--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EG400000Date: 12/04/97 From: "NANCY K. MARTIN" Time: 12:32pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Wells Fargo Unveils Plans to Pilot Elect12:32:4212/04/97 From: "Nancy K. Martin" Subject: Wells Fargo Unveils Plans to Pilot Electronic Bill Presentment; Online Pioneer Says Customers Will Be (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 23:16:44 -0800 From: Kelly Ford Reply-To: Blind-x Blind Exchange & Discussion To: BLIND-X@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Subject: Wells Fargo Unveils Plans to Pilot Electronic Bill Presentment; Online Pioneer Says Customers Will Be (fwd) If anyone's associated with Wells Fargo or the other organizations mentioned in this, it would certainly be nice to know if they have explored the compatibility of this technology with things like screen readers. It seems like they could leverage such a technology with ADA compliance if done correctly but who knows if they've ever heard of screen reaaders. Posted at 8:19 a.m. PST Wednesday, December 3, 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------ Wells Fargo Unveils Plans to Pilot Electronic Bill Presentment; Online Pioneer Says Customers Will Be Using Latest Innovation in '98 SAN FRANCISCO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 3, 1997--Wells Fargo today announced its plans for an electronic bill presentment and payment pilot in early 1998, which will pave the way for customers to receive and pay their bills electronically within the year. This pilot, which will be conducted with an employee group, is the latest in a long list of innovations pioneered by the bank since it first made online banking services available to customers through the Internet in 1995. `Our customers enjoy the flexibility and control that online banking offers,` said Dudley Nigg, executive vice president of Online Financial Services at Wells Fargo. `But without the ability to receive and then pay bills online, an important piece of the puzzle has been missing. Electronic bill presentment and payment completes the promise of online banking, offering consumers a new level of convenience, simplicity and power.` The pilot is expected to be the first to be supported with new technology developed by MSFDC, a joint venture between Microsoft and First Data Corporation. `Wells Fargo has demonstrated its ability to be ahead of the curve in delivering what the online customer wants, both in terms of product and service. Wells is a valuable partner in making an end-to-end bill presentment and payment system a reality for consumers,` said Chuck White, co-general manager of MSFDC. Initially, pilot participants will receive their Wells Fargo credit card bills presented through MSFDC, but the Wells Fargo service will ultimately be capable of delivering all of a customer's bills, even when presented through other sources. Customers receiving their bills online will have the convenience of receiving all of their bills in one place and scheduling payment at any time. Wells Fargo's new offering will be free to its customers. Billers will also find electronic bill presentment to be an attractive option. Bills will be richly formatted, branded by each individual biller, and include all product information and disclosures typically included with a paper statement. In addition, the cost to deliver bills and process payments will be greatly reduced. Wells Fargo first offered online services in 1989, and in 1995 became the first major bank to offer its retail customers banking over the Internet. Today customers can access their account balances and transaction history, transfer funds between accounts, pay all of their bills, apply for new accounts, and order travelers checks, cashiers checks, and foreign currency through Wells Fargo's online banking service. More than 400,000 Wells Fargo customers now bank online. Founded in 1852, Wells Fargo & Company has operations in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington. As of Sept. 30, 1997, the company had assets of $97.7 billion. --30--bl/sf.. blm/sf CONTACT: Wells Fargo Kim Kellogg, 415/396-3070 or Edelman PR David Lyons, 415/433-5381 --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EG400001Date: 12/04/97 From: ANN SABONAITIS Time: 02:53pm \/To: "RENEE M. ZELICKSON HTTP: (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Medical Insurrance perchases of adap14:53:0012/04/97 HELLO. (PLEASE REFRAIN FROM QUOTING ME--TOO TIRING--I USE A BRAILLE DEVICE.) I THINK IT VARIES FROM STATE TO STATE. I AM ON MEDICAID AS I'M ON MASS. HEALTH--ILIVE IN MA. BUT THERE ARE WEAKNESSES. F'M STILL WAITING FOR MEDICFD TO PAY FOR MY CAPS FOR TWO TEETH. MEDICAID ALSO PAYS FOR THEDAYCARE CENTER I ATTEND--I AM TRIPLY H&ANDICAPMED. HOWEVER I HELP OUT WITH IDEAS. --- TriToss (tm) Professional 11.0 - #66 * Origin: Keystone BBS * Shrewsbury,MA * 1-508-753-3767 (1:322/743.