COMPUTER SCIENCE UPDATE - SUMMER-WINTER, 1992 Published By National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science 3530 Dupont Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55412 Phone: (612) 521-3202 Correspondence with Artic Technologies How is Artic Perceived by the Blind? by Curtis Chong Editor's note: Artic Technologies International is a company best known for its screen access software and hardware for the IBM PC and compatible computers. Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with screen access technology for the blind has undoubtedly heard about Artic Vision and Artic Business Vision. In 1986, when Artic Vision first emerged, everyone regarded it as a highly superior product and Artic Technologies as an innovative and forward-looking company. As the following correspondence suggests, this may no longer be the case. In short, Artic Technologies seems to have lost its innovative edge in the marketplace of screen access technology for the blind. Does Artic Technologies acknowledge this fact, and, perhaps more important, is it in a position to do anything about this situation? Will the recent release of Artic's new external speech synthesizer, the TransPort, help to improve the company's image and, more importantly, restore its leadership position? Read the following correspondence. It points out both good and bad things about Artic Technologies International. It brings to light some facts which consumers would do well to ponder. One fact that may escape the reader's attention has to do with the availability of the SONIX2 module for Artic's micro-channel speech card. Without this module, competing screen access systems cannot generate speech using Artic's micro-channel speech card. As of this writing, no such module yet exists even though a lot of people recall promises made by Artic officials that such a module would be released. Interestingly enough, Mr. McDaniel, in his reply, says nothing about this. Perhaps after all is said and done, the TransPort will provide a satisfactory solution to this problem. Only time will tell. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND IN COMPUTER SCIENCE 3530 Dupont Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55412 April 21, 1992 Dale McDaniel Artic Technologies International 55 Park Street Suite 2 Troy, Michigan 48083 Dear Dale: I am writing this letter to bring to your attention some of the current thinking that has taken place among blind people in this country concerning Artic Technologies International. I regret the circumstances that have motivated me to write this letter. However, if Artic Technologies is to maintain any favorable standing within the blind community and if it is to continue to be a leading supplier of screen reading technology for the IBM PC and compatible machines, it would do well to consider the points raised here. I trust that you will communicate what I have said to the other principals of the company. When Artic Technologies and its program, Artic Vision, came upon the scene in 1986, it was clear to everyone that here was a company that had developed a screen reading system with some unique, innovative, and exciting features. In 1986, no other screen reading program for the blind could respond as quickly and as smoothly as Artic Vision, no other screen reading program could silence unwanted speech as quickly as Artic Vision, and no other screen reading system could offer synthetic speech for as economical a price with as high quality as Artic Technologies could with its SynPhonix speech card. Overnight, Artic Technologies had established itself as a company of prominence in the field. Alas, events that have taken place over the last few years have done much to erode Artic's favorable standing. In my conversations with blind people throughout the country, these key factors are cited: 1. Artic's perceived attempt to "lock up" the SSI 263 chip market by making itself the sole distributor of the chip. 2. Artic's tendency to pre-announce software and hardware as "soon to be available" when, in reality, many months or even years go by before anything is brought to market. In this context I refer to Artic's micro-channel speech card, Vision 3, the not-yet-released keyboard macro feature for Vision 3, and Artic's external speech synthesizer. 3. Artic Technologies' decision to release its newer SynPhonix cards only with Artic Vision instead of immediately providing an open interface (SONIX2) to permit the card to be used with competing screen reading programs. 4. Packaging the Artic Vision system such that the program can be used only with one SynPhonix speech card. Consider the question of exclusive distribution rights for the SSI 263 speech chip. While we can engage in endless debate and discussion about whether or not Artic Technologies had any designs to monopolize the market for this chip, the fact remains that Artic Technologies was perceived as attempting to monopolize the chip. Proponents of this view argued that Artic Technologies, as a marketer of screen reading software and speech synthesis technology for the blind, should not be vying for the exclusive distribution rights for a speech chip (the SSI 263)--especially, since that chip was an indispensable component in speech systems marketed by its competitors. It was felt that as an exclusive distributor of the SSI 263 chip, Artic Technologies would be able to exercise an unfair advantage, thereby stifling competition. Artic's repeated denials of any intent to monopolize the chip and its assertion that it would be the best distributor of the chip because of its ability to provide technical support were either not heard or not believed by the vast majority of blind consumers. A lot of people have told me that they simply do not give any credence to new announcements made or prototypes shown by Artic Technologies. Given the delays encountered getting Vision 3 to market, the commitments made to put out an as yet unreleased key macro capability for Vision 3, unfulfilled promises made to develop a SONIX2 open interface for the SynPhonix micro-channel speech card, and the not-yet-released but widely talked about external speech synthesizer, this can hardly be considered surprising. There are those who have said that Artic Technologies never releases a product on time, and some times not at all. Recent experiences such as those cited above give substance to this assertion. When Artic Technologies developed its new line of speech cards (the successors to the old SynPhonix 200), it initially sold them only as part of an Artic Vision or Business Vision package. At the initial release date, Artic Technologies chose not to market an open interface module that vendors of other screen reading software could use to drive the newer speech cards. As you know, the old SynPhonix 200 cards could not run well on computers running at more than 10 megahertz. People who wanted the SynPhonix speech cards for their newer and faster computers found that it was somehow