COMPUTER SCIENCE UPDATE - SUMMER, 1995 Published By National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science 20 Northeast 2nd Street Apartment 908 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413-2265 Phone: (612) 379-3493 Internet: curtisc@winternet.com ELECTRONIC INFORMATION KIOSKS WHAT'S ALL THE FUSS ABOUT? by Curtis Chong If you attended the 1994 meeting of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, held in Detroit, Michigan, you may recall the discussion that took place about electronic information kiosks. Essentially, these are public terminals equipped with touch screens and multimedia (voice and video) output, which are supposed to provide greater "accessibility" to facilities, information, and services. Many of us were struck by the irony in the use of the term "accessibility" in the video presentation we saw; for as it turns out, these devices are, for the blind, anything but. Is this lack of accessibility something for blind people to get excited about? Will our lives be irrevocably damaged by the proliferation of electronic information kiosks throughout the country? What is an electronic information kiosk anyway? Generally speaking, an information kiosk is a public computer terminal designed to give and receive information. Information is usually presented on a video display, accompanied by some pre-recorded digitized speech. Some kiosks contain a printer that can be used to produce selected hard copy. There is typically no QWERTY keyboard or numeric keypad. Information is entered through virtual push buttons, which are displayed visually on the screen. For more complex data entry, a virtual numeric keypad or full QWERTY keyboard can be displayed. Users then touch the keys they wish to "press." Information presented on the screen is displayed using a combination of text and still or animated pictures. The virtual push buttons can be located anywhere on the screen, and there are typically no buttons in standard locations that can be located by touch. The technology represented by electronic information kiosks is spreading rapidly across the country with little if any thought given to whether or not it is useful to persons who are blind. At least, this is the way it appears today. As I see it, we are faced with two fundamental questions: 1. Will the proliferation of electronic information kiosks--at least in their current form--harm our prospects to compete on terms of equality with the sighted? To put it another way, will the widespread use of this technology force blind people to rely upon sighted assistance to perform those basic tasks which we perform independently today? 2. If we wish to have full and equal access to the services available through information kiosks, what solutions should we be pushing for? In other words, how do we want to interact with an electronic information kiosk? Do we want to deal with it on its own terms (i.e., using the touch screen instead of a regular keyboard) or do we want to push only for those modifications that would make it possible for us to use information kiosks with our own access technology (e.g., personal computer, Braille 'n Speak, or whatever.)? Although I do not regard the proliferation of information kiosks as an immediate threat, I do believe that we should begin formulating approaches to adapting the technology so that it can be used without sight. State and federal agencies find kiosks appealing not only because they give the appearance of increasing public access to the government, but also because, in the long run, they represent a way to reduce staff while providing the same amount of service. We are already seeing kiosks spring up in California, Washington, Texas, and other states. The White House has announced the opening of a Worldwide Web Server that will be accessed via electronic information kiosk. In my home state of Minnesota, the Department of Economic Security, the department which houses our state agency for the blind, is seriously considering the use of information kiosks as a way to expand the reach of its services. Kiosks are simply too appealing to resist. So, although today it is no big deal for us not to have access to government information and services through these kiosks (we can always visit an office where there are live human beings to provide the service), what will happen if the decision is made to close down a local office because the service can be provided more cheaply and efficiently through an electronic kiosk? Is it a stretch of the imagination for a bank or airport to consider replacing live staff with an automated kiosk? I don't think so. The day will come when electronic kiosks are as common as automatic teller machines, and it is incumbent upon us as knowledgeable and concerned blind consumers to have a say about how we will interact with this technology. Turning to the second question--how will we access electronic kiosks--I will be the first to admit that we do not have all of the answers. We don't have enough experience with touch screens and the like. We certainly aren't lacking for opinions, however. Some people think that all electronic kiosks should be equipped with a telephone handset that will put you in touch with a live operator. Others maintain that every kiosk should have a real keyboard that can be operated by touch and a speech synthesizer with intelligently designed software to drive it. A third viewpoint holds that kiosks should be equipped with inexpensive, infrared transmitters designed to send standard signals to whatever access technology the blind individual wants to use, thereby permitting output to be delivered in the preferred medium. Steve Jacobson (NFBCS Vice President) and I had an opportunity to examine two different approaches. While attending a technology conference in Bloomington, Minnesota, we both examined a prototype talking kiosk application put together by Dr. Gregg Vanderheiden of the Trace Research and Development Center in Madison, Wisconsin. Dr. Vanderheiden took the source code from an existing kiosk application running on the University of Wisconsin campus and modified it to work on a PC equipped with a touch screen and an Accent speech synthesizer. Here is how it works. Using a pen or the back of the fingernail, one can slide across the screen and hear each item as it is traversed. If one wants to select a particular item, one simply lifts the hand off the screen, and the item is "selected." To avoid selecting anything, one simply moves the hand to some white space, denoted by a hissing sound generated by the synthesizer, and lifts. In addition to buttons that are unique to each screen, each layout contains a few "standard" buttons. For example, there is one button to describe the screen and another to take you to the "Main Menu." By selecting the map of the college campus, it is relatively easy to locate the restrooms and other features of a building. One can even search the student directory by entering entries via a virtual QWERTY keyboard, and a security code can be entered from a virtual numeric keypad displayed on the screen. Initially, proficiency suffers somewhat, but with a bit of practice, one can develop enough speed to use the technology with good efficiency. Dr. Vanderheiden believes that research still needs to be done to determine the best way to design what he refers to as a "seamless interface." There are some questions that need