendas came out," he observed wryly.  The NFBCS has been asked  to help with
research of the quality of adaptive technology.

President  Chong then announced that Microsoft had designated a person, Greg 
Lowney, to work on access for people with disabilities to Microsoft  products.  Mr.
Lowney will come on Wednesday evening and will speak at  the R&D Committee
meeting.  President Chong then read a letter from Mr.  Lowney.  In the letter, Mr.
Lowney stated that Microsoft has started distributing  specs and documentation on
how Windows works to companies developing  access software.

The NFBCS Treasurer reported last year's balance as $1,568.09.  The  ending
balance this year was $1,712.89.  The report was approved.

The next program segment concerned access software for Microsoft  Windows.  The
first presentation was entitled: "Slimware Window Bridge,  the First Solution to the
Windows Access Problem," and was made by David  Kostyshyn, President of
Syntha-Voice Computers, Inc.  Mr. Kostyshyn is  not convinced that any access
solution will be the total answer to the  problem of access by the blind to the Windows
environment.  Syntha-Voice  took a theoretical, conceptual approach to the
development of access  software for Windows.  They developed the Slimware Window
Bridge software without help from  Microsoft.  The aim was to provide Windows
access with the feel of  familiarity and comfort level of the MS-DOS environment. 
Slimware Window Bridge doesn't worry about the size of windows or box coordinates;
it  behaves as if each window uses the whole screen.  (One must be prepared  for
any screen layout, Mr. Kostyshyn averred). One uses the same  keystrokes to
access applications as does a sighted person. There are  the following limitations:
some bit-mapped graphics cannot be accessed,  some concepts (most notably in
desktop publishing) which cannot be  conveyed, proportional placement of data is
tough to describe and video  support is limited to 640 x 480 pixels.  Kostyshyn would
like to see the  product developed to the point that a blind person could install
Windows  by him/herself.

"OutSPOKEN, from the Macintosh to the PC," was presented by Peter  Cantisani of
Berkeley Systems, Inc.  The access software uses the  same interface to access
Windows as is used by outSPOKEN on the Mac.  Berkeley Systems is developing an
access "toolkit" which will aid access  software developers in creating their own
access products for Windows.  The Berkeley Systems product supports most major
synthesizers (some  allow different voices for cursor, icons, text, etc).  One can
bring up  outSPOKEN for Windows in three ways: from the Windows init file,  by
running the program from Windows or from the command line.  The  program is in
"Beta 1" testing; that is, the system still crashes and  the problems must be fixed
before it can be marketed.  Berkeley Systems  hopes to have the product out in a
couple of months.  Berkeley Systems  plans to port outSPOKEN to the UNIX
environment.

"Artic Technologies' Answer to the Windows Access Question" was  presented by Dale
McDaniel, Vice President of Marketing, Artic  Technologies International.  After
discussing the "advantages" of  Windows (e.g., multitasking and standardization of
applications), Mr. McDaniel  stated that a prototype of WinVision had been made
available in March,  1993, and Artic now had a production version.  Mr. McDaniel
said Artic  shared some of the experiences Mr. Kostyshyn had described.  Artic had 
little contact with Microsoft.  However, Microsoft has discussed Windows/NT with
Artic.  The problem is that the system was designed for the  government with
security considerations in mind.  Microsoft has said they  could put hooks in for
access software.

Mr. McDaniel said that WinVision loads easily, does not use a specific  video driver
(so any video configuration will work), and if one is running  Business Vision under
MS-DOS, one can install Windows independently.  WinVision tracks the mouse, and
there are keyboard mouse commands (Windows  already has keyboard commands). 
Windows boxes, icons, buttons,  checkboxes, etc. are automatically spoken.  One
can tell which font is  being used.

