[gui-talk] Stedman'swordbooksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading software
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Sun Mar 2 19:53:43 CST 2008
You're right: the ADA per se doesn't necessarily apply. One can argue
that any school that gets Federal funds must be Section 504-compliant
and one can then argue that accessibility is required under Section 504
but exactly what is required and what the limits of such a requirement
are haven't been fully determined in the courts.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherri
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 5:42 PM
Subject: Re:
[gui-talk]Stedman'swordbooksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading
software
But there's nothing at least in my reading of the ADA that points that
out
directly--nothing that says that electornic media must be accessible.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Shandrow" <darrell.shandrow at gmail.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:55 PM
Subject: Re:
[gui-talk]Stedman'swordbooksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading
software
Hmm. I think the ATM situation may be slightly different, but I'll
have to
think about that. When I contemplate accessibility advocacy in an
education
or employment situation, I think about it from every possible angle
rather
than just going down a single path. The software developer should
ensure
their software reasonably accomodates the accessibility needs of all
customers, including those with disabilities. The employer or school
purchasing software should exercise due diligence to ensure the
proposed
solution reasonably accomodates accessibility needs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "tribble" <lauraeaves at yahoo.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk]
Stedman'swordbooksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading software
bravo george
The same for customer access of ATM's -- go after the manufacturers of
ATM
machines and maybe the financial institutions that use them, rather
than the
retail stores with an inaccessible ATM machine.
--le
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Cassell" <apolloseven at earthlink.net>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's
wordbooksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading software
I don't believe it's the company's responsibility to provide
accessible
software to it's blind and visually-impaired employees, it's the
responsibility of the software manufacturers (Microsoft et al) to
provide
software that is accessible to everyone -- right out of the box.
Jaws, Window Eyes and the like shouldn't even have to be in business
in the
first place, picking up the pieces and filling in the gaps that the
software
companies have left in their wake. It's Microsoft, Apple's and other
operating system makers' responsibility to provide software that is
accessible to all, with operating systems that will provide the same,
high
level of accessibility to all software (WP, DB, SS, etc.) that run on
their
platforms.
This nonsense of taking on individual companies all across the
country, one
case at a time, is absurd and insane. It's like going after the
individual
cigarette vending machines when trying to stop people from smoking.
Instead, you go to the top -- to the tobacco companies to file your
complaints and grievences. If you're going to kill a snake, cut off
it's
head, not it's tail.
-- George
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Shandrow" <darrell.shandrow at gmail.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word
booksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading software
Hi Sherri,
The following statement you made concerns me:
I had to quit a job, because I couldn't get its platform to work
sufficiently with Jaws.
Why not insist on reasonable accomodations or put them in a situation
where
they had to actively let you go over the issue? Quitting voluntarily
hurts
you as an employed blind person and lets them too easily off the hook,
unless you're going to be given a severence package that's too good to
pass
up or you'll otherwise benefit from the situation. I feel its time we
start
insisting on what's right more often; if we all start insisting on
better
accessibility rather than just giving up and sitting at home,
eventually
more of the industry will have to stand up and notice us as their
customers
start pushing back on them.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sherri" <flmom2006 at gmail.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word
booksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreen
reading software
Go for it Rose! I am still working for a company that uses Microsoft
Word,
but is threatening to go to a new platform. I had to quit a job,
because I
couldn't get its platform to work sufficiently with Jaws.
Sherri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Shandrow" <darrell.shandrow at gmail.com>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books
anddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreen reading software
Hey Rose,
I certainly understand, though I hope you document everything. You
never
know when there will be a change in management and the "new guys"
might want
to get rid of you, etc. If that happens, but you have the access
issues
well documented, then you may be able to bite them back pretty hard
such
that getting rid of you is more trouble than it is worth for them,
etc. As
I'm sure you know by now, I believe in taking an active, power
position
rather than a more submissive one in all these matters... :-)
I would like to invite you to write an article for Blind Access
Journal
concerning the medical transcription industry and its state of
(in)accessibility with respect to the blind based on your own
experiences.
Of course, you would be fully attributed. Please write to
editor at blindaccessjournal.com if you are interested. I think any
access
issues that are potentially negative impacts on one's job ought to get
some
serious attention. I don't know anything about medical transcription,
but I
am certainly happy to do anything I can from an advocacy perspective,
so
long as the efforts are well advised by those who know about the
industry in
question. :)
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rose Combs" <rosecombs at qwest.net>
To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books and
drugbooknotaccessibletoscreen reading software
Based on the communications I have seen on the various MT lists, there
are
four I think all based at yahoogroups.com, several people have called,
or
e-mailed and they get back the same response as mentioned previously.