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGA00000Date: 12/05/97 From: DAVID ANDREWS Time: 01:12pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Model Technology Bill From: David Andrews Subject: Model Technology Bill As some of you know, the NFB has drafted model technology access legislation to be used on the state level. Many people will be3 trying to get it adopted in their state in the near future. Based on our experience so far, the model bill was modified in November, and apears below. David Andrews INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACCESS STATE MODEL BILL BILL NUMBER An act to secure the benefits of access to information technology for individuals who are blind or visually impaired through the procurement of such technology in accordance with standards for equivalent access by both visual and nonvisual means. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF: SECTION 1. FINDINGS; POLICY. (a) FINDINGS The Legislature finds that-- (1) the advent of the information age throughout the United States and around the world has resulted in lasting changes in information technology; (2) use of interactive visual display terminals by state and state-assisted organizations is becoming a widespread means of access for employees and the public to obtain information available electronically, but nonvisual access, whether by speech, Braille, or other appropriate means has been overlooked in purchasing and deploying the latest information technology; (3) presentation of electronic data solely in a visual format is a barrier to access by individuals who are blind or visually impaired, preventing them from participating on equal terms in crucial areas of life, such as education and employment; (4) alternatives, including both software and hardware adaptations, have been created so that interactive control of computers and use of the information presented is possible by both visual and nonvisual means; and (5) the goals of the state in obtaining and deploying the most advanced forms of information technology properly include universal access so that segments of society with particular needs (including individuals unable to use visual displays) will not be left out of the information age. (b) POLICY. It is the policy of the State of (insert name of state) that all programs and activities which are supported in whole or in part by public funds shall be conducted in accordance with the following principles: (1) individuals who are blind or visually impaired have the right to full participation in the life of the state, including the use of advanced technology which is provided by the state or state-assisted organizations for use by employees, program participants, and members of the general public; and (2) technology purchased in whole or in part with funds provided by the state to be used for the creation, storage, retrieval, or dissemination of information and intended for use by employees, program participants, and members of the general public shall be accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or visually impaired. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. In this Act the following words have the meanings indicated. (a) "Access" means the ability to receive, use, and manipulate data and operate controls included in information technology. (b) "Blind or visually impaired individual" means an individual who: (1) has a visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with correcting lenses or has a limited field of vision so that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees; (2) has a medically indicated expectation of visual deterioration; or (3) has a medically diagnosed limitation in visual functioning that restricts the individual's ability to read and write standard print at levels expected of individuals of comparable ability. (c) "Covered entity" means the state or any state-assisted organization. (d) "Information technology" means all electronic information processing hardware and software, including telecommunications. (e) "Nonvisual" means synthesized speech, Braille, and other output methods not requiring sight. (f) "State" means the state or any of its departments, agencies, public bodies, or other instrumentalities. (g) "State-assisted organization" means a college, nonprofit organization, person, political subdivision, school system, or other entity supported in whole or in part by state funds. (h) "Telecommunications" means the transmission of information, images, pictures, voice or data by radio, video or other electronic or impulse means. SECTION 3. ASSURANCE OF NONVISUAL ACCESS. (a) In general, the head of each covered entity shall ensure that information technology equipment and software used by employees, program participants, or members of the general public-- (1) provides blind or visually impaired individuals with access (including interactive use of the equipment and services) which is equivalent to that provided to individuals who are not blind or visually impaired; (2) is designed to present information (including prompts used for interactive communications) in formats intended for both visual and nonvisual use; and (3) has been purchased under a contract which includes the technology access clause required pursuant to section 4 of this act. SECTION 4. PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS. (a) Technology Access Clause. The technology access clause specified in section 3 of this act shall be developed by (insert name of the appropriate state authority) and shall require compliance with nonvisual access standards established by the state. The clause shall be included in all