The last program item was "JAWS for Windows, Yet Another Answer to the  Windows
Access Question."  It was presented by Charles Oppermann of  Henter-Joyce.  Mr.
Oppermann said that the program was still in the early  stages of development--the
"pre-pre-alpha" stage.  There are still many  arguments about exactly how things
should be designed and some strange  areas to work through.  The program will
implement a "soft keyboard" via  macros.  The macro language will be redesigned into
a procedural  language.  There will be implemented 26 integer variables, 26 string 
variables and 200 user functions.  There will be 3 cursors: the "PC  cursor", the
"JAWS cursor" (the review cursor) and the "mouse cursor";  all cursors can be
moved with the same commands.  An applications  language will obviate the necessity
for users to employ macros.  Henter-Joyce found Microsoft to be extremely helpful. 
The program is almost entirely written in  C with about 5% written in Assembler.  The
program will read lines as  lines (it uses the "base-line.").  There will be field
functions to inform  the user of font type, etc.  The program should be released by
the end  of the year (1993).

The meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Mike Freeman
Secretary
National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science


                     Message from Microsoft

     From the Editor:  At our 1993 meeting in Dallas, we were not able to
     hear from Greg Lowney, Senior Program Manager, Accessibility and
     Disabilities Group, Microsoft Corporation, in person.  However, Mr.
     Lowney was kind enough to send us the following letter.

_________________________________________________________________

Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA  98052-6399
Tel 206 882 8510
Fax 206 936 7329


July 2, 1993

Curtis Chong
National Federation of the Blind

Dear Curtis,

Thanks very much for inviting me to speak at the NFB in Computer Science meeting
at the annual convention.  I'm sorry that I could not be there in person on Monday
afternoon, but I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in this remote
fashion.

I know that for many of you, Microsoft is a word not to be said in polite company. 
In fact, I'll even agree that much of the criticism has been earned.  In the past,
Microsoft has turned out many software products without really considering their
accessibility to people with disabilities. 

My main message to you today is that we ARE trying to improve.  This is my job: for
the last year or so I have been running Microsoft's Accessibility and Disabilities
Group, working full-time on making Microsoft's products and services more
accessible.  I'd like to give you some examples of the work we are doing, but first
I think I'd better address what is probably the most pressing concern, and that is
Microsoft Windows.

Windows has probably done more than anything else to earn Microsoft the enmity of
the blind community.  Microsoft has been both hated and feared by many people
because we were promoting a graphical operating system without making sure that
it could be used by people who are blind, and the results have been disastrous for
many people.  I am not going to claim that Microsoft is innocent.  As an insider I can
partially understand how these errors came about, but I cannot justify them.

Let me explain our perspective on Microsoft Windows.  At the most basic level,
Windows is a graphical operating system that runs on top of MS-DOS.  It allows you
to continue running MS-DOS applications, but it also enables a new class of Windows-
based applications.  Windows provides a much richer set of services than does MS-
DOS, with the result that applications can avoid reinventing the wheel for each
application.  Windows offers much better memory management than MS-DOS, allowing
you to run networks, full-featured applications and accessibility aids without
running into strict memory limitations of MS-DOS.  Windows is also a graphical
environment.  Windows was, to many people, also inaccessible.

Why?  Most people would probably give the following answers: because it is
graphical; because there weren't any screen reader utilities; because Windows-based
applications use a complicated interface involving menus, dialog boxes, buttons,
scroll-bars, and so forth; and probably because Microsoft didn't care.

Well, it's true that Windows is a graphical operating system, but don't let that
mislead you.  "Graphical" has been a bad word in the past because it was usually
impossible to make graphical applications accessible through speech or Braille
output.  That's because MS-DOS doesn't provide any tools to help, so each
application had to do its own graphical output in its own way.  No standardization
meant that there was no way accessibility aids could work with these products. 
Windows is a graphical environment because the underlying output technology is
based on graphics images, rather than on fixed rows and columns of discrete
characters.  Just like graphical MS-DOS applications, once a letter is drawn on the
screen it is reduced to a graphic image and no one but the application that drew it
remembers what it represents.