to be answered: o What is the most comfortable way for a blind person to interact with a touch screen? o If talking technology is a standard feature on information kiosks, should speech be generated for everybody or only for the blind user? o If only for the blind user, what standard sequence should be developed to activate the talking interface? The second approach Steve and I examined was incorporated into a demonstration kiosk developed by North Communications. Upon first examination, it becomes clear that this kiosk is not designed initially to be accessible to the blind; it is designed to provide information about the services offered by the Minnesota Department of Economic Security as a whole. The only concession made for purposes of accessibility have to do with the information segment on services to the blind. Every three or four minutes, the kiosk will generate some music and a verbal prompt instructing the user to touch the top part of the screen to hear about services for the blind. If the user responds accordingly, various information segments can be selected by pressing one of the four corners of the screen. (Needless to say, we were quick to inform North Communications of our desire to have all of the information segments accessible--not just those dealing with services for the blind.) The kiosk contains design features which are clearly meant to be used by someone who can see the screen. For example, for many menu selections, users are instructed to "touch here," meaning that they should press a button highlighted by a moving arrow. Steve and I suggested to North Communications that this verbal prompt be changed to "touch the screen now," and the software modified to react positively when the screen is touched within a few seconds of the prompt. We also pointed out that additional buttons could be added with no change to the physical hardware. For example, it is fairly simple to locate nine positions on the screen by touch: the four corners, the centers of each edge, and the center of the screen itself. It requires only a software change to prompt the user to touch one of these nine locations to make a menu selection. A lot of the information in the North Communications prototype consists of pre-recorded verbal presentations. However, there is one application (a job selection screen) which displays information about a variety of jobs in plain text on the screen. This application is totally inaccessible to the blind. It can only become accessible by incorporating new technology into the kiosk (e.g., synthetic speech or some sort of infrared transmitter). It is interesting to note that the software driving the kiosk is running under IBM's OS/2 Presentation Manager. We know that OS/2 applications can be made accessible to the blind with IBM's Screen Reader/2. The North Communications kiosk is not a touch screen per se. Compared to the touch screen in Dr. Vanderheiden's prototype, the North Communications kiosk is sluggish, recognizing button presses only once every few seconds. The technology is not designed to accommodate scanning with a pen or fingernail. On the plus side, the kiosk does generate a beep when a button is pressed. In discussing ways to make the North Communications kiosk more user friendly to the blind, we found that many of the applications could be made useable by modifying them to incorporate the "touch now" concept, discussed earlier. Many speech prompts can be built into the kiosk by using pre-recorded phrases. But for those applications that convey complex and often changing information, it is clear that pre-recorded speech simply is not the ultimate answer. Based on what you have read so far, you might conclude that we should push vigorously to have Dr. Vanderheiden's approach incorporated into all new kiosks. However, the answer is not quite that simple. The Vanderheiden prototype was examined by blind people who are admittedly more sophisticated in their use of computer technology than the average person who is likely to walk up to and use a kiosk. This "average" user is assumed not to be familiar with computer technology--in other words, to be "computer illiterate." In general, information kiosks are meant to be used by such individuals. Which approach would work well for a similarly situated blind person: the Vanderheiden prototype or an appropriately modified North Communications kiosk, equipped with synthetic speech or other output capabilities? The answer is, at best, inconclusive. The one clear fact is that we, blind consumers, need to participate actively and affirmatively in the formulation of any solution that is developed on our behalf. We are fortunate in that Dr. Vanderheiden's prototype will be available for us to examine in detail at the 1995 National Federation of the Blind Convention. NFBTRANS VASTLY IMPROVED by Curtis Chong On August 13, 1992, David Andrews, Director of the International Braille and Technology Center, announced that the National Federation of the Blind was releasing the source code for NFBTRANS, its well known Grade II braille translation software. "We are releasing the source code to the computer community as a gift, not to enrich individuals or companies," Andrews said. Randy Formenti, an enterprising computer programmer who happens to be blind, took the PASCAL source code, converted it to C, and produced several new and improved versions of the program, which he then uploaded to NFB-NET, the National Federation of the Blind's electronic bulletin board. According to Formenti, "My purpose in making improvements to NFBTRANS is to make a high quality braille translator available free to anyone who has a need for it and to promote braille literacy." The latest version of NFBTRANS now available from NFB-NET is Version 7.39. Here is a list of the improvements that have been incorporated into the program by Randy Formenti: 1. The user now receives meaningful error messages instead of cryptic run time errors with no explanation. 2. The nfbtable program is no longer needed. The table of translation rules is now read from a text file that can be edited by the user. 3. NFBTRANS now has a configuration file. The user can select from over fifty options which can change the behavior of the program. For example, if you always want to emboss a single copy and start on page one, you can set this up in a configuration file. If this is the default configuration file, NFBTRANS will no longer prompt you for this information. In fact, you can set things up in the configuration file so that NFBTRANS only asks you for the name of the file to be processed. No more annoying and repetitive menu prompts. 4. Enhanced command line options permit virtually any default value to be temporarily overridden. In addition, one can specify alternate configuration files, adding even more flexibility to the program. A command line option can direct NFBTRANS to translate a list of files whose names have been stored in a special list file. 5. NFBTRANS can be instructed to process groups of files differently, depending upon the file extension. For example, suppose you store all of your C programs in files using the ".C" extension. NFBTRANS can be configured to always emboss all files with the ".C" extension using eight-dot braille. 6. Interpoint braille is supported. Page numbering of even (left facing) pages is suppressed, and provision is made to skip to the next right-facing page. 7. Automatic table of contents generation with braille page numbers has been implemented. 