easier to purchase Artic Vision instead of sticking to their older screen reading system. A lot of people thought that the open interface module should have been released as soon as the new SynPhonix cards came to market and resented what was perceived to be a clear attempt by Artic Technologies to increase the sales of its Artic Vision product. And what about software protection. Everyone is well aware that the Artic Vision product is packaged so as to only work with one SynPhonix speech card. This has been and continues to be a bone of contention with many blind people. Although no one denies that Artic Technologies has a right to protect its software, it is generally felt that Artic Technologies could have come up with a better protection scheme that would have permitted licensed users of the program to run the software on more than one machine. As it is today, a licensed user who wants to run Artic Vision on two computers has to buy two copies of the program plus two speech cards. This is not a major issue in and of itself. But when combined with everything else, it reinforces the perception that Artic Technologies does not hold the interests of blind consumers as a high priority. I would not go so far as to say that Artic Technologies has deliberately sought to earn the ill will of blind consumers. It only seems that way. The company has taken actions and adopted policies which have done tremendous damage to its favorable standing. There are those who have said that Artic Technologies is no longer a leader in the field and that Artic Vision, as a screen reader, has been surpassed by competing software. There are those who have said that Artic Technologies promises much and delivers too little too late. My belief is that Artic Technologies has made some bad decisions and that it has made too many premature announcements. These have resulted in the loss of the company's leadership position in the field. A lot of blind people will tell you that Artic Technologies is viewed today as a stable if not spectacular company. Vision 3 is still viewed as one of the leading screen reading systems on the market. However, no one holds out any real hope that the program will make any significant strides in the near future. It seems to me that Artic Technologies needs to take deliberate steps to regain its favorable standing among blind people. For one thing, the company must do a better job of announcing new products and then releasing them on time. For another, the company must do a better job of listening to and communicating with blind consumers. Consider what might be done to facilitate more open access to your speech cards on the new 33 megahertz 486 processors. I understand that your current speech cards do not work well on some 486 machines. Rumor has it that you intend to remedy this problem by making a software patch to Artic Vision. Why not include the same fix in your SONIX2 product so that other screen reading software will be able to use your speech card on the 486 processors. And speaking of SONIX2, it is high time that a SONIX2 module was made available for the micro-channel version of your speech card. I hope that you and your colleagues will give careful consideration to the issues raised in this letter. I do not wish to destroy or discredit Artic Technologies. Rather, I am trying to help the company perform in a manner that is more in keeping with the wishes of the consumers who purchase its products. Yours sincerely, Curtis Chong President National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science May 4, 1992 Mr. Curtis Chong President National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science 3530 Dupont Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55412 Dear Curtis, I would like to thank you for your letter of April twenty-one. Constructive criticism is necessary and welcome for any company that desires to grow and improve. All too often, individuals or agencies who take exception with a company's actions are willing to express their dissatisfaction with everyone but the company itself. This can create unfavorable and distorted attitudes among consumers who have had this dissatisfaction repeated to them second or third hand. Not to mention the fact that it makes it difficult if not impossible for a company to take corrective action if they are not informed. We appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to inform us of your concerns directly and for your expressed confidence that we can rectify these matters. Curtis, we are pleased that "A lot of blind people will tell you that Artic Technologies is viewed today as a stable" company and that "Vision 3 is still viewed as one of the leading screen reading systems on the market." We have watched a number of companies and many products come and go in the adaptive technology field, and are proud of the fact that our customers can rely on our continued presence, enhancements to our existing products, and the introduction of new products to broaden the horizons of access for them. At the same time, I can understand in part the reasons behind your contention that Artic is currently not a "spectacular company" and that Vision 3 might not "make any significant strides in the near future". While I can understand the frustrations that have led to such statements, neither I nor anyone at Artic can accept them as unchangeable fact. We realize and accept that as part of our evaluation as a company we have made mistakes. Be assured that we have learned and will continue to learn from these mistakes and do our utmost to justify the confidence that you and so many others have placed in us. Artic gained a reputation as an innovative, technologically advanced company based on our numerous accomplishments. Anyone who thinks that this reputation is a thing of the past is vastly underrating us. I realize that you ordered the comments in your letter to reflect a historical perspective and that several of the items have already been rectified. However, for ease of presentation, I would like to respond to the points that you raised in the order in which you raised them rather than by the order of importance. 