But that's where the similarity ends.  Windows offers a richer set of services to
programmers, so they don't have to do things themselves.  They don't draw text and
graphics themselves, they ask the operating system to do it for them.  That is a big
improvement over MS-DOS, and that's what makes it possible to write utilities that
work with almost all applications.

It is true that writing a screen reader for Windows is a much harder proposition than
in a text-based environment, because the operating system doesn't remember the
screen information for you.  A screen reader is burdened with the extra
responsibility of keeping track of this information, in addition to presenting it to the
user in a useful way.  But it is possible.

If that's so, then why did it take years for screen readers to become available for
Windows?  Did we finally do something to make it possible?  No, the accessibility aids
that are now on the market could have been written years ago, and if they had been
then all our lives would have been a bit less stressful!  But every time a new
computing environment comes out, it takes a while for third-party products to adapt. 
It took time when MS-DOS came out, and some platforms are still inaccessible.  And
face it, for many years Windows was a flop, and no one took it seriously.  Also, for
a long time everyone assumed that it was not possible because of the word
"graphics", so no one tried.

To be fair, it was not an easy task--Windows-based applications are complex and
hard to write, so it is natural that Windows-based programs will be complicated as
well.  Now, Microsoft has taken steps to make this task easier.  Last year we started
distributing documentation to companies interested in developing Windows-based
screen readers, explaining the issues and recommended techniques.  This document
has helped "jump start" many developers and resulted in more products available in
a shorter period of time.  Right now I work closely with five companies who have
publicly announced such products, and more who are still working quietly.

We are also listening to these companies, and modifying our future products to help
them build better and more reliable screen readers.  And we're helping them migrate
their utilities to our new operating system, Windows NT, so that this time we won't
have a long lag before the accessibility field catches up.

I'm often asked whether Microsoft will be developing a screen reader of our own, or
in some cases told vehemently that we should.  We currently have no plans to do so;
we feel the community is best served by having a diverse set of products from which
to choose, and the best way to attain this is for Microsoft to put our energy into
empowering and supporting all independent software developers.  The last thing I
want to do is compete with them or put them out of business.

Finally, let me address the question of whether Windows-based applications are
inherently less accessible because of their more complex user interface.  Certainly
they are more complex than the old command-line oriented programs.  But the world
does not stand still.  Even without Windows, we're seeing virtually all applications
move to complex displays designed to convey more information to the sighted user
as quickly and intuitively as possible.  We're finding more applications using
graphics, and a graphical application for MS-DOS is truly inaccessible.  Only by
moving these graphics applications to a common platform, where the use of graphics
is standardized and which itself can be made accessible, can we allow blind users to
continue to access the majority of applications.

The big advantage of Windows is that it offers a greater degree of standardization. 
Almost all Windows-based applications make use of the standard user-interface
elements, and that is a big improvement over MS-DOS.  When a screen reader utility
understands the standard Windows interface it automatically understands much of
all applications.  And this standardization benefits ALL users because once you learn
to use a single Windows-based application you have the basic skills to find your way
around ANY of them...or almost any.

Of course, not all Windows applications are as "well behaved" as we'd like, and some
of the rules that help them work with screen readers are, unfortunately, unwritten
rules.  That's why one can't get too upset at developers who ignore them.  And
that's why Microsoft is currently developing programming guidelines which tell
software developers how to make their applications more accessible.  When these are
released, application vendors will not be able to claim ignorance as a defense!

But as strongly as we word these guidelines, they are recommendations only. 
Microsoft cannot force compliance.  If we are going to get all software developers to
follow them, it will still be in large measure up to organizations such as the NFB to
help us drive home the urgency to each and every company.  And that includes
Microsoft, because this is, after all, a very big company that's made up of lots of
little companies and working on well over a hundred separate software products.  As
with any bureaucracy, it's going to take years before all the problems are corrected.

In closing, let me just throw in a few other notes about what we are doing at
Microsoft.