8. You can choose how NFBTRANS will detect a paragraph in the original text: block style, indented lines, or both. 9. Several new commands for table formatting have been added. 10. A conditional end-of-page command has been added to prevent titles from being separated from subsequent text by page breaks. 11. Several commands have been added to the external format language to permit automatic alteration or deletion of words or lines containing specific character strings. 12. The user can now control whether NFBTRANS produces audible tones and whether page numbers are displayed to show progress of translation. 13. Commands are now provided that give the user control over how long, centered lines are broken and the number of spaces the carry-over list lines are indented. 14. Files can be embossed as they are being translated or in the backround using the DOS print command. 15. NFBTRANS can be configured to output a statistics file containing items such as estimated embossing time and words per page. 16. NFBTRANS contains support for foreign language braille translation tables and math translation tables. NFBTRANS comes with complete documentation and C source. It will compile under MSDOS or Unix. NFBTRANS is available free from NFB-NET or the handicap ftp site. For a uuencoded file send a request to Randy Formenti. His Internet address is rcf@genrad.com. MINUTES ANNUAL MEETING NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IN COMPUTER SCIENCE JULY 3, 1994 by Mike Freeman, Secretary The 1994 meeting of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science (NFBCS) was held at the Westin Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan, on the afternoon of Sunday, July 3, 1994 during the convention of the National Federation of the Blind. President Curtis Chong called the meeting to order at 1:01 p.m. He announced that the NFBCS newsletter would be available on NFB-NET and in Library 5 of CompuServe's Disabilities Forum. Brian Buhrow will upload the newsletter onto the Internet he said. President Chong next discussed the new computer, the Myna, produced by Technologies for Independence (TFI). He said that TFI has been very friendly toward the NFB. Describing the Myna as "interesting" and "different", President Chong urged his listeners to look at the Myna and tell TFI how it could be improved. He said that although it is not an ideal system, it can be made so through constructive suggestions. He said that it does things other "palmtops" don't do; it is the smallest computer with DECTalk in it. He then introduced Mohymen Saddeek from TFI to describe the Myna. Mr. Saddeek described the Myna as weighing about 1.2 pounds and having dimensions of 9.6 inches by 4.6 inches by 1.16 inches. It is a 386 computer with an IBM-COMPATIBLE keyboard comprising 82 keys with imbedded numeric and function keys. It has DECTALK built-in, 5th-generation chips and software on flash ROMS. It comes with the MicroSoft Works suite of programs and a full implementation of IBM Screen Reader for DOS. There is, however, no need to use an extended keypad. Profiles are included for WordPerfect, Lotus, MicroSoft Works and Microsoft Organizer. The Bookmanager program (for reading RFB E-Text books) is available. The Myna has two memory expansion slots; memory can be expanded to 40 megabytes. One can buy the Myna with a "doubler" for a possible memory capacity of 80 megabytes. The built-in software can be updated. The introductory price is $1,995 with AC adapter, carrying case and headphone. Two braille displays will be available in September, costing $1,695 and $3,195 with 20 and 40 cells, respectively. These displays will have full cursor navigation and will work with other computers. Mr. Saddeek assured the audience that he, President Chong and Steve Jacobson would work "to enhance the unit...and make it an exceptional machine." He assured the group that he would implement NFB's suggestions. Next, Curtis Chong, a Designer/Consultant for IDS Financial Services, and Steve Jacobson, a Senior Design Analyst with the 3M Company, presented a panel discussion entitled "FROM DOS to the Graphical User Interface, Blind Users in Transition." In his introductory remarks, Curtis Chong said that the first place people will see conversion from DOS to the Graphical User Interface (GUI) will be in the office. He said that his employer had decided to make the switch from DOS and the Macintosh to OS/2. He said that he thought a useful program item would be to discuss the day-to-day experiences of switching over or "how we got out of switching over." Steve Jacobson, who serves as NFBCS vice president, stated that he has been in the "computer business" for many years. He said that Curtis chong had converted to the GUI while he was barely beginning the process. The first question that a blind person needs to answer is whether conversion to the GUI is immediately necessary. Four years ago, the 3M Company decided to convert to the Windows environment. Steve Jacobson had to search for DOS options since adaptive technology to make the Windows environment accessible was not available at that time. He discovered that converting to a Windows environment did not necessarily mean using Windows software. Word processing was largely text based, and the terminal emulation done under Windows could also be done under DOS although perhaps not as efficiently. Mr. Jacobson said that he had no trouble getting files converted to or from Word for Windows although a secretary might not have that option because formatting information could be lost due to version skew. In the case of terminal emulation (using a PC as a terminal connected to a mainframe computer), depending upon the type of connection, there were DOS solutions. It is definitely worth investigating whether conversion is really necessary. Mr. Jacobson said that he is now investigating conversion to the GUI for several reasons. First, during the last year, the ability to access OS/2, Windows and their associated application programs has improved markedly. There are more options for GUI access today, and things are going to get better. Second, memory management is much easier under OS/2 or Windows for multiple applications (speech software, terminal emulators, LAN software, etc.). Third, although it is not a major reason, most of us will soon be using a GUI of some sort in the workplace; it's time we got used to it. The days of using graphics under DOS are receding, he averred. Windows and OS/2 give more automatic graphics access than under DOS. If we consumers do our jobs correctly, we may have better application access than we've ever had under DOS. In the meantime, it is probably possible to postpone conversion to a GUI and still use DOS applications to buy time until the access technology has matured. Curtis Chong stated that he works for a unit called Operating Software and Performance Management. He coordinates the work of the Communication Software Support Team. His main focus is communications software and data transmission methodologies. Last August, IDS decided to switch to OS/2. When he went for training, however, it became clear that the local IBM gurus did not know how to do anything without using the mouse. The OS/2 manuals were no better; they did not explain the underlying structure or what files were being used/changed; everything