To my
knowledge tech support is as far as it has gone and the one person
they were
working with has left that position.
On a more personal note, I own all the accessible products except for
the
last drug book. I work for a local hospital, 10-hour days and
spending time
on the phone for any reason is frowned upon during working hours so I
have
not been particularly involved in this except to shoot off a couple of
e-mails which get exactly the same canned response those who spend
time on
the phones eventually get.
I use the internet a lot, specially several sites that do a great job
with
the drugs we have to type daily and although I would like to have my
products updated, in a usable format, can find what I need easily when
necessary.
It is an unfortunate truth that although there are several blind
medical
transcriptionists out there, in comparison to the rest of the industry
we
may make up about 1% and so, access to software, as well as reference
materials is limited and becoming more so every day. This is a field
where
if one possesses good language skills, ability to type and listen as
well as
editing ability should be accessible to blind people but is becoming
less so
every year. Computers were supposed to make it easier and they have
but
those creating the platforms for us to use whether it be for doing the
actual job or the reference materials that are essential to the job
become
more and more complicated and dependent on having the sight to use
them.
We have a program at the hospital that is usable, but just barely, and
there
are aspects I can no longer do, my superiors feel that what I can do I
do
very well and are it seems not insisting that the full product become
accessible.
I know, I have strayed from the topic a bit but trust me, I have been
through a lot the past year regarding the adoption of a work platform
that
means I am not able to perform all functions of the job.
Because I am still working and making top dollar, to do what I can, my
hands
have been tied insofar as filing anything against the hospital itself.
It
just isn't going to happen!
Rose Combs
rosecombs at qwest.net
-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On
Behalf Of Darrell Shandrow
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 10:57 AM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books and drug
booknotaccessibletoscreen reading software
Hello Rose,
In that case, perhaps, the questions may become more pointed, such as,
please outline the steps that are being taken to "work on" the issue.
Also,
it is important that these kinds of issues get escalated higher and
higher
in the company's chain of command as they go unresolved. Speaking
with a
technical support rep or even a support supervisor just isn't going to
go
anywhere, as those people simply don't have the authority to make the
necessary decisions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rose Combs" <rosecombs at qwest.net>
To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" <gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books and drug book
notaccessibletoscreen reading software
Many of the medical transcriptionists who use the books have been
trying to
have a conversation with Stedman's since the 2006 QLD was released in
this
"ready bookshelf" format, What happens is they say they are working
on it,
but alas, if they are, there are absolutely no results. I have not
been
involved in the many phone conversations and e-mails but, the
discussion has
been on the blind MT lists off and on for the past two years,
generally
Stedman's will send an e-mail saying they have both Jaws and Window
Eyes and
that they are trying to work with the companies to make the products
accessible--and personally, I don't believe a word of it. I have not
been
involved personally because I work at a hospital, not at home so I
don't
have the time to spend on the phone with them but a few people have
and the
result is generally the same, they are working on it whenever anyone
calls
or writes.
Rose Combs
rosecombs at qwest.net
-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org]
On
Behalf Of Darrell Shandrow
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:08 PM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books and drug book not
accessibletoscreen reading software
Hello Sherri,
They are quite likely in violation of at least Section 504 of the
Federal
Rehabilitation Act, but I think we should start by asking them to do
the
right thing before resorting to beating them over the head with
noncompliance to legislation. We should determine the following:
1. What makes it inaccessible now?
2. How could it be made accessible?
3. Why should the effort be made?
Alas, I am not involved with medical transcription, so I don't have
any clue
who to contact, but I am certainly willing to assist with any advocacy
if
anyone knowledgeable would like to work with the journal.
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sherri" <flmom2006 at gmail.com>
To: "Multiple recipients of NFBnet nabop Mailing List"
<nabop at nfbnet.org>;
"Multiple recipients of NFBnet GUI-TALK Mailing List"
<gui-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books and drug book not accessible
toscreen reading software
Hello list,
I got word from the person who
teaches the transcription course for blind people out of Daytona that
the
Stedman's word books for 2008 are now using bookshelf, which has been
used
in the Quick Look Electronic Drug Reference for the last couple of
years. I
am extremely concerned about this and feel we should let them know
that this
will not work for blind people using screen-reading software and that
they
need to provide accessible copies of their books for us. Does anyone
know
who I can contact?
Are they in any sort of violation of the ADA by producing their
electronic
books in a format we cannot use? Any help would be appreciated.