In the present, we are already making all of our product documentation available to
Recording for the Blind, so they can be distributed in accessible format.  We're also
working with them to automate the production system, so that we can make ALL of
our titles available at low cost and in a timely fashion.  We're also members of the
International Committee on Accessible Document Design, working on standards to
make more documents available in accessible format.  In order to make sure we're
doing things right, we're including accessibility companies, organizations, and users
with disabilities in beta test programs for our future products so we can get their
input before the products are finalized.

And Microsoft's working towards "Information At Your Fingertips", which means
improving the user's ability to sort through and utilize the vast amounts of
information that are available in a digital environment.  Today, I hear from many
people that the best feature in MS-DOS is the /B switch on the DIR command, which
lets you get sorted directory listings.  Extend that to being able to locate any
document on the network by name, by the author, or even by a combination of words
inside it.  That's an example of the technology of the future.

And Windows is going to become increasingly object-oriented, both to the user and
on the inside.  We hope in this way to come closer to one of our long-term goals:
screen readers should not need to be trained or given profiles to adapt to each new
application.  Rather, the application should provide all that information to the screen
reader as part of its standard design.  And Microsoft is also working on voice-input
and voice-output technology which should help make a more flexible operating
environment adaptable to a variety of input and output styles.  In short, the
computer should adapt to the individual, rather than the other way around.

The future is going to be based on information, and Microsoft is, today, at least,
trying to make sure that information is accessible to everyone.  Don't judge us by
the past, but if you see a problem be sure to let us know.

Greg Lowney
Senior Program Manager
Accessibility and Disabilities Group
Microsoft Corporation
Voice 206 936 8510
Fax 206 936 7329
TT/TDD 206 936 2627
Internet greglo@Microsoft.com
CompuServe 70714,1542

Microsoft Corporation is an equal opportunity employer.


                Correspondence on the GUI Problem

     From the Editor:  As Federationists know, I spoke at the second
     US/Canada Conference on Technology for the Blind on the topic
     "Problems and Chalenges of the Graphical User Interface."  This talk
     was reprinted in the January, 1994 edition of the Braille Monitor.

     Some time after the January Monitor was published, I received a note
     via electronic mail from Christopher Chaltain, a National Federation of
     the Blind scholarship winner and an employee of IBM.  Mr. Chaltain has
     had extensive experience with applications using the graphical user
     interface.  He has used and developed such applications.  Mr. Chaltain
     felt that in my speech, I had not given enough credit to IBM for its
     work on Screen Reader/2 and, further, that the tone of my speech was
     unduly pessimistic.  I responded by saying that IBM had indeed done
     a tremendous job in the development of Screen Reader/2 but that,
     nevertheless, blind people still had many challenges to overcome before
     we could achieve full access to applications using the GUI.  Here is the
     exchange of correspondence.

_________________________________________________________________

March 20, 1994

From: Christopher J Chaltain
To: Curtis Chong
Subject: Comments to your remarks at the technology conference

Dear Curtis,

In the Braille Monitor, I read your comments you made at the meeting of the Joint
Committee on Technology held at the National Center in 1993.  I have some critical
comments on your presentation and other remarks you made at the meeting.

First, you stated that IBM first demonstrated Screen Reader/2 at the 1992 national
convention held in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Actually, Jim Thatcher demonstrated
a prototype of Screen Reader/2 in 1990 at the national convention held in Dallas. 
Furthermore, in 1991 in New Orleans, IBM was demonstrating a version of Screen
Reader/2 for version 1.3 of OS/2.  This version was also available on a limited basis
to IBM customers.  What was unique about the demonstration in Charlotte was that
it marked the general availability of Screen Reader/2 which ran on OS/2 2.0 and
provided support for MS Windows applications.

Second, you implied that Microsoft's interest in making MS Windows accessible began
with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA). Unfortunately, the
structure of your presentation also had you referring to IBM in the surrounding
comments, which could lead the listeners to infer that IBM's efforts were also a result
of ADA.  As you know, this is not the case. Besides the dates mentioned in my
previous paragraph, I have been aware of Jim's efforts to make OS/2 accessible to
the blind since 1988, and I believe he started earlier than that.  This shows that
IBM's interest in making OS/2 accessible predates the passage of ADA.  The
accessibility of OS/2 by the blind is more a result of Jim Thatcher's drive and efforts
than any other single cause.