was in terms of that pesky rodent. When he got his OS/2 system, he had to get help from the Workstation gurus who "treated me like a user." Finally, Mr. Chong got a speech program to run under DOS and Screen Reader/2 to run under OS/2; his PC was set up with the "Dual Boot" configuration, allowing him to run either OS/2 or plain DOS, depending on his requirements. Plain vanila DOS was sometimes necessary, he said, because OS/2 would occasionally lock certain files needed by some applications; his print spooler wouldn't work, and he could not print from the screen. Christmas vacation was used plowing through a Screen Reader/2 tutorial, but confusion still reigned. Finally, Mr. Chong was able to secure a week's training from Frank DiPalermo of Ability Consulting; he still gets confused but can "fool around and do things." Mr. Chong said his coworkers are jealous; he can do things under OS/2 with the keyboard faster than they can with the mouse. In the question-and-answer period, David Andrews, Director of the International Braille and Technology Center stated that the National Federation of the Blind would be evaluating all the systems designed to make Windows and the GUI accessible to the blind. Other persons related their experiences switching to OS/2 or to Windows. In response to a question about MicroSoft's Chicago, Greg Lowney of Microsoft stated that documentation on Chicago had gone to various screen reading program vendors and that apparently some were finding that it was easier to work with than expected. Adequate training for blind computer users (or the lack of it) was raised as an issue by several people. The next item was a panel discussion entitled "The Blind Too Can Travel Along the Information Superhighway"; the presenters were Lloyd Rasmussen, Senior Staff Engineer, National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped; Mike Freeman, Computer Systems Programmer, Bonneville Power Administration; and David Andrews, Director, International Braille and Technology Center. Lloyd Rasmussen briefly discussed the commercial online service GENIE; Mike Freeman discussed the Internet; and David Andrews discussed other online services. Lloyd Rasmussen said he started telecommunicating some 15 years ago with a DigiCasette and a 300-baud modem; this taught him much about serial communications. He then began talking to a deaf-blind person, Georgia Griffiths, using a VersaBraille and modem, first long-distance and then via CompuServe. Mr. Rasmussen has been on GENIE since 1987 (it began in 1986). He likes GENIE because it is easy to use and there is a wide variety of information and services available. For example, one can find news/sports from Reuters' and many bulletin boards and roundtable discussion areas divided into categories and topics. The bulletin boards also have file areas (from which one can download) and areas for announcements. There is a fine disabilities bulletin board, and the Braille Monitor for the last 2 years can be found there. One can get the "Cyberspace Report" in ASCII, the Newsbits service, and there is E-mail access to the Internet. Mr. Rasmussen opined that the Internet is just the beginning of the information superhighway; he recommended reading books such as "The Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet" and "Zen and the Art of the Internet." Mike Freeman then briefly discussed the Internet. The Network Information Center (NIC) assigns addresses and names (domains) to the various networks which comprise the Internet. There is, he said, no over-all control of the Internet. He described the Internet as "controlled anarchy." He next discussed the vast variety of information available via the Internet (Usenet discussion groups, mailing lists, an untold number of files about anything imaginable, etc.). One can gain access to the Internet through various commercial Internet providers, the online services Delphi and America Online and through various bulletin board systems. Dave Andrews then gave an overview of online services. He described the Internet as "geeks gone mad". Until fairly recently, he said, the Internet was relatively unknown. Until recently, at least, many machines on the Internet used the UNIX operating system--great for the initiated but confusing for the novice. Although many people think of the Internet as the information superhighway, he maintained that the latter term includes more than the Internet. He then described other online services. CompuServe has from one to two million subscribers. He called it the "Cadillac of online services". Starter kits are available to make subscriptions easy. CompuServe tends to be more expensive to use than other online services, but "basic services" are available for a reasonable fee. There are some 500 "forums" or discussion areas, many files to download, travel and shopping services and much more available through CompuServe. There is software support and CompuServe is linked into the Internet. Another online service, Prodigy, is quite slow. There is to date only one program in the DOS environment to make it accessible via speech. The latest release of Prodigy software may have broken this. Prodigy is a pain to use, Mr. Andrews said. There is big money being spent here; Prodigy spends on the order of $400 per new user. Mr. Andrews briefly mentioned other online services such as GENIE, AMERICA Online (AOL) and Delphi. Delphi is currently the only online service with full Internet access (Telnet, Ftp, etc). He concluded by saying that many files dealing with the Internet are available on NFB'S bulletin board system, NFB-NET. The next speaker was Dr. James Thatcher, Manager, Interaction Technology, Mathematical Sciences Department, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corporation. His presentation was entitled "Access to the GUI, Hope and Frustration". Before making his remarks, however, Dr. Thatcher was given an award by the NFB in Computer Science for his outstanding work in making IBM PC's (and most especially, the OS/2 operating system) accessible to the blind. Dr. Thatcher thanked President Chong for the award, saying that he was originally a mathematician; he became involved in screen-access for the blind through helping a blind colleague with his computer access problems. He has been involved with this subject now for ten years. Dr. Thatcher said that it has totally changed his life. Mathematics is boring when compared to it, he said. He again thanked the NFBCS, saying that he'd been coming to NFB conventions since 1989. In his talk, Dr. Thatcher said that we should not judge the systems being developed to give the blind access to the GUI on the basis of mature technology. The task is far more complex, and the environment is many orders of magnitude more so. What makes things frustrating is that new operating systems using the GUI are continually being developed. However, Thatcher maintained that the developers of these new operating systems were becoming increasingly aware of the special access requirements for the blind. He mentioned that IBM and the X Consortium were working on the problem. He said that he was fortunate that heavy duty development of Screen Reader/2 had slacked off as he could now fix problems and add fun things like multimedia support to PAL (Profile Access Language). This year, Dr. Thatcher said he started to develop a toolkit for Screen Reader and to use PAL to make