1) Regarding Artic's "perceived attempt to `lock up` the SSI 263 speech synthesis chip market by making itself the sole distributor of the chip", we are neither the sole distributor of this chip nor have we ever refused to sell the chip to anyone wishing to purchase it. When this issue was first raised at the NFB convention in Chicago several years ago, I met with Dr. Cranmer, yourself, other members of the NFB staff, and numerous manufacturers of speech products. At that time, I explained the salient points that led to Artic becoming a distributor for the SSI 263 chip. The principals of Artic designed the 263 chip while we were with the Research & Development group of Votrax, Inc. SSI simply manufactures the chip under license from what was then Votrax's parent company (Votrax has since gone out of business). Since SSI did not design the chip, they have never had anyone on their staff who understands the operation of the chip or can provide technical support. SSI had contracted Votrax, Inc. to provide technical support but, since everyone involved with the 263 design project had left the company, Votrax had no one on staff that could support the chip either. This situation, coupled with the fact that SSI sells relatively few 263 chips in comparison to their other products, led SSI to announce that they were discontinuing production of the 263. To ensure a continued supply of this chip for ourselves and others, Artic entered into an agreement with SSI under which we would provide technical support and distribution for the 263 chip. We made it abundantly clear at that time that we would make the 263 chip available to any and all individuals, companies, or agencies who wished to purchase it. Since that time, we have sold chips to numerous companies and individuals, regardless of their application or potential market. Interestingly, those companies who manufacture speech products for low vision and blind individuals have not been among our customers. These companies obviously obtain the 263 chip through other sources. Consequently, not only does Artic provide the 263 chip to any interested party, we also are not the "sole distributor" of this device. The reality of the situation is that, if not for the intervention of Artic, the 263 chip would have ceased to exist several years ago. 2) Artic is aware of its "tendency to pre-announce software and hardware". In the past, we have released products late and presently have some still awaiting release. We realize and regret the frustration that these situations have created, and can assure you that no one feels this frustration more deeply than we do. It obviously does not benefit us in any manner to announce a product and then not deliver it by the promised date (your letter is simply proof of that). Unfortunately, sophisticated software design and scheduling are not exact sciences for any company and the temptation to announce exciting new concepts can sometimes be irresistible (MicroSoft being two years late with Windows is a good example of these points). At this point, all that we can do is offer our apologies for our past mistakes and assure you that they will not be repeated in future. We will no longer discuss any new products until we are in a position to quote a guaranteed delivery date. Additionally, products that were previously announced will be completed and released as soon as possible. I will be happy to provide you with firm release dates for our external speech synthesizer (TransPort) and the keyboard macro feature for Vision 3 as they become available. As you are aware, the other products that you mentioned (Vision 3 and the micro-channel version of our synthesizer (SynPhonix-315)) have been available for well over a year. 3) Our decision to release our "new SynPhonix cards only with Artic Vision instead of immediately providing an open interface (SONIX2) to permit the card to be used with competing screen reading programs," is in reality an indication of our commitment to our customers. That some people mistakenly view this as a negative action on our part is obvious from your statement that "A lot of people thought that the open interface module should have been released as soon as the new SynPhonix cards came to market and resented what was perceived to be a clear attempt by Artic Technologies to increase the sales of Artic Vision products". Such perceptions illustrate my earlier comment that distorted attitudes can develop when people do not discuss their dissatisfactions with the manufacturer. The SynPhonix synthesizers marketed with SONIX2 are a completely separate product line from the SynPhonix synthesizers with VEST and Visions. Consequently, when a synthesizer upgrade is planned we must decide which product will be upgraded first. If we opted to upgrade the SynPhonix with SONIX2 and release it first, those customers who rely on our Vision software for computer access would find themselves in the position of waiting for a new release while those who use other screen access programs were already benefiting from an upgraded synthesizer. What message would this deliver regarding Artic's loyalty to its customers? The only other alternative would be to upgrade one product line and then delay its release until the upgrade of the other product line was completed so they could be released simultaneously. This approach might allow us to avoid some criticism, but it would cause one group or the other to needlessly wait for an upgrade that could be of great assistance to them. While we are committed to considering the needs of the entire low vision and blind community, our first loyalty must go to our customers who rely upon us for their access needs. A related issue that you raised deals with a modification to ensure proper operation of SynPhonix synthesizers with the new 33 megahertz 486 processors. You state that "Rumor has it that you intend to remedy this problem by making a software patch to Artic Vision.". The reality is that any such modifications would have to be made to the software that controls the synthesizer, not the screen access program which uses the synthesizer as an output device. I can assure you that any such modifications to the synthesizer drivers will be released simultaneously for all versions of our synthesizers. 4) Regarding the serialization of Visions software to match the SynPhonix synthesizer, you state that such software protection "has and continues to be a bone of contention with many blind people". This is an area of great concern to us, as the introduction of serialization was an attempt to address an unfortunate situation in a manner that did not penalize legitimate customers. When we first released Visions, the software was completely open and could operate with any SynPhonix synthesizer. Unfortunately, over the course of several years we encountered numerous instances of individuals running copies of Vision that they had not purchased. Many times these instances became apparent when the individual called us for technical support. Such instances damage everyone in a variety of ways. They reflect a loss of revenue which could have been utilized to hire additional engineering staff to enhance existing products and research new products, they utilize technical support time that should be going to legitimate users, and they divert personnel and resources from productive activities that benefit the Artic consumers. Eventually, such occurrences became too frequent and unmanageable to be overlooked. At that point, we had several options to resolve the situation. We could have taken the approach used by many large software manufacturers and increased our prices to offset these losses. However, we did not then and do not now feel that it is appropriate to penalize licensed users for the actions of others. In fact, while our products have increased