Third, when the subject of the American Printing House for the Blind (APH)
producing a tape to instruct the blind on using the graphical user interface (GUI)
came up, you recommended that the target system should be a Macintosh with
outSPOKEN, since that is the only graphical user interface accessible to the blind. 
I have never used a Macintosh running outSPOKEN, but I cannot imagine that it is
more accessible than an OS/2 machine running Screen Reader/2.  I have been using
OS/2 and Screen Reader/2 exclusively since the first month of 1991.  Not only has
this allowed me to advance in my career, but it has made me a more efficient and
productive employee.

Finally, the overall tone of your remarks was negative and pessimistic regarding the
blind's use of the graphical user interface.  I, on the other hand, am optimistic and
encouraged by the work done by IBM, Berkeley Systems, and others.  There is a
reason that the graphical user interface is becoming so popular among our sighted
colleagues, and those very same reasons make it an exciting opportunity for the
blind computer user.  As I stated above, I am a more efficient and productive
computer user because of my access to a GUI. Furthermore, I have access to
applications I never could have accessed under DOS like the desktop publishing
software, FrameMaker for Windows.  Under DOS this WYSIWYG application would
have been totally graphical and unaccessible to the blind user.

Obviously, the blind user faces some challenges with the graphical user interface. 
It is not as intuitive for the blind user as it is supposed to be for the sighted user. 
However, once the blind user has mastered the additional complexity of a GUI and
the associated access application, the benefits of the Common User Access (CUA)
standards and multi-tasking make it well worth the effort.

I guess I was particularly distressed by your comments.  I, like many blind computer
users, hold you in high regard and value your opinion.  I was under the impression
from your comments at previous conventions that you were impressed with the work
of Jim Thatcher and IBM to make OS/2 and MS Windows accessible to the blind.  I was
also under the impression that you had an open mind to the benefits the GUI could
have for a blind computer user.  None of this came out in your comments, at least not
in my reading.

Would it be possible for me to get a copy of your remarks?  I am sure they are
available somewhere on the Internet or on some bulletin board.  I would like to pass
them around to a few people to see if my comments are shared by any of the other
blind GUI users.

Christopher

_________________________________________________________________

March 21, 1994

From: Curtis Chong
To: Christopher J. Chaltain
Subject: My Remarks on the GUI

Dear Chris:

Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your thoughts concerning my
speech on the Problems and Challenges of the Graphical User Interface (GUI).  I am
always glad to receive constructive and thoughtful criticism about the articles and
speeches I write.

First, I would like to set the record straight concerning my view of Screen Reader/2
in general and my high regard for Jim Thatcher in particular.

In many informal conversations, in person, on the phone, communicating over the
Internet, on NFB-NET, or in the CompuServe Disabilities Forum, I have expressed
the belief that IBM deserves a lot of credit for developing Screen Reader/2.  As you
so rightly point out, IBM's work on this program pre-dates the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).  Screen Reader/2 is, today, the only screen access solution
for blind people who want or need to use the OS/2 operating system.  If a
corporation selects OS/2 as its "platform of choice," blind people who are affected
by this decision will be able to keep their jobs because of Screen Reader/2.  And
yes, I know that Screen Reader/2, together with OS/2, can provide access to
applications designed to run under Microsoft Windows.

As I learn more about Screen Reader/2 (having recently converted my office
computer to OS/2), I am impressed by the amount of planning, forethought, and
downright genius that has gone into the development of this software.  I thank God,
quite literally, for Jim Thatcher.  Although he would probably not admit it, I believe
that he has been the inspiration, the driving force, and the architect for the entire
Screen Reader project.  Jim Thatcher possesses great personal warmth, public
charm, tremendous enthusiasm, and intuitive genius.  I have made no secret of my
high personal regard for him.  This is why, year after year, I have invited him to
speak at annual meetings of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer
Science.  Each and every year, Jim has never disappointed me.  He always has
something interesting and thought provoking to say, and he is always upbeat about
the potential for blind people to use the GUI on the same terms as their sighted
peers.