Screen Reader act like WinVision and Jaws for Windows. One of the problems he confronted was that the various screen reading programs have very different philosophies as to how things should look and feel; this makes it extremely difficult to diagnose and solve problems. Features and assumptions considered sacred by one vendor are not considered important by others. Dr. Thatcher said that this plethora of program styles must make it very difficult for evaluators such as NFB to compare the various programs. He said that articles comparing screen reading systems are often weak in that they do not describe explicitly what they expect the programs being compared to do. In addition, developers address different questions and concerns when writing about their products. The screen readers are so different that we need some common concepts, methods and tools to understand what they do and how they do it. This was not so much the case when we were dealing with text-based screen-readers. Thatcher proposed a way to get various manufacturers of GUI screen-readers to talk with one another to address the issue of trying to understand what the various screen readers do. He proposed that NFB should conduct a workshop of screen reader developers, users of Windows-based programs, user interface experts etc. The goal of such a workshop would be to produce an evaluation sheet which would be sent to all developers of GUI-BASED screen readers. Such an evaluation sheet would describe contexts, the tasks users need to perform in those contexts and what should and should not be spoken (there will be various opinions on this so screen readers should be able to accommodate various preferences). Something on the order of twenty contexts including some standard Windows applications should be included. Screen reader developers would be requested to fill out these evaluation sheets, outlining the specific steps one would take using their program to accomplish the indicated actions. There would thus be standard material upon which to base screen reader evaluations. The evaluation sheet could include system installation and other necessary tasks as well. Such sheets might help developers to develop better screen readers and would be a non-threatening way to get the various developers talking with one another. In the discussion following Dr. Thatcher's presentation, David Andrews said that Dr. Thatcher was a great help in setting up OS/2 at the International Braille and Technology Center. Mr. Andrews said that Dr. Thatcher pointed out to him that, whereas with text-based screen readers, a blind person could examine the screen fully by going into review mode and examining the screen character by character, in the GUI environment there were objects on the screen which sighted persons see which screen readers do not know about nor represent to the blind person. The blind do not always get the whole picture as the sighted see it. Furthermore, the blind have no way to know if this is the case. Dr. Thatcher replied that screen reader developers for the GUI environment have the problem of missing some things; there are often "unshareable" tricks performed by applications that tend to confound screen readers. In addition, each screen reader organizes things completely differently. Each developer decides what he/she thinks the user needs to know. Mr. Andrews said that most persons want to get a particular application, run it, manipulate the data and get out. On the other hand, programmers may need to know the position and relationships between icons on the screen. There are disparate needs within the blind community. Mr. Chong said that part of the problem was that the blind had not had sufficient experience with the GUI environment to know how material should be presented. We, the blind, must garner sufficient knowledge to articculate clearly how information should be presented in this area. The next item was the NFBCS business meeting. Minutes of the 1993 meeting were approved as read. A detailed treasurer's report was postponed as the treasurer had left the report in her hotel room. She said, however, that the balance was slightly greater than $1,100. There were a couple of large expenses during the year. President Chong said one was to fly him to Kansas City to help a blind woman keep her job (which she still has). There were some expenses associated with the NFBCS meeting. There were newsletter expenses: $160 for casette duplication and $60 printing costs. There was also the expense of the award to Dr. Thatcher. The Treasurer's report was accepted as given. After some discussion and a short recess, elections of officers were held. The following were elected for two-year terms: Curtis Chong, President; Steve Jacobson, Vice President; Mike Freeman, Secretary; Suzie Stanzel, Treasurer; D. Curtis Willoughby, Board Member; Jim Willows, Board Member; and Lloyd Rasmussen, Board Member. Next came a panel discussion entitled "Designing a Screen Reading System for Windows." The presenters were Daehee Lee from Blazie Engineering and Dale McDaniel, Vice President for Marketing, Artic Technologies International. Mr. Lee said that the programmers of Windows Master had three goals in mind: 1. The GUI environment should be converted to speech in real-time; 2. Information should be reviewed and spoken only when necessary; and 3. Windows Master should be easy to use. In accomplishing the first goal, Mr. Lee said that screen reader designers had to decide what information was useful in the GUI environment. Blazie Enginering has decided that four categories of information are useful: A. Text and attributes at a particular location on the screen (font, color, etc); B. Bit map and icon information; C. Mouse information (so that it can be emulated and followed); and D. The status of the various windows. In writing Windows Master, Mr. Lee said he applied the "procrastination principle," that is, analysis of information is delayed as long as possible consistent with a real time environment in order to convey the information most intelligently. In order to review the screen, the internal representation keeps only unrecoverable information. Normally, Windows Master speaks the information in the activated window. Screen reading is automatic and can be configured to handle situations such as that in WordPerfect where the status line is important but should not always be spoken. In review mode, however, Windows Master speaks everything, allowing the blind person to use Windows in the same manner as the sighted, Mr. Lee said. Since the blind have difficulty using the mouse, it is disabled. Dale McDaniel said that in designing a screen reader for the GUI, problems are faced that were more easily solved in the DOS text-based environment. For example, in the GUI environment, even when doing word processing, the concept of "columns" may not have meaning. There is an area of focus which is often problematic to determine under some applications. If one can determine the area of focus, one has access. There are a limited number of things of interest on the screen at any given time. There is some standardization of application interfaces. However, Mr. McDaniel reported that the major problems encountered by screen reader developers are not so much Windows problems as application problems. Applications don't always follow the approved standards. They develop their own menu systems or dialog functions