in sophistication and functionality over the years, our prices have not increased. A second option would have been to discontinue selling SynPhonix synthesizers for general usage and offering them for sale only with a Visions package. This option was not rejected due to any profits that might be realized from such synthesizer sales. In fact, of all the products that we manufacture, synthesizers have the lowest profit margin. As difficult as it may be for some people to accept, Artic is not simply a faceless company driven by a profit motive. Artic is composed of people who take pride in the fact that their work enhances the lives of its consumers rather than simply turning out meaningless products for the mass consumer market. Consequently, we did not feel that, in good conscience, we could turn our backs on customers who depended on our synthesizers. The third and final alternative was some form of software protection. The most common form of software protection is a coded disk that forces the user to perform complicated installation procedures and limits the number of installations and back-up copies. Further complicating matters was the fact that such procedures would have to be performed without benefit of speech. We felt that these complications and limitations were an unacceptable burden to our customers. However, by serializing the software to the synthesizer, we were able to provide a system under which installation is trivial and the user can maintain back-up copies without limitation. The only difficulty arises when an individual needs access to more than one computer. While you state that the user "has to buy two copies of the program plus two speech cards.", this is not the case. From the day that we implemented this system, we have offered a complete second system to licensed individuals for the price of the synthesizer alone. Consequently, any individual who needs to run on more than one system pays for the software once and then purchases the additional synthesizer just as they would with any other system on the market today. We also offer licenses to accommodate the needs any company or organization that requires access for multiple computers. Even this necessity will soon be removed since the introduction of our TransPort external synthesizer will enable the user to access any computer they happen to be near. As I said, our intent was to address an unfortunate situation by implementing a solution that did not penalize legitimate customers. As always, we would welcome any alternative recommendations that you or any other individual might have. Curtis, I hope that the responses that I have provided answer the questions and concerns that you expressed. I would be happy to answer any additional questions or provide further clarification for you or anyone else who desires it. Again, I deeply appreciate your efforts to assist us in being a company that meets the needs of the low vision and blind community to the best of our ability. I hope that you and others will continue to provide us with the feedback we require to accomplish this goal. Sincerely, Dale McDaniel Vice-President of Marketing Prodigy: Not Meant for the BlinD by Jim Barbour Editor's note: Jim Barbour served for two years on the Board of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, relinquishing that position at the 1992 NFBCS meeting. Currently, Jim is employed as a Systems Administrator/Programmer by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Prodigy is a computer service that is becoming increasingly available across the country. When used on a home computer equipped with a modem, it allows access to a variety of services including ordering merchandise from several major shopping outlets, making your own plane reservations, ordering and having delivered groceries from a local store, playing "online" computer games and much more. Unfortunately, because of the way that prodigy interacts with the IBM Personal Computer and compatible machines, it is not useable with most screen reading software designed for the blind. Prodigy is not the only service of its kind available. CompuServ, Genie, and others offer similar services. Using Prodigy, you pay a fixed fee per month, rather than a fee based on how long you are connected (online) to the system. Prodigy is able to keep its user fees down because of two sources of revenue: First, in order to use the service, you have to purchase special software (available through local computer software outlets) from Prodigy. Secondly, similar to commercial television, Prodigy exposes its users to numerous paid advertisements, which are interspersed with the services and information provided by the system. One thing that distinguishes Prodigy from other online services is the way in which data is presented to its users. Most online services have limited control over the computer screen. They display only text. Prodigy is different. It communicates with users entirely through graphics. It can display text in different sizes, shapes (fonts) and colors. It can also display pictures. Because of the graphics nature of the system, it has been traditionally impossible for the text-based screen access systems used by the blind to work with Prodigy. Why Won't Screen Access Software Work with Prodigy? There are two reasons why standard screen reading software won't work with Prodigy. First, when text is displayed on an IBM PC screen, it is also stored as text in the computer's memory. Screen access programs rely on this information when they want to find out what is on the screen. However, when graphics are used, as with Prodigy, the text is not kept in memory. Instead, information is stored as individual dots (pixels) in the computer's memory. Second, the codes used to communicate information from the prodigy computers to the local PC have not been made public. This prevents third party programmers from writing software that could intercept and interpret the Prodigy data stream. Both of the above reasons account for the difficulty in making Prodigy accessible to screen access systems for the blind. Imbedded in the data stream sent from the Prodigy computers to your PC is the actual text that needs to be displayed on the screen. It is theoretically possible to capture this information and make use of it. However, because the text is buried beneath a sea of graphic and other computer codes that are difficult to translate, and because of Prodigy's reluctance to make its coding scheme public, most developers of screen reading systems have not even attempted the task. The NFB in Computer Science and Prodigy For some time, the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science (NFBCS) has been communicating with Prodigy Services in an effort to achieve independent access to the system by persons who are blind. In a letter to Mike Pepper, a technical assistant to Prodigy, Curtis Chong, NFBCS President, described the problems blind people were having with Prodigy and invited Mr. Pepper to