Why then, in my speech, did I not devote more space to IBM and Screen Reader/2? 
Why did I fail to mention the fact that in 1990, and again in 1991, prototypes of
Screen Reader/2 were demonstrated at Federation conventions?  Why did I not
express more optimism about the potential for blind people to use GUI applications?

I think to understand why my speech turned out as it did, you have to be aware of
the context in which it was presented and the audience I was attempting to address. 
As you know, the Second US/Canada Conference on Technology for the Blind
brought together people from four groups: leaders from the field of work with the
blind, leaders from organizations of the blind, leaders from companies manufacturing
or marketing specialized technology for the blind, and representatives from the
principal computer companies in private industry having a major effect upon the
ability of blind people to use commercial software (i.e., IBM and Microsoft). Because
of the diverse nature of the group, it was difficult for me to come up with points that
would mean the same thing to everybody. I wanted to shake up the rehabilitation
professionals--to stop them from wallowing in DOS-based solutions for their blind
clients.  I wanted to send a message to private industry to the effect that today, the
GUI is still a problem for the blind, despite Screen Reader/2.  I wanted to make the
point that access to the GUI is not a matter to be considered once and then
forgotten; it is something that must be considered each and every time a new
operating system or application is developed.

I readily admit that at the time my speech was written, I knew next to nothing about
how to run a GUI platform.  When I wrote my speech, I was getting a constant stream
of queries from blind people around the country who were concerned that their jobs
were on the line because of conversions to a graphical platform or application.  The
platform most frequently mentioned was Windows. I had no current and specific
information from knowledgeable, articulate blind people (such as yourself) about the
ability of OS/2 and Screen Reader/2 to provide real access to such software as Word
for Windows or (in your case) Framemaker for Windows.  I was thinking in terms of
the average blind computer user--the computer user who could not get early releases
of software from IBM, the computer user who knew nothing about the differences
between DOS and an operating system using the GUI, and the computer user who was
told to convert to Windows but not to OS/2.

I do recall that in 1990 and 1991, prototypes of Screen Reader/2 were demonstrated
at NFB and other conventions.  I remember going to a Wednesday afternoon
demonstration of Screen Reader/2 at the Charlotte convention in 1992.  Because the
1990 and 1991 demonstrations were of prototypes, available only to a limited set of
individuals, I did not regard them as having much significance in the over-all scheme
of things.  It was perhaps because of this perception that I did not mention them in
my speech.  The 1992 demonstration was quite another matter, as you know.  By
then, Screen Reader/2 was a viable product, soon to be generally available.  That,
I felt, was worth mentioning in my speech.  And while we are on the subject, I did
not actually say that the Charlotte demonstration was the first time IBM had ever
demonstrated Screen Reader/2.  My exact words were, "At the 1992 convention of
the National Federation of the Blind, IBM demonstrated its screen reading system for
the graphical OS/2 Presentation Manager."  Although this statement fails to make
note of the 1990-91 prototype demonstrations, it was never meant to imply that IBM
had done nothing in this area until 1992.

You say that the over-all tone of my remarks was negative and pessimistic.  I would
prefer to think of the tone as realistic.  As you say, you have been using Screen
Reader/2 and OS/2 Presentation Manager since the beginning of 1991.  You have
doubtless had access to Screen Reader developers, OS/2 support personnel, and
perhaps even some intensive training.  With all of these resources to help you, how
could you not feel positive about the GUI and your ability to develop and use
applications built around it?  On the other hand, I and a growing number of blind
people are only now beginning to use GUI operating systems and applications.  In my
case, although I am fortunate to have contact with some key IBM people such as Jim
Thatcher, I found that I was not getting enough help on a day-to-day basis to
understand the intricacies of this new graphical operating system, OS/2.  No one
where I worked could tell me how to manipulate objects on the OS/2 desktop without
a mouse, not to mention learning about Screen Reader/2.  I was continually
frustrated by the fact that the documentation, even though it was online, provided
very little in-depth information about how everything worked together.  Installing
a simple DOS application (WordPerfect 5.1) would have been far more difficult if I
had followed the instructions in the OS/2 User's Guide.  In the end, it became
necessary for me to arrange to receive a week's worth of training from Frank
DiPalermo, a Screen Reader/2 consultant. Fortunately for me, my employer was more
than willing to pay for the training.  How many other blind people do you suppose
will find themselves in exactly this situation?  Quite a few, I would bet. How many
of them will be as fortunate as I was?  I simply don't know.