and throw up bit-mapped graphics representations of dialog boxes, buttons, menu bars, and the like. Moreover, they will often use the mouse for access without equivalent keyboard interfaces. Mr. McDaniel hopes that some standards will truly emerge soon, for the Windows environment is here to stay. He said that most systems purchased within a couple of years would be using it. Finally, he said that access to Windows would improve although there might be some aspects that would remain inaccessible. The next presentation was entitled "News from Microsoft" and was given by Greg Lowney, Senior Program Manager, Accessibility and Disabilities Group, Microsoft Corporation. He said that although Microsoft was initially slow to respond to the problem of access to Windows for the blind, it had listened and was working with vendors of screen readers. The problems are monumental, he said, but can be solved. Mr. Lowney demonstrated a talking FAX machine which is part of a GUI-BASED suite of office machines which can be interconnected. The final speech was entitled "Seamless Access to Current and Future Technologies" and was presented by Gregg Vanderheiden, Trace Research and Development Center. He said that he was greatly concerned about information access for the disabled. When the GUI was on the horizon, a few wondered how the disabled would gain access, but everyone let the problem get ahead of them. There is the potential of this happening again. There is a growing amount of mass produced information technology (ATM's, information terminals, infotelephones and the like) which are becoming increasingly inaccessible. Dr. Vanderheiden said that many devices to which the disabled formerly had access are becoming inaccessible. More and more of these appliances will be in the home to give access to the information superhighway, he said. There is a proliferation of devices using touch screens (they are flexible) and ATM's for different banks act differently. Such systems are easy to use for those who can see, but for the blind and those with some learning disabilities, they pose problems. Two of these problems are: 1. determining what is on the screens of these devices and 2. making the choices necessary to obtain information from such devices. Dr. Vanderheiden then played a promotional videotape describing an information kiosk to be placed in public areas which exemplified the problem. He said that the Trace Center has tried to get a consensus upon how such systems should be accessed but with little success to date. He said that until standards are agreed upon, almost anything could be called "accessible," including systems that are supposedly designed for the blind but omit information available to the sighted. The Trace Center has been investigating ways of setting up "seamless access"--methods of access that work for everyone. Dr. Vanderheiden said that funding is needed for large scale building of prototypes and gathering of information to determine the best ways to obtain seamless access. The need is urgent. He cited several examples: CD-ROMS in special and regular education; an airline reservation system made by Southwestern Bell in which one uses a picture of an airplane to pick one's seat and systems in which one books hotels by using maps. Accessibility is more readily achievable initially than via retrofitting. In the discussion following this presentation, the opinion was voiced that any standards resulting from Trace's work should not discourage creativity; that the vendors should have the freedom to try different solutions. It was also strongly suggested that the Trace Center should work closely with NFB in the development of any seamless information access standards. The meeting was adjourned at 5:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mike Freeman Secretary National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science ADOBE PDF - ACCESSIBLE OR NOT? by Steve Jacobson We used to think that getting an ASCII copy of a document was the final answer. However, during the past year, things have begun to get a bit more complicated. Such developments as the World Wide Web (WWW) on the Internet and Adobe Systems' Portable Document Format (PDF) have been drawing a great deal of attention. Although not all of the problems associated with accessing the World Wide Web have been solved, much progress has been made, and many more of us take advantage of it than we did a year ago. Adobe's PDF is still a problem, though. What makes it a problem, and why should we care? Until fairly recently, blind people and computer programmers were the most avid users of documentation in ASCII form. Gradually, though, as more and more people began to use computers, products became available that tried to make electronic texts function more like books. Such products as IBM's BookManager, Wordcruncher, and Folio's Infobase system, to name just a few, all permit the user to highlight an item in a table of contents and jump directly to the text of that item. Such products often permit you to extract portions of text and incorporate them into other documents. But unlike word processors, they do not permit alteration of the original document. These products are often categorized as "viewers." Even with their many bells and whistles, the MS-DOS versions of the products mentioned so far display information using a standard text screen with 25 lines by 80 characters. Although the information can be referenced like a book, and in some ways even more conveniently, the information still looks like text on a computer screen, albeit with lots of different colors and pull-down windows. Particularly in the past year, viewers, also called browsers, have been taken a step further. Some of today's viewers and browsers attempt to recreate some of the appearance of an original electronic document, including its page format and the size and appearance of characters on the page. Headlines and titles may appear in large letters while book titles might well be italicized. It is this technology that the federal government wants to employ for the distribution of documents and forms--for some good reasons. In September of 1994, a panel was appointed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to examine the various products and formats that are available to electronically transmit documents while preserving their appearance and to recommend a "Final Form Portable Document Delivery Format" (PDDF) to be used by all federal government agencies. In addition, the panel was to include in its criteria the ability to encrypt documents and to prevent alteration of documents when required. The format of the files conveying electronic documents was to be such that viewers could be written to run on many different platforms. Finally, if possible, a commercial product that is already on the market was to be found to meet these requirements. Such a document format would then be defined in a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) and would become the means of distributing electronic documents. The product and file format recommended by the panel to NIST is Adobe Acrobat and its associated "Portable Document Format" (PDF). This product meets the criteria set forth by the panel, but it presents some problems to blind people. For starters, there is currently no viewer or browser that runs under MS-DOS. Apparently, the Windows viewers do work with Windows