contracts for the procurement of information technology by, or for the use of, entities covered by this Act on or after the effective date of this Act. (b) Nonvisual Access Standards. The nonvisual access standards established by the state pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall include such specifications as are necessary to fulfill the assurances in section 3 of this Act and shall include the following minimum specifications: (1) that effective, interactive control and use of the technology (including the operating system), applications programs, and format of the data presented, is readily achievable by nonvisual means; (2) that the technology equipped for nonvisual access must be compatible with information technology used by other individuals with whom the blind or visually impaired individual must interact; (3) that nonvisual access technology must be integrated into networks used to share communications among employees, program participants, and the public; and (4) that the technology for nonvisual access must have the capability of providing equivalent access by nonvisual means to telecommunications or other interconnected network services used by persons who are not blind or visually impaired. SECTION 5. IMPLEMENTATION. (a) Phase-in. For the purpose of assuring the effective phasing in of nonvisual access technology procurement, the head of any covered entity-- (1) may not approve exclusion of the technology access clause from any contract with respect to the compatibility of standard operating systems and software with nonvisual access software and peripheral devices or with respect to the initial design, development, and installation of information systems, including the design and procurement of interactive equipment and software; or (2) may, with respect to nonvisual access software or peripheral devices obtained during the three-year period, beginning upon the date of enactment of this Act, approve exclusion of such clause to the extent that the cost of such software or devices for the covered entity exceeds-- (i) $50,000 for the first year; (ii) $100,000 for the second year; and (iii) $250,000 for the third year. (b) Nothing in this section requires the installation of software or peripheral devices used for nonvisual access when the information technology is being used by individuals who are not blind or visually impaired. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, the applications programs and underlying operating systems (including the format of the data) used for the manipulation and presentation of information shall permit the installation and effective use of nonvisual access software and peripheral devices. (d) Existing Systems. Compliance with this Act in regard to information technology purchased prior to the effective date of this Act shall be achieved at the time of procurement of an upgrade or replacement of the existing equipment or software. SECTION 6. ACTION FOR INJUNCTION. (a) A person injured by a violation of this Act may maintain an action for injunctive relief to enforce the terms of this Act. (b) Limitation period for civil action.-- (1) Any such action shall be commenced within four years after the cause of action accrues. (2) For the purposes of this subsection, a cause of action for a continuing violation accrues at the time of the latest violation. SECTION 7. This act shall take effect and be in force from the date of enactment of this Act. David Andrews (dandrews@visi.com) or BBS: (telnet to nfbnet.org) or call (612) 696-1975 Net-Tamer V 1.10 Beta - Registered --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGA00001Date: 12/05/97 From: DAVID ANDREWS Time: 01:14pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: IDEA Amendment Comments and Analysis From: David Andrews Subject: IDEA Amendment Comments and Analysis As uyou know, Congress has passed amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The U.S. Department of Education has drafted proposed regulations, based on the amendments, and is now taking comments on them. Below is an analysis by James Gashel, Director of Governmental Affairs for the National Federation of the Blind as well as instructions on how to submit your own comments. David Andrews MEMORANDUM DATE: November 26, 1997 FROM: James Gashel TO: Persons interested in IDEA issues RE: Comment points on IDEA proposed rules PROCEDURAL INFORMATION: The United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), has published proposed rules needed to implement the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997. The notice, with an invitation to comment, was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1997. The entire text of the notice--consisting of a preamble, the proposed rules themselves (34 CFR parts 300, 301, and 303), and an appendix to part 300--can be found electronically at the following world wide web address: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/1997- 4/102297a.html The Department of Education is also distributing copies of the notice upon request. To obtain a print copy call toll-free to 1-800-872-5327. This is the Information Resource Center for the Department of Education. Your request for the IDEA proposed rules of October 22, 1997, can be placed with an operator at this