I think that it is also important to point out here that OS/2 is not the only
graphically-based system that has created concern among blind computer users and
professionals.  More and more blind people want to know when a commercial access
product will be available for X Windows applications.  I have received complaints
from frustrated blind Macintosh users who tell me that Berkeley Systems is
diminishing its support for the outSPOKEN program.  Do these problems cause me
to be negative and pessimistic?  I prefer to think of them as helping me to be
"concerned."  As you say, blind people still face challenges accessing the graphical
user interface.  Screen Reader/2 is one solution to the problem, but it is by no
means the only solution--nor should it be.

Screen Reader/2 and OS/2 are fine systems in their own right. Together they
provide access to a wide variety of GUI applications. This is the message I have been
communicating to blind people in a variety of forums.  I chose not to promote Screen
Reader/2 quite so heavily in my speech because I was attempting to communicate a
different message.  If you feel that I was not as positive about Screen Reader/2,
OS/2, and IBM in my speech as you might have liked, I can only say that I have had
other opportunities to demonstrate my support in ways that you may not know.  For
example, just a few months ago, on behalf of the NFB in Computer Science, I wrote
a letter of support for the Screen Reader project when I learned that it was being
re-examined by IBM top management.  I circulated the letter quite widely and caused
other blind people to write letters of their own.

Under separate cover, I will be shipping you an electronic copy of my speech as an
ASCII text file.  Feel free to circulate it around to other blind GUI users or to
anyone else you think would be interested in reading it.  When you solicit reactions
to the speech, I hope you will keep in mind what I have said here.

Cordially,

Curtis Chong, President
National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science

                  Letters of Support from NFBCS

     From the Editor:  During the past year, the National Federation of the
     Blind in Computer Science has written two letters of support: one in
     support of the Screen Reader/2 project and another to support a
     commercialization grant for the Mercator project.  They are reprinted
     here for your information.

_________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
October 13, 1993

Shmuel Winograd,
Director
Mathematical Sciences
IBM Corporation
Thomas J. Watson Research Center
P.O. Box 218
Yorktown Heights, New York  10598

Greetings:

As president of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, I would
like to express my personal support and that of the organization for the work IBM
has done and continues to do regarding Screen Reader.  Particularly noteworthy is
IBM's work on Screen Reader/2, the ONLY screen reading technology that enables
blind people to use OS/2 applications without sighted assistance.

I recognize that in the DOS arena, other competing screen reading systems are
available to the blind and that, arguably, IBM should never have developed Screen
Reader for DOS.  However, it should be pointed out that without the experiences
gained in developing and then marketing the DOS version of Screen Reader, IBM
would have had a much more difficult task developing and promoting its Screen
Reader for OS/2.  As it is today, a lot of blind people, including myself, appreciate
the fact that Screen Reader developers at IBM have done a better job with the OS/2
Screen Reader as a direct result of the experiences gained in the development and
marketing of Screen Reader for DOS.

In today's corporate data processing environment, an increasing number of systems
are converting to the graphical user interface (GUI).  Some of these conversions are
to the Windows platform, and others, to OS/2.  Inasmuch as OS/2 provides access
to Windows applications, there is no reason why a blind employee (who may be
adversely affected by any conversion to Windows) cannot use OS/2 (and by
extension, Screen Reader for OS/2) to access the same Windows-based applications
as his or her sighted colleagues.  Although there are other companies marketing
Windows access products for the blind today, none of them has the depth and
experience with the GUI that has already been evidenced in IBM's Screen Reader for
OS/2.