the 1990 NFBCS meeting in Dallas, Texas. Part of President Chong's letter reads as follows: The success of screen reading programs developed for use by the blind rests upon the underlying assumption that the information displayed on the computer's video monitor is stored in a buffer as ASCII text and not as a pattern of bit-mapped graphic elements. The textual nature of a wide variety of computer applications has made it possible for blind people to use computers independently at home and on the job. More often than not, we can operate the same word processors, database programs, spreadsheets, and terminal emulation systems as our sighted peers. This means that we can access the same systems and data as our sighted colleagues, enabling us to compete on terms of absolute equality. As the Prodigy system operates today, everything that is displayed on the screen is done so using bit-mapped graphics. In other words, the Prodigy system cannot be used independently by the blind; and if the system achieves an increasing share of the market, the very real possibility exists that blind people on the job will lose independent access to information they can readily obtain today from other networks. There is, in the blind community, more than a little annoyance and frustration with Prodigy Services. There is a widely held belief that Prodigy Services doesn't really care whether or not blind people can use its system. Some people have reported that their letters and phone calls to the company on this subject go unanswered, and this only lends credibility to the belief that, to Prodigy Services, the blind are of little or no consequence. ...We, in the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, are willing and able to work with Prodigy Services to have a system that blind people can use and benefit from. This assumes a willingness on the part of Prodigy Services to work with us. In a letter dated June 5, 1990, Mr. Pepper declined President Chong's invitation and responded in part: Prodigy is pursuing ways to provide access to screen readers and other adaptive technology. I have been appointed project leader to investigate ways in which the PRODIGY service can be adapted for a blind audience. I hope you will be pleased to hear that Prodigy is now actively involved with the American Foundation for the Blind's National Technology Center. Over the next several months, I will be working closely with Elliot Schreier, director of the center. ...Since my work is just beginning, I have nothing of substance to bring to your Dallas convention at this time. When that changes, I will let you know. In the meantime, I ask your patience and support for my work. Needless to say, President Chong was not satisfied with Mr. Pepper's response. In a letter dated June 24, 1990, President Chong wrote in part: I am pleased that at long last, Prodigy has appointed a project leader (you) to investigate ways in which its system can be adapted for a blind audience. As you and I have discussed over the telephone, given the current technology used by Prodigy, the task promises to be a complex one. It is unfortunate that the original technology incorporated into the system was not adapted at the outset. You indicated in your letter that Prodigy is now actively involved with the American Foundation for the Blind's National Technology Center and that you will be working closely with Elliot Schreier, the Center's director. I have spoken with Mr. Schreier about what he perceives his role to be in this project, and he has indicated that his interest lies in providing Prodigy with a "wish list" of services which it should make accessible to the blind. In other words, Prodigy is not likely to obtain any help from the American Foundation for the Blind in the way of specific programming or systems design effort. If a "wish list" was all that you wanted, you could certainly have obtained it by coming to the National Federation of the Blind convention in Dallas. In a very real sense, this is where you would have been able to put your finger on the pulse of the blind community. If Prodigy is to learn anything of substance about the whys and hows of blind people using its services, it must learn to deal with blind people and their organizations directly. You would be making a tragic mistake if you viewed the American Foundation for the Blind as your primary source of information about blind people and their use of computer systems. In the summer of 1991, Interface Systems International, well known for its FREEDOM1 and ISOS screen reading software products, announced Prospeak, its program to provide access to Prodigy. As of this writing--March, 1992--we have heard nothing to indicate that prodigy is working toward any kind of a broader solution to provide access to its systems with all known screen reading technology for the blind. It would appear that as soon as Interface Systems International released Prospeak, Prodigy stopped all work to make its system accessible to blind persons. Since at the very best, Prospeak can only be viewed as a stop gap measure while Prodigy figures out a way to provide its information in a textual form, Prodigy is not off the hook. As far as this writer is concerned, Prodigy is still responsible for making its system available in an ascii text format rather than using a graphical user interface. About ProSpeak and ISOS I have tried to use ProSpeak on several different occasions to gain access to prodigy. I have yet to get it to work. To be fair, I have not spent as much time as I would have liked with Interface Systems International attempting to fix the problem. Initial indications are that it is not a simple process to use Prospeak with Prodigy. Prospeak requires the use of Interface Systems International's ISOS (Interactive Speech Operating System) screen reading program. While I found ISOS to be a very powerful product brimming with online user help, I also found it to be very awkward to use. Others have reported that ISOS makes use of key sequences that are difficult to remember. They have said that although the online help is nice, there is no total manual for the program. This is by no means meant to be an evaluation of either Prospeak or ISOS, merely my first impressions after having limited experience with these products. I am sure there are blind individuals using both Prospeak and ISOS who are extremely happy with both programs. I am told that Interface Systems International now offers a product called Protege, which sells for about $149. Basically this is a stand-alone Prodigy interface system that contains just enough ISOS functions to enable you to use Prodigy. However, you still cannot access Prodigy with any other screen reading system. An Addendum Fortunately, Prodigy is not the only system to provide services such as shopping, airline reservations, and online games. CompuServ now offers a $7.95 per month flat fee for limited service on its system, and another good online system to check out is GENIE. Since these