number. To obtain an alternate format copy--Braille, computer disk, or audio tape--call (202) 205-8113. Comments in response to the proposed rules must be received at the Department of Education in Washington D.C., on or before January 20, 1998. The address for written comments is: Thomas Irvin, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, Room 3090, Mary E. Switzer Building, 330 C Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20202. Comments may be submitted in electronic form by using the following Internet address: comment@ed.gov. In filing electronically, the message must include the phrase "Assistance for Education" as the subject line of the e-mail message. CONTENT/ISSUES: This information is provided in advance of a full-scale analysis of the extensive proposed rules. However, a brief review indicates that the matters discussed below should receive priority attention in comments. Comments on portions of the proposed rules will be developed during November and December, 1997, and prepared for submission in January, 1998. This memorandum will then be updated from time to time during this process to reflect the additional views and recommendations. Issues to be incorporated in the final comment should be brought to the attention of the National Federation of the Blind for consideration. (1) Definitions--section 300.7(b) COMMENT: This section defines various terms used in the phrase "child with a disability." The term "visual impairment including blindness" is defined in paragraph (b)(13). The definition as proposed is broad enough to include any child whose educational performance is adversely affected because of impaired vision after correction. While the proposed definition may be helpful in applying certain provisions of the regulations, it may actually lead to some confusion unless some additional clarification is provided. In fact, the implication of the definition as proposed is that "blindness" essentially means no sight, and "visual impairment" essentially means partial sight. This implication is misleading. Even more to the point, it may lead to unintended limitations on the application of the IEP provision regarding Braille in section 300.346 of the regulations. Effective implementation of the Braille provision in section 300.346 depends to a very large extent upon an appropriate definition of the population subject to that provision. Also, the definition of the phrase, "visual impairment including blindness" is different from the phrase--"blind and visually impaired"--which appears in the relevant substantive provision--section 300.346. It is possible, therefore, that the definition will not be understood to apply to section 300.346. It should be noted further that the Act and section 300.346 use the phrase "blind or visually impaired" in referring to the children whose needs are addressed in section 300.346. This phrase--"blind or visually impaired"--is also consistent with terminology used in more than twenty relevant state laws. The point is that the use of consistent terminology should help to some degree in avoiding confusion. RECOMMENDATION: (a) Amend section 300.7(b)(13) by striking the phrase "visual impairment including blindness" and inserting in lieu thereof "blind or visually impaired." (b) Provide a statement of clarification by way of an explanatory note to the effect that this definition is intended to include children considered to be "blind or visually impaired" under an applicable state law pertaining to the provision of Braille services under an IEP. (2) Personnel standards--section 300.136 COMMENT: This section generally appears to require that standards used for special education and related services personnel must reflect the highest standards applicable to such personnel in the state. While this may appear to be a sound policy in many instances, it can have some very serious and undesirable consequences. The existing approach to the certification of orientation and mobility instructors for the blind is one example. Certification of orientation and mobility instructors for the blind has been taken on by the Association for the Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired (AER). That organization has also worked very closely with the various professional preparation programs in designing their course offerings and content to lead to graduates who can meet the AER standards. As a consequence, the admissions policies of the professional preparation programs tend to reflect the certification standards, and these standards will often be seen as the highest standards applicable in the state. Until quite recently, this has meant that qualified blind individuals could not be accepted into most of the professional preparation programs because they would eventually be rejected for certification by AER. While that is essentially still the case, there has been some relaxation more recently on the absolute prohibition against admission of blind people into the profession as orientation and mobility instructors. Even with the relaxation, however, it is still fair to say that only a handful of blind students have been admitted into professional preparation programs and even fewer have made it so far as to be certified by AER. The rationale for refusing to train or certify