As an ever-increasing number of corporations convert to the use of the GUI, IBM's
role in making the GUI accessible to the blind through Screen Reader/2 and OS/2 will
necessarily grow in importance.  If I may, I would like to cite my own personal
situation as an example.  Last August, my employer, IDS Financial Services, made
a sweeping platform decision.  It was decided that the platform of choice for IDS
would be IBM's OS/2 as opposed to Windows, Apple Macintoshes, etc.  This decision
has a significant effect upon everyone at IDS whose job requires the use of a
computer.  Even now, large scale conversion plans are being drawn up by a
multitude of departments as we work to implement this major decision.  If not for
IBM's Screen Reader/2 and the significant development effort that went into this
product, blind computer users at IDS, including me, would have been effectively
shut out from the computer.  At least now, we have the very real possibility that we
will continue to be able to enjoy the independent access to corporate applications
(such as the E/MAIL system with which I am sending this letter) that we have today.

What I am trying to say in a round-about way is that IBM Screen Reader,
particularly Screen Reader for OS/2 (and perhaps for other GUI platforms) is a vital
component in the total mix of products enabling blind people to use critical
applications in the graphical environment.  For OS/2, Screen Reader is the ONLY
choice we have, and it is a good choice.  I encourage you and the other folks who are
working at IBM to continue your essential and highly desirable efforts in this area.

Yours sincerely,

Curtis Chong
President
National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science

_________________________________________________________________

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IN COMPUTER SCIENCE
March 15, 1994

Sheila Stanley
Advanced Technology Development Center
Faculty Research Commercialization Program
430 Tenth Street, NW, N-116
Atlanta, Georgia 30318

Dear Ms. Stanley:

On behalf of the members of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science
(NFBCS), I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal support and
that of the organization for the work that is being done at Georgia Tech University
on the Mercator Project, directed by Elizabeth Mynatt.  I understand that there is
a proposal being developed to produce a commercial system which would provide
access to Motif applications on Unix workstations for users who are blind.  I am
writing this letter to express support for that proposal.

Blind computer users today, whether on the college campus, in the workplace, or at
home, have achieved a high degree of access to text-based applications running on
IBM PC's and compatible computers using the Disk Operating System (DOS).  Today,
it is not surprising to find a blind person using the same word processor,
communications program, spreadsheet, or data base system as his/her sighted
peers.  For example, I am writing this letter to you using WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS. 


However, blind computer users are being threatened by the growing acceptance and
use of graphically-based applications--applications that run under Windows, OS/2,
or Unix.  I think it is safe to say that blind people have actually lost jobs because
of this trend.  Why?  Because screen access technology has not been able to keep
pace with the accelerating conversion of applications from a text-based interface to
one using the GUI.

This problem is particularly acute for blind people using Unix applications. 
Although standard communication programs such as Procomm Plus, CrossTalk, Telix,
and the like permit a blind person to "Telnet" into a text-based Unix application,
they do not provide any kind of access to graphically based programs.  With respect
to Windows and OS/2 Presentation Manager, there are screen reading systems that
can be purchased by a blind person who needs or wants to use applications running
under these software platforms.  Not so with Unix and applications written for X. 
Today, there is not one single commercial screen access system that a blind person
can buy to use a graphical application written under Unix.

I can tell you that a lot of blind people around this country are very interested in the
work of the Mercator Project.  We would welcome any effort to make a commercial
offering available in this area, and we hope that we would have something to say
about how the system functions from the viewpoint of the blind computer user.

I appreciate this opportunity to express my support and that of NFBCS for the effort
to make a commercial X access system available.  Rest assured that it is badly needed
by a growing number of blind computer users and professionals around the country.

Yours sincerely,

Curtis Chong
President
National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science