access software, but complex documents are still difficult or even impossible to access. One user reported that tax forms could be utilized with a little work, but the online version of the New York Times could not. Since Adobe Acrobat is geared to display a page image with titles, subtitles, and other items identifiable by their associated typeface or font, the process does not use specific codes to identify the type of information being displayed. The viewer simply displays text in whatever manner the author specifies. This lack of structural information can create problems if, for example, one wants to transcribe the document into braille. Consider the problem of separating a page heading that is repeated on each page from the text. Consider what happens if text columns vary in width and the distance between them is changed to allow a picture to be inserted. Codes or "tags" could be used to identify such elements as headings, tables, paragraphs, numbered lists and the like. Even though Adobe Acrobat can produce documents that can contain these structural identifiers, the authors of documents may choose to denote various types of information solely by varying the font used. This seems to be where the most difficult problem lies for us. There are other systems for electronically distributing documents that tend to require better identification of a document's structure. SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) is one such system which many feel would provide almost perfect automatic formatting of documents for braille. The International Committee for Accessible Document Design (ICADD) has also defined a set of codes or "tags" that could, if used, greatly reduce the difficulty in brailling or enlarging documents. However, the panel felt that neither SGML nor the ICADD "tag set" met some of the other criteria. Having said all of this, the news is not all bad. The panel's report contains some language requiring some degree of accessibility. Here is part of that language: 12. Accessibility of Text, for Copying or Extracting or for Indexing (with some level of formatting information) - The textual information contained within a final form document should be accessible both to extract the text (with as much information about its format as possible) and to index text using a full text indexing technology. The format should allow for conversion to braille encoding or voice synthesis appropriate to meet requirements under the accommodation law for accessibility to persons with disabilities. The format should allow for textual description of graphical elements (e.g., a 2x3 photograph in the top right corner of the page of a French Poodle standing up). 13. Capture Structure - In addition to the presentation, the PDDF should be able to represent structural information, such as paragraph markers, article threading, the flow of connected sections of text, subject indexes, and information in a table of contents. The PDDF should also support imbedding of data such as EDI, SGML or HTML, access to persons with disabilities by using the ICADD DTD (ISO 12083). In the above extract from the panel's recommendations to NIST, one sees the words "permit" and "provide for" rather than "require." Yet, it would do little good to "require" structure, for example, when it may not be in the original document. There are some signs that all is not doom and gloom. The federal government is funding the development of an MS-DOS based PDF browser. Also, there seems to be a real desire on the part of Adobe Systems to make their product more accessible, to the point of committing some resources. When all is said and done, however, we will probably still need some third party software that can intelligently reintroduce some document structure based upon font information. Here is one simplistic example. If the first line of each page is in a different font than the remainder of the page, assume that it is a page heading. One might ask why we don't all simply oppose the adoption of the Adobe Portable Document Format as a standard. The reason is that we would simply not prevail. This type of information transmission and viewing is already well established within the commercial sector. IBM and Apple have announced that they will be including PDF browsers on their new computers. Netscape, a popular software package used to navigate the World Wide Web, will be including the ability to browse PDF documents in its products. A number of large companies have announced that they will produce electronic catalogs and brochures in this format. An interesting development is the announcement by Adobe Systems of a package that will permit paper documents to be scanned and then translated to the PDF format. This is not a bit-mapped image or "picture" of a page. Rather, optical character recognition (OCR) techniques are used, and fonts are assigned so that the original appearance is preserved. Adobe is marketing this package to facilities doing large scale electronic archiving of paper documents. It isn't plain ASCII, but it is better than bit-mapped page images. The point of touching upon some of these commercial applications is to say that even if the government did not use the PDF format or a variation of it, we would miss out on a great deal if we could not access information encoded with PDF. The intent of this article is not to lobby for PDF or to minimize its impact upon us as blind people. Rather, it is my position that our interests will be better served in the long run if we use the leverage of a pending government standard to get as much accessibility into it as we can. Let's keep a close watch on this one. ACCESSING THE WORLDWIDE WEB WITH LYNX by Darrell Shandrow Editor's note: Darrell Shandrow wrote this article in the spring of 1994 while attending Arizona State University. His major was computer information systems. Currently, he is taking some time at the Colorado Center for the Blind to improve his alternative blindness skills and increase his self confidence. In the fall of 1995 he intends to continue his college education in Denver studying computer information systems and management. Introduction I have been on the Internet for over two years now. In the beginning, email, TELNET, and FTP were the only facilities in wide use, and for the blind, they were great things. Not only could one retrieve vast amounts of information, but there was nothing in the way of graphics to hamper access by the blind. While the requirement to remember an incredible amount of information necessary to keep track of the various systems was troublesome, it worked well nevertheless. Then the wonderful world of Gopher came along. Many information resources became available on a great little critter that allowed you to search for a lot of information stored on hundreds of computers around the world. Yes, it was headed for graphics, but it was still friendly to blind users of the Internet. Gopher provided a choice between using arrow keys and pressing numbers that were to the left of each option. For many of us, both selection methods worked equally well. For others, due to problems with terminal emulation, using the numbers as opposed to the arrow keys was required. Using the little Gopher critter was relatively simple. Granted Gopher is still frequently utilized to provide information on the Internet. However, I began to notice a disturbing trend. Applications were becoming