are text based systems, useable with any ASCII telecommunications program, I would recommend that blind persons interested in online services check with them before looking into Prodigy. Two Reviews from the International Braille and Technology Center From the Editor: David Andrews is the director of the Federation's International Braille and Technology Center. Readers of the Braille Monitor know that the Center contains just about every braille embosser made in the world today plus a variety of speech and braille screen access systems. The Center also has a few optical character recognition (OCR) systems in-house. In other words, for us "techies," it is a wonder to behold. David Andrews has an opportunity to examine and evaluate a great variety of software and hardware designed for use by the blind. He has graciously contributed two reviews for this issue of Computer Science Update: one on ASAP (Automatic Screen Access Program) and the other on the new DoubleTalk speech synthesizer. Here is what Mr. Andrews has to say: Early in 1991, two new products were introduced, the DoubleTalk PC from RC Systems, and ASAP from MicroTalk. These products are a speech synthesizer and a screen review program, respectively. Initially, the Double Talk only worked with ASAP, and, initially, ASAP only supported the DoubleTalk. Both of these situations have, over time, changed for the better. The DoubleTalk PC is today supported by most screen review programs and ASAP supports a wide variety of other speech synthesizers. Here are short reviews of both these products. You can of course see them and many other things at the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind, located at the National Center for the Blind, 1800 Johnson Street, Baltimore, MD 21230. You can also give us a call at (410) 659-9314 with your questions. DoubleTalk PC The perfect speech synthesizer would offer human-like speech at an affordable price. While such a device does not yet exist, we may be one step closer with the introduction of the DoubleTalk PC from RC Systems, Inc. of Bothell, Washington. The company, which sells the DoubleTalk PC for $279, is best known for its Apple products including the SlotBuster and DoubleTalk. The unit is a half-slot internal card for IBM PC, XT, AT, 386, 486, and compatible machines. The synthesizer is somewhat unusual in that it does not require the use of one of your computer's interrupts, as most other internal cards do. The DoubleTalk PC only uses an I/O memory address. There is a jumper on the board to change this address should any conflicts occur with other software. MicroTalk and other companies are selling an external, battery- powered model of the DoubleTalk PC called the LiteTalk for $395. One subjective measure of speech synthesizer quality is how easily it can be understood by a person who has not heard synthesized speech before. The DoubleTalk PC scores high using this measure. In fact, of all the synthesizers in the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind, I would rate it second or third behind the DEC-Talk for immediate understandability by novices. Does this mean that the DoubleTalk PC has DEC-Talk quality speech? No, not really. However, for the most part, the speech is very clear and understandable. The majority of synthesized speech users are familiar with the SSI 263-based speech synthesizers including the Artic SynPhonix, Votrax Votalker, Accent, Sounding Board and Braille 'n Speak. I would describe those synthesizers as sounding, in general, somewhat mechanical or robot-like. By comparison, I would describe the DoubleTalk PC as sounding somewhat electronic. There is some high pitched distortion and sibilance in the speech generated by the synthesizer. This sound is sometimes called ailiasing. Some people hear it as an echo. Also in my office computer (a CompuAdd 325), the DoubleTalk PC picks up a little extraneous noise from the hard disk and other components. This does not seem to be a problem in most computers, however. RC Systems is aware of this problem and says that it is quite rare. Randy Carlstrom, the designer of the board, called me on a Saturday, with a possible cure. The fix was not successful, but it is nice to know that he is working on the problem. Finally, the top speed on the original DoubleTalk PC card was not as fast as I might have liked. RC Systems has since come out with a new ROM that increases the top speed somewhat. The new chip is available for twenty-five dollars. While I personally would still prefer a little more speed from the card, I believe it will be fast enough for most people. The DoubleTalk PC synthesizer is not based on a traditional speech chip such as the SSI 263. Speech generation is software based and performed right on the board. The DoubleTalk PC also has an on- board microprocessor so that it does not require any resources from your PC to produce speech. There is a very small (approximately 1K) driver program, similar to PORTTALK, which can either be run separately or built into a screen review program. To my knowledge, all the screen review programs that currently support the DoubleTalk PC incorporate this driver code into their innards so all you will have to do is drop the board into an empty slot and run your screen review program. Most screen review programs, including ASAP, JAWS, Vocal-Eyes, ISOS, Soft Vert, PROVOX and Tiny Talk, now offer support for the DoubleTalk. When I first heard the DoubleTalk PC, I liked it very much. In fact, I went out and bought one for my personal use. I have used the unit a good deal over the past year. I must admit that now, I do not like it as much as I once did. In taking thousands of persons on tour through the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind, I have learned that how a person hears a particular synthesizer and what he or she likes about it is a very personal matter. Thus, what I may like, you may hate. With this in mind, it is difficult for me to put my finger on my present dissatisfaction with the DoubleTalk. Here are some things I do not like about the synthesizer. It is somewhat difficult to distinguish between some letters and/or words, and it puts an odd emphasis on some words. This in combination with the ailiasing seems to have gotten on my nerves of late. However, in its defense, I must also say that some people like it very much, particularly those who are unfamiliar with synthesized speech. At times, the DoubleTalk has a very human-like quality, more than most other synthesizers. The DoubleTalk PC from RC systems offers a good combination of performance, speech quality and value. It should be considered by anyone who is looking for a responsive, relatively inexpensive and understandable speech device. Automatic Screen Access Program (ASAP) If you were to ask me what blind people need in terms of computer access technology, another entry into the already crowded screen review market would not be high on my list. Nevertheless, the latest entry into this