Sherri
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
-------------- next part --------------
You're right: the ADA per se doesn't necessarily apply. One can argue that any school that gets Federal funds must be Section 504-compliant and one can then argue that accessibility is required under Section 504 but exactly what is required and what the limits of such a requirement are haven't been fully determined in the courts.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From:
mailto:flmom2006 at gmail.com Sherri
To:
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Sent:
Sunday, March 02, 2008 5:42 PM
Subject:
Re: [gui-talk]Stedman'swordbooksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading software
But there's nothing at least in my reading of the ADA that points that out
directly--nothing that says that electornic media must be accessible.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Shandrow" < mailto:darrell.shandrow at gmail.com darrell.shandrow at gmail.com
>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 4:55 PM
Subject: Re:
[gui-talk]Stedman'swordbooksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading software
Hmm. I think the ATM situation may be slightly different, but I'll have to
think about that. When I contemplate accessibility advocacy in an education
or employment situation, I think about it from every possible angle rather
than just going down a single path. The software developer should ensure
their software reasonably accomodates the accessibility needs of all
customers, including those with disabilities. The employer or school
purchasing software should exercise due diligence to ensure the proposed
solution reasonably accomodates accessibility needs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "tribble" < mailto:lauraeaves at yahoo.com lauraeaves at yahoo.com
>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk]
Stedman'swordbooksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading software
bravo george
The same for customer access of ATM's -- go after the manufacturers of ATM
machines and maybe the financial institutions that use them, rather than the
retail stores with an inaccessible ATM machine.
--le
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Cassell" < mailto:apolloseven at earthlink.net apolloseven at earthlink.net
>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's
wordbooksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading software
I don't believe it's the company's responsibility to provide accessible
software to it's blind and visually-impaired employees, it's the
responsibility of the software manufacturers (Microsoft et al) to provide
software that is accessible to everyone -- right out of the box.
Jaws, Window Eyes and the like shouldn't even have to be in business in the
first place, picking up the pieces and filling in the gaps that the software
companies have left in their wake. It's Microsoft, Apple's and other
operating system makers' responsibility to provide software that is
accessible to all, with operating systems that will provide the same, high
level of accessibility to all software (WP, DB, SS, etc.) that run on their
platforms.
This nonsense of taking on individual companies all across the country, one
case at a time, is absurd and insane. It's like going after the individual
cigarette vending machines when trying to stop people from smoking.
Instead, you go to the top -- to the tobacco companies to file your
complaints and grievences. If you're going to kill a snake, cut off it's
head, not it's tail.
-- George
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Shandrow" < mailto:darrell.shandrow at gmail.com darrell.shandrow at gmail.com
>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word
booksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreenreading software
Hi Sherri,
The following statement you made concerns me:
I had to quit a job, because I couldn't get its platform to work
sufficiently with Jaws.
Why not insist on reasonable accomodations or put them in a situation where
they had to actively let you go over the issue? Quitting voluntarily hurts
you as an employed blind person and lets them too easily off the hook,
unless you're going to be given a severence package that's too good to pass
up or you'll otherwise benefit from the situation. I feel its time we start
insisting on what's right more often; if we all start insisting on better
accessibility rather than just giving up and sitting at home, eventually
more of the industry will have to stand up and notice us as their customers
start pushing back on them.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sherri" < mailto:flmom2006 at gmail.com flmom2006 at gmail.com
>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word booksanddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreen
reading software
Go for it Rose! I am still working for a company that uses Microsoft Word,
but is threatening to go to a new platform. I had to quit a job, because I
couldn't get its platform to work sufficiently with Jaws.
Sherri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Shandrow" < mailto:darrell.shandrow at gmail.com darrell.shandrow at gmail.com
>
To: "NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books
anddrugbooknotaccessibletoscreen reading software
Hey Rose,
I certainly understand, though I hope you document everything. You never
know when there will be a change in management and the "new guys" might want
to get rid of you, etc. If that happens, but you have the access issues
well documented, then you may be able to bite them back pretty hard such
that getting rid of you is more trouble than it is worth for them, etc. As
I'm sure you know by now, I believe in taking an active, power position
rather than a more submissive one in all these matters... :-)
I would like to invite you to write an article for Blind Access Journal
concerning the medical transcription industry and its state of
(in)accessibility with respect to the blind based on your own experiences.
Of course, you would be fully attributed. Please write to
mailto:editor at blindaccessjournal.com editor at blindaccessjournal.com
if you are interested. I think any access
issues that are potentially negative impacts on one's job ought to get some
serious attention. I don't know anything about medical transcription, but I
am certainly happy to do anything I can from an advocacy perspective, so
long as the efforts are well advised by those who know about the industry in
question. :)
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rose Combs" < mailto:rosecombs at qwest.net rosecombs at qwest.net
>
To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books and
drugbooknotaccessibletoscreen reading software
Based on the communications I have seen on the various MT lists, there are
four I think all based at yahoogroups.com, several people have called, or
e-mailed and they get back the same response as mentioned previously. To my
knowledge tech support is as far as it has gone and the one person they were
working with has left that position.