blind people as mobility instructors has no factual foundation, and it is not the purpose of this comment to debate the matter with AER. The fact is that regardless of certification, many blind people are actually employed as mobility instructors in both education and rehabilitation programs. When this occurs, the employing agency has the flexibility to disregard AER certification. If this flexibility is removed, very few if any blind people will ever be able to enter the orientation and mobility profession. As a consequence, blind students would then be denied the substantial benefits of having competent blind role-models as instructors. The issue being raised here is not a charge of unlawful discrimination. If exclusion of blind people from the mobility instructor profession were clearly unlawful, there would be no need for a regulation to address this issue. The fact is, however, that experts at the Department of Education have tended to provide vague answers when asked if exclusion of blind people from this particular profession would constitute discrimination. Even so, those who are knowledgeable and in authority at the Department have tended to agree that exclusion of blind people from the profession is not acceptable--whether or not it is clearly illegal. RECOMMENDATION: Amend section 300.136 by inserting a new subsection (h) at the end thereof to read as follows: "(h) To the extent that such standards may screen out or tend to screen out individuals with disabilities, the state shall assure that such standards will not be utilized." (3) Development, review, and revision of IEP--section 300.346 COMMENT: Paragraph (a)(2) of this section includes the requirement for the provision of Braille services for a blind or visually impaired child unless the team determines that such services are not appropriate. This factor for a blind child was included in the amendments in response to the widely acknowledged problem of declining literacy skills among blind children. Also, the language of the Braille services factor was chosen deliberately to reverse the decline in Braille instruction and use for blind children. Therefore, a great deal of significance should be attached to the word "provide" at the beginning of the clause in question. By comparison, it should be noted that each of the other special factors listed in paragraph (2) is headed with the term "consider." If Congress had wanted the IEP team to have essentially the same degree of discretion in regard to Braille as compared to the other factors, the clause would have been headed with "consider" not "provide." In the case of the special factors other than for the child who is blind or visually impaired, the IEP team is directed to consider the child's needs in regard to the factor in question. By implication, the team would then be required to provide for the service, device, or program needed in order to achieve FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) for the child. In fact, the subsection concerning review and modification of the IEP specifies this. By contrast, in the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired, the IEP team must provide for instruction in Braille or the use of Braille unless the team decides that these services are not appropriate. The contrasting approach taken in this clause is not just in semantics. That is, lacking an affirmative finding by the team that Braille services are not appropriate, the IEP must go to the operative default word, which is "provide." The team's scope of discretion in deciding whether Braille services are appropriate is also circumscribed to a very considerable degree by the law. Hence the determination must be based on a specific evaluation of the child's reading and writing skills, needs, and appropriate reading and writing media. The evaluation must also include an evaluation of the child's future needs for instruction in Braille or the use of Braille. Then, when the team has completed the procedures required in this clause, a decision can be made. If no decision or determination is made at this point, then the operative requirement of the law as stated in this clause is "provide." A decision not to provide could be made, but this would have to be an affirmative reversal. In short, the team's responsibility in regard to this particular factor should be understood as the discretion to grant (or not to grant) a waiver. Without the waiver, the operative word is "provide." RECOMMENDATION: (a) Amend section 300.346(a)(2) by adding to the accompanying notes an explanation to the effect that "provide" means provide with the proviso that discretion to grant an exception from the general rule may be exercised in a limited number of circumstances where an exception is appropriate. (b) Include in the note on this factor a statement to the effect that the provision of other appropriate services relating to the use of reading and writing media for the child may not be used as a reason for the team to determine that instruction in Braille or the use of Braille is not appropriate for the child. The note should state affirmatively that "the child may not be denied Braille services on the basis that modified reading and writing media, other than Braille, are being provided. David Andrews (dandrews@visi.com) or