field, ASAP, offers some interesting alternatives and is likely to effect the way we all compute over the next couple of years. ASAP stands for Automatic Screen Access Program. The program can be purchased for $525 from MicroTalk of Louisville, Kentucky. MicroTalk is best known for its apple II products, ProWords, ProTerm and ProBraille. ASAP is written by Larry Skutchan, a skilled blind programmer who understands what tools a blind person needs to interact with a computer. Skutchan also works for the American Printing House for the Blind and is responsible for all recent developments on the TEXTALKER program used to produce speech on, among other things, Apple II computers. As its name implies, ASAP's goal is to provide the PC user with automatic access to his or her computer and its application programs without the need to set up configurations, macros, speech windows etc. It does this by watching the screen, analyzing changes, and deciding what you need to know to use the program you are running. Skutchan says that the program employs "artificial intelligence techniques." The January 1991 Byte Magazine defined artificial intelligence as the process of making a computer think like a human. ASAP, or any other program for that matter, does not really do this. In a later article in the same issue, Byte further defined artificial intelligence as a technique for making your computer smarter. ASAP does accomplish this. I would choose to call the techniques Skutchan uses to be "intelligent screen processing" or some such thing. However, what it is called is probably less important than what it accomplishes. In addition to its automatic features, ASAP is a full-featured screen review program. When the program was first introduced, this was not quite true. In early versions of ASAP, you could not save your settings in a configuration file. You could adjust the speed of the synthesizer, vary the pitch, set up temporary windows, determine video attributes to be monitored, etc. via the control panel, from the command line or batch files; but the program did not save these settings in configuration files as do conventional screen review programs. Presumably, Skutchan's reasoning was that configurations were not necessary because the program did everything automatically. However, besides a wide variety of refinements, this is the major thing that has changed with ASAP over the past year and a half. It is now possible to save all your settings in configuration files called ".SET" files. In fact, ".SET" files are saved under the name of the application currently running and are automatically loaded when that application is run again. This system generally works well and is quite automatic. All one has to do is issue a Control-S from within the Control Panel to save all current settings. While working with a program called Off-Line Express, I was unable to properly save settings. For some reason, ASAP saved my settings under the "ASAP.SET" file name. This was the only time I had problems with the feature when testing ASAP. ASAP is basically a command-driven program. There are no long menus or hand-holding help-type files. You will need to read the manual to learn how to fine tune the program and alter its settings. The manual is available on disk, and purchasers get one cassette and one print copy as well. ASAP has both a normal operating mode and a review mode. The review mode, which is called the "control panel," is full featured. You control most settings, speed, pitch, punctuation pronunciation level, etc. from the control panel. In addition, there is a command that can be issued from within an application to execute one review mode command without having to enter the control panel. This is called a "one-shot" command and is invoked by first pressing the zero key on the numeric keypad. The program also uses the numeric keypad on the keyboard to manipulate a pointer cursor, which is called the reading cursor. This is a separate audio cursor that can be moved around the screen to read text. It is independent of the system cursor and can be moved without going into a review mode or freezing the running application. I found the reading cursor to be very handy for quickly checking things. While ASAP will work with the old-style 84 key keyboard, it is much more convenient to use with an extended 101 key keyboard because of the presence of the separate numeric keypad and cursor keys. With the 101 key keyboard, you can use the numeric keypad for moving the pointer and the cursor cross for moving the application cursor. There are two types of commands available from within the Control Panel. The first is an Alt-letter or Control-letter combination. These commands are used to specify different attributes to monitor, control level of punctuation pronunciation, and so on. In general, you press the proper key combination and are told the default setting and given a yes/no choice. You can always cancel a choice with the Escape key, making it safe to explore from within the Control Panel. The second type of Control Panel command involves typing in a number, then a letter to change that characteristic. For example, "9s" would change the speed of your synthesizer to rate 9, and "2p" would change the pitch to setting two. Finally, you can explore the screen character by character, word by word, line by line, etc. from within the Control Panel. It is also important to remember that with the One-Shot Control Panel command it is possible to issue any Control Panel command from an application without actually having to enter the Control Panel. One minor quibble I have about the Control Panel is that when you enter it, the program reads you the line your system cursor is on. Thus, it might be blank, and say nothing, or will in most cases just be a repeat of the DOS Prompt. I personally would prefer that the program say "Entering Control Panel" or something similar so I definitely know I am there. One important feature of any synthesizer/screen review combination is the ability to quickly cut speech. ASAP excels in this department, over all other screen review programs, because of the number of alternatives it provides. As with most programs, any key will interrupt ongoing speech. The Alt key will cut speech until another key is pressed. The Control key will cut speech until the speech buffer fills up again. Finally, the Shift key cuts speech for the current line and starts reading the next line immediately. This feature, which is unique to ASAP, allows you to read a screen of text, skimming down until you find what you are looking for. This feature seems to work best with the DoubleTalk PC and not as well or at all with other supported synthesizers. I tested ASAP with the DoubleTalk, SynPhonix 215 using "SONIX/TTS" and an Audapter. The program works best with the DoubleTalk. If you are at all seriously considering the purchase of ASAP, you should consider purchasing the DoubleTalk as well. While ASAP did work with other synthesizers, the line by line