On a more personal note, I own all the accessible products except for the
last drug book. I work for a local hospital, 10-hour days and spending time
on the phone for any reason is frowned upon during working hours so I have
not been particularly involved in this except to shoot off a couple of
e-mails which get exactly the same canned response those who spend time on
the phones eventually get.
I use the internet a lot, specially several sites that do a great job with
the drugs we have to type daily and although I would like to have my
products updated, in a usable format, can find what I need easily when
necessary.
It is an unfortunate truth that although there are several blind medical
transcriptionists out there, in comparison to the rest of the industry we
may make up about 1% and so, access to software, as well as reference
materials is limited and becoming more so every day. This is a field where
if one possesses good language skills, ability to type and listen as well as
editing ability should be accessible to blind people but is becoming less so
every year. Computers were supposed to make it easier and they have but
those creating the platforms for us to use whether it be for doing the
actual job or the reference materials that are essential to the job become
more and more complicated and dependent on having the sight to use them.
We have a program at the hospital that is usable, but just barely, and there
are aspects I can no longer do, my superiors feel that what I can do I do
very well and are it seems not insisting that the full product become
accessible.
I know, I have strayed from the topic a bit but trust me, I have been
through a lot the past year regarding the adoption of a work platform that
means I am not able to perform all functions of the job.
Because I am still working and making top dollar, to do what I can, my hands
have been tied insofar as filing anything against the hospital itself. It
just isn't going to happen!
Rose Combs
mailto:rosecombs at qwest.net rosecombs at qwest.net
-----Original Message-----
From: mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Darrell Shandrow
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 10:57 AM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books and drug
booknotaccessibletoscreen reading software
Hello Rose,
In that case, perhaps, the questions may become more pointed, such as,
please outline the steps that are being taken to "work on" the issue. Also,
it is important that these kinds of issues get escalated higher and higher
in the company's chain of command as they go unresolved. Speaking with a
technical support rep or even a support supervisor just isn't going to go
anywhere, as those people simply don't have the authority to make the
necessary decisions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rose Combs" < mailto:rosecombs at qwest.net rosecombs at qwest.net
>
To: "'NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List'" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books and drug book
notaccessibletoscreen reading software
Many of the medical transcriptionists who use the books have been trying to
have a conversation with Stedman's since the 2006 QLD was released in this
"ready bookshelf" format, What happens is they say they are working on it,
but alas, if they are, there are absolutely no results. I have not been
involved in the many phone conversations and e-mails but, the discussion has
been on the blind MT lists off and on for the past two years, generally
Stedman's will send an e-mail saying they have both Jaws and Window Eyes and
that they are trying to work with the companies to make the products
accessible--and personally, I don't believe a word of it. I have not been
involved personally because I work at a hospital, not at home so I don't
have the time to spend on the phone with them but a few people have and the
result is generally the same, they are working on it whenever anyone calls
or writes.
Rose Combs
mailto:rosecombs at qwest.net rosecombs at qwest.net
-----Original Message-----
From: mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
[mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Darrell Shandrow
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:08 PM
To: NFBnet GUI Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books and drug book not
accessibletoscreen reading software
Hello Sherri,
They are quite likely in violation of at least Section 504 of the Federal
Rehabilitation Act, but I think we should start by asking them to do the
right thing before resorting to beating them over the head with
noncompliance to legislation. We should determine the following:
1. What makes it inaccessible now?
2. How could it be made accessible?
3. Why should the effort be made?
Alas, I am not involved with medical transcription, so I don't have any clue
who to contact, but I am certainly willing to assist with any advocacy if
anyone knowledgeable would like to work with the journal.
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sherri" < mailto:flmom2006 at gmail.com flmom2006 at gmail.com
>
To: "Multiple recipients of NFBnet nabop Mailing List" < mailto:nabop at nfbnet.org nabop at nfbnet.org
>;
"Multiple recipients of NFBnet GUI-TALK Mailing List" < mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
>
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: [gui-talk] Stedman's word books and drug book not accessible
toscreen reading software
Hello list,
I got word from the person who
teaches the transcription course for blind people out of Daytona that the
Stedman's word books for 2008 are now using bookshelf, which has been used
in the Quick Look Electronic Drug Reference for the last couple of years. I
am extremely concerned about this and feel we should let them know that this
will not work for blind people using screen-reading software and that they
need to provide accessible copies of their books for us. Does anyone know
who I can contact?
Are they in any sort of violation of the ADA by producing their electronic
books in a format we cannot use? Any help would be appreciated.
Sherri
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
mailto:gui-talk at nfbnet.org gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk
More information about the gui-talk
mailing list