BBS: (telnet to nfbnet.org) or call (612) 696-1975 Net-Tamer V 1.10 Beta - Registered --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGB00000Date: 12/07/97 From: PETE DONAHUE Time: 01:04am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Nicely Done Ticket Machines (fwd) From: Pete Donahue Subject: Nicely Done Ticket Machines (fwd) Hello listers, Here is something I think you will be interested in hearing about. Well at least in some quarters there shine rays oflight where our ability to accesss electronic dei vices such as the ticket machine in this post. perhaps soon this exception will become the rule. Peter donahue ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:20:59 -0800 From: Kelly Ford To: BLIND-X@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU Subject: Nicely Done Ticket Machines Hi All, Far too often it seems that when a new piece of technology comes out it doesn't work for people with disabilities. I thought I'd share a recent experience with something that seems to be done right, in this case some new ticket machines being put in by Tri-Met, the regional transit authority in the Portland, Oregon area. I can't speak for all disabilities but I feel that these machines are very usable for people who are blind. Tri-Met sells everything from daily bus passes of differing amounts based on the areas of the city you want to visit to monthly passes for the system from the new ticket machines. The face of the machine has a small set of braille instructions near the upper left corner just below a large button and a raised image of a bell I believe. The instructions tell you to press the button and then listen and follow the audio trail to complete your transaction. I have to say that this audio trail was one of the more unique and good things about the machine. It was a series of raised arrows to guide your hand to all the locations you needed to find on the machine. Each location was labeled in braille, with enlarged raised print and in general easy to find. After you start the machine talking, you follow the audio trail down a short distance and then over to the right as you hear the options you can select. You press the button of your choice and the machine announces what you've pressed. When it comes time to insert actual money into the machine, you first hear the amount you need to insert and then as you drop in your coins or bills, you hear how much you still need to insert. There's a full set of braille information about the various rates and such on the side of the machine. A sighted friend told me that things appeared to be printed in large letters and with a great degree of contrast on the unit. I believe, but am not certain, that the machine would also be very usable by people who use wheelchairs. I'm just not certain on the exact dimensions. At this point the new ticket machines are not in place at all ticket locations. They appear to be largely in the downtown area where Tri-Met has been doing a lot of work. I believe they will be put in all the new light rail stations being constructed. I don't know about replacement of all the older machines in the area. Unfortunately I couldn't find info on who made the machines. I have a call into the people at Tri-Met so hopefully they'll let me know. To learn more about Tri-Met you can visit their web site at: http://www.tri-met.org --- Kelly Ford kford@teleport.com See my home page at http://www.teleport.com/~kford/index.html --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGC00000Date: 12/07/97 From: AL AND MASHA STEN-CLANTON Time: 09:28am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Nicely Done Ticket Machines (fwd) From: Al and Masha Sten-Clanton Subject: Re: Nicely Done Ticket Machines (fwd) Pete, this is really cool! My wife noted that this seems to indicate that blind folks are expected to pay their way, which if true, we think is especially cool! Real access, not fake favors, she says, and I agree! Al On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Pete Donahue wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:20:59 -0800 > From: Kelly Ford > To: BLIND-X@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > Subject: Nicely Done Ticket Machines > > Hi All, > > Far too often it seems that when a new piece of technology comes out it > doesn't work for people with disabilities. I thought I'd share a recent > experience with something that seems to be done right, in this case some > new ticket machines being put in by Tri-Met, the regional transit > authority in the Portland, Oregon area. I can't speak for all > disabilities but I feel that these machines are very usable for people who > are blind. Tri-Met sells everything from daily bus passes of differing > amounts based on the areas of the city you want to visit to monthly passes > for the system from the new ticket machines. > > The face of the machine has a small set of braille instructions near the > upper left corner just below a large button and a raised image of a bell I > believe. The instructions tell you to press the button and then listen > and follow the audio trail to complete your transaction. I have to say > that this audio trail was one of the more unique and good things about the > machine. It was a series of raised arrows to guide