speech shutup did not work. When using a modem with both the SynPhonix and Audapter, ASAP had some problems cutting speech cleanly. Further, it was difficult to quickly silence the Audapter. The Audapter is normally a very responsive speech synthesizer, but ASAP was unable to utilize the synthesizer to its full potential. Other unique features of ASAP include the ability to "remember" a piece of information found on your computer's screen. This snippet of information can be recalled later or written directly into an application. I found that this feature, while potentially useful, was somewhat involved to set up. ASAP can also dial your modem using a telephone number found on the screen and specified by you. The program can also type a word directly into an application or onto the DOS command line. The word is indicated by the reading cursor. ASAP originally only supported the DoubleTalk PC and LapTalk. Thanks to user demand, the program now supports additional synthesizers including the SynPhonix and Votalker boards, the DEC- Talk, the Audapter, the Braille 'n Speak, the Echo PC, the Accent line and the Sounding Board. A demo version is available from the author or from various bulletin board systems, including NFB NET (410) 752-5011. MicroTalk also offers a bulletin board, the MicroTalk Support BBS at (502) 893-2269. The question of course is, does this automatic stuff work? In general, the answer is yes. I have used the program with a variety of applications, with varying success. It worked beautifully with Lotus 1-2-3 and Dbase, fairly well with WordPerfect, Managing Your Money, and Microsoft Bookshelf and not well at all with Paradox or Fastback Plus Version 2.1. It must be remembered that these tests were conducted without any special configuring or setup. I suspect that most people will be interested in the WordPerfect results. Before the ability to save and retrieve "SET" files was added to ASAP, it worked fairly well overall. It automatically read me the status line at the bottom of the screen, read the full- screen menus automatically and worked well with the thesaurus. In the files menu it read the first part of file names but did not read the file extensions. It did work with the spell checker, but was a little chatty. It would in some instances read the menu of choices twice. You also had to pay attention to what it was saying to hear the misspelled word. Overall, the spell checker was usable, but it took some practice and required the user to pay attention. Using the supplied .set files for WordPerfect, speech is much less sloppy now. There are configurations for the main editing screen, the spell checker, help screens and Files Menu. ASAP is able to change to the proper configuration automatically. The configurations do improve the use of WordPerfect, most dramatically for the Spell Checker. I noticed that with some complex screen layouts, such as those used with Norton Utilities Version 5, or Silver Express (an off-line reader used by some bulletin boards), ASAP does not necessarily read the screen in the order you would expect. It might for instance read text from the middle, then choices from the top or bottom. I presume that this has to do with the way the application is updating the screen. Skutchan asks that you bring problem applications to his attention. Skutchan states, "it is my goal to produce the finest screen reader around." He added, "you haven't seen nothing yet." He does update the program on a regular basis, at least once per month, and the best way to use it is to have a modem so you can download updates from the MicroTalk or other BBS's. When you buy ASAP, you get a "Brand" program that changes the downloaded demo into a permanent unrestricted copy. When it works well, ASAP is a valuable aid in running complex applications. I use the program to explore complex new CD-ROM applications and other software. One possible danger with relying too heavily on an automatic program is that when it doesn't provide you with complete or accurate information, you aren't going to know it. However, these times seem to be the exception rather than the rule. ASAP is constantly being updated by the author. The manual originally said that users are entitled to six months of free upgrades. My BRAND program has worked for almost a year and a half and I don't recall any time restrictions being mentioned in the current manual. The upgrades can be downloaded from MicroTalk's bulletin board. When I found a problem with ASAP working with the speech-oriented directory lister SDIR, Skutchan had a fix the very next day. Another problem I encountered took longer to solve, but Skutchan was willing to stick with it. It seemed that when "Extended Activity Checking" was on I was unable to load the Arkenstone Reader software on a CompuAdd 286. Extended Activity Checking is ASAP's mode that helps it analyze the screen for changes. I am now able to do so, although I have heard of others who have also had problems with ASAP and the Arkenstone. The interactions between memory resident software, other applications, high memory addresses and timing factors can get very complex. ASAP, because of its constant screen analysis, may be somewhat more demanding of your computer resources than other screen review programs. You may notice that the program takes a little longer to react than some. However, there are much more sluggish programs out there that do much less. Overall, I am very impressed with ASAP. It accomplishes a lot in a very small amount of memory, about 40K. It allows a blind person to use most applications fairly easily and works exceptionally well with many. Finally, I think that ASAP would be a good choice for a beginner or for a more advanced user who is more interested in running a wide variety of complex applications than in fiddling with a screen review program. It is my belief that other screen review programs will increase their use of intelligent screen processing techniques to a much greater degree. One topic that was recently debated on the bulletin board circuit was configurability versus automatic programs. I don't think it will ultimately be an either or situation. I suspect that all the programs will meet somewhere in the middle. In the past year, we have seen programs including Vocal-Eyes and JAWS (just to name two) add some automatic features to their lineup. For Further Information For further information or to see either of these products, contact the International Braille and Technology Center for the Blind at (410) 659-9314. You can also contact the two companies mentioned above as follows: RC Systems, Inc. 121 West Winesap Road Bothell, WA 98012 (206) 672-6909 MicroTalk 337 S. Peterson Louisville, KY 40206 Voice: (502) 897-2705 Modem: (502) 893-2269 Fax: (502) 895-3022 Managing Your Memory or Is There Life After 640K? by Steve Jacobson From the Editor: Steve Jacobson serves as vice president of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science. He is also employed as a Systems