more graphical in nature. There have sprung up numerous internet tools for Microsoft Windows, Macintosh computers, and Unix systems running X Windows applications. I began to think that blind Internet users were going to have a problem. You see, there was this new thing called the World Wide Web that was beginning to achieve popularity and acceptance. When I first heard about the World Wide Web (WWW) I began to worry. People who discussed it on the Internet and at my college talked about it in terms of X Windows and the X terminals down in our Computing Commons. I thought, "Wow, here is another system we are locked out of until adaptive technology companies and researchers get their acts together." I also noticed new services coming online with Web access but no gopher access. These included the mtv.com system operated by Adam Curry and the Palo Alto Weekly newspaper experiment. I was worried because I had become dependent on Gopher and did not know anything about accessing the Web. Well, I used my ability to get around and set about finding a solution to this problem that would be helpful to blind people. I have been a member of the National Federation of the Blind for a considerable time now--over 6 years (Well, it's a considerable time for me anyhow.). As I wrote a message to adam@mtv.com complaining about the problem for the blind using WWW, I remembered that we have always said in the Federation that we do not allow our blindness to get in the way of accomplishing our goals. We say that we can compete on equal terms with the sighted. Keeping this firmly in mind, I began to think. I remembered hearing about a program called Lynx which was supposed to be a text-based WWW interface. I first discounted this program because I figured, "Well, the web uses hypertext and this depends on highlighted text so how can it possibly work for the blind?" Well, I decided that it was high time to give it a fair chance instead of complaining about my inability to access the Web. I simply tried running the Lynx program on my UNIX account. To my surprise, it worked great! As it turns out, the Web is fairly accessible to us after all. No, we can't access any of the image files in a meaningful way, but we can most definitely see the text. As I mentioned earlier, the Web uses hypertext. It also uses the concept of a universal resource locator or URL, which is used to keep track of documents stored on computers throughout the world. The URL is a single path to any given internet resource. This can include a system you log into using TELNET, a file you can download using ftp, a document you can view using Gopher, articles in a UseNet newsgroup or a hypertext document. It works like this: You activate the Web program (Lynx, in my case) and are placed on the home page of a default server. This page not only has relevant information for that institution but also points the way to other resources. You select items on the Web by placing the cursor on various parts of the screen that contain highlighting. These are known as hypertext links. When a link is selected the relevant document or page is brought up. You also have the choice of specifying a specific URL on another machine directly. Configuring Lynx (Note: all text enclosed in quotation marks represents what you are supposed to type. Do not type the actual quotation marks.) In order to use Lynx, you will need to have an account on a computer that is running the UNIX operating system. (A version of LYNX that can run under DOS is also available, but I do not know anything about this program; my experience is with Unix-based Lynx.) Hopefully, the Unix system will already have the Lynx program installed and ready to go. If not, you can download and compile it yourself since it is a free program. If you are uncertain as to how to do this, you should contact someone who has compiled such programs. You may also contact me for help; my contact information can be found at the end of this article. Along with a modem, you will also need communication software that is capable of emulating a vt100 or vt102 terminal. Most standard communications software such as Telix, Procomm Plus, and Terminate can easily be configured to do this. To run the Lynx program, simply type "lynx -show_cursor" at your system prompt and press enter. The -show_cursor is very important as it causes the cursor to appear at the beginning of each highlighted hypertext link. Running Lynx this way greatly reduces any need to track highlight bars or other information on the screen not directly adjacent to the cursor. Consequently, you should not have to make any special configurations for your screen reading program. Using Lynx As I said earlier, Lynx is text-based. Nevertheless, it supports hypertext links and all the concepts that come with them. It allows you to select links by pressing the up and down arrow keys. The cursor is placed on the first letter of the current link. The up and down arrow keys are used to move between links. There are often several links displayed on a single line. The up arrow key moves to the left and goes to the previous line while the down arrow key moves to the right and goes to the next line. The user presses either the right arrow or the enter key to select a link. The left arrow key is used to go back up to the previous logical level. This would be where you were before selecting the link. Reading links is not difficult. Remember that the cursor is placed on the first letter of the link you are pointing at. You simply direct your screen access software to read the current line. For situations where there are several links on a line, you can get more specific by reading the current word under the cursor. This word is the first word of the link being pointed at. Since hypertext links normally consist of a couple of words each, it is easy to figure out which words on the current line constitute your link. Once you figure out this process, you will have no trouble reading lines that consist of three or more links. A braille display makes this task much easier. Since at least a quarter of the line is on the braille display at one time, you can feel where the cursor is located and the words following it. Often, the link is right under your fingers or one advance of the display away from complete visibility. Of course, the braille display's cursor tracking function must be active when using Lynx in order to have this benefit. I recommend, when humanly possible, the use of both speech and braille when using Lynx. To "Go" to another URL press the "G" key. There will be a prompt asking where to go. You must type a URL in the form: http://uu-gna.mit.edu:8001 and press enter. This is a realistic example. If you have Lynx (or any other web browser for that matter), try this. The URL points to an MIT computer, and one of the links is the Globewide Network Academy. Move up or down to find this link and press enter. Select various links by moving, reading the current word, and pressing the enter or right arrow key. Remember that the left arrow key always sends you back up one level. Don't worry. It is difficult to mess up WWW. When you are ready to quit, simply press the "Q" key. Feel free to email or call me at anytime. Here is my contact information: Darrell Shandrow c/o Colorado Center for the Blind 1820 S. Acoma Denver, CO 80223 Phone: (303) 778-1130 (days) (303) 758-2904 (evenings) Internet: nu7i@netcom.com