your hand to all the > locations you needed to find on the machine. Each location was > labeled in braille, with enlarged raised print and in general easy to > find. > > After you start the machine talking, you follow the audio trail down a > short distance and then over to the right as you hear the options you can > select. You press the button of your choice and the machine announces > what you've pressed. When it comes time to insert actual money into the > machine, you first hear the amount you need to insert and then as you drop > in your coins or bills, you hear how much you still need to insert. > There's a full set of braille information about the various rates and such > on the side of the machine. > > A sighted friend told me that things appeared to be printed in large > letters and with a great degree of contrast on the unit. I believe, but > am not certain, that the machine would also be very usable by people who > use wheelchairs. I'm just not certain on the exact dimensions. > > At this point the new ticket machines are not in place at all ticket > locations. They appear to be largely in the downtown area where Tri-Met > has been doing a lot of work. I believe they will be put in all the new > light rail stations being constructed. I don't know about replacement of > all the older machines in the area. > > Unfortunately I couldn't find info on who made the machines. I have a > call into the people at Tri-Met so hopefully they'll let me know. To > learn more about Tri-Met you can visit their web site at: > > http://www.tri-met.org > > > --- > > Kelly Ford > kford@teleport.com > See my home page at http://www.teleport.com/~kford/index.html > > > --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGC00001Date: 12/07/97 From: PETE DONAHUE Time: 02:09pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Annual christmas Dinner From: Pete Donahue Subject: Annual christmas Dinner Fellow Federationists and listers, Once again this year the Greater San antonio chapter of the National Federationof the Blind of Texas will hold it's annual chtristmas dinner on Saturday December 20, 1990 from 1 to 5 P.M. We will hold the dinner at the Villa De Oro Appartments clubhouse which is located at 130 Camino De Oro Road in San Antonio Texas. Because this year's dinner will be catered we must know in advance how many plates we will need please let us know if you can attend. remember in the true spirit of Fedetrationism all of our meetings are open to any interested blind person or friends of such people interested int he affairs of the blind. Please also be advised that there will be a $5 charge for the meal. This is a two-fold effort to offer a great dinner and to raise funds forour chapter. If you wish to attend please contac t Mary Donahue, Christmas Social Chairperson at (210) 826-9579, or send E-mail to: pdonahue@texas.net. Please RSVP as soon as possible so we can have a count for the cateror. We need to have this count by next weekend. As always everyone from near and far is welcomed to join us for some Texas style Federation hospitality, and your cooperation in the above matters will ensure a good time for all. See you at the Christmas Social. Yours truly, Peter donahue Secretary, Greater San antonio chapter National Federation of the Blind of Texas --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGC00002Date: 12/07/97 From: BRL STAFF Time: 02:48pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Announcement From: BRL Staff Subject: Announcement The Microsoft Guide to Windows 95 Keyboard Commands is now available in Grade 2 braille. It's contained in a single volume Price of a single copy is $25; discounts are available for multiple orders. Call BRL, Inc. at 800-407-5839 or email brlinc@mindspring.com BRL, Inc. is a nonprofit Corporation. All major credit cards accepted and so are purchase orders. --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 233 NFB BLIND NEWS Ref: EGE00000Date: 12/09/97 From: SHAWN DJERNES Time: 02:23pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Eudora Pro 4.0 stepped backwards From: Shawn Djernes Subject: Eudora Pro 4.0 stepped backwards Hello Listers, This is just a note for your information. I have been participating in the recent BETA testing of Eudora Pro 4.0 and have found it has made several steps backwards along with some advances. The primary items are the Filter Report and Tabbed windows that can not be accessed via the keyboard. Once the filter report is visible and you close it, there is no way to bring it back. Also they have began using graphics to indicate the status of a message and the server status of messages that appear as the same graphic number to Jaws. Those things are minor and can be dealt with. What I see as a major step back is the fact that they removed the feature allowing a user to just press enter on a URL in the message. Now you must route the Mouse cursor (Jaws) to your PC cursor in the text and click to get to the URLs. This worked in a few of the early betas b3 - b5. After that the next one I got was b7 which soon became Release Candidates 1 -3 where it did not work. I wrote to Eudora's bug report address several times getting nothing but the standard automated response. Shawn --- * Origin: NFBnet <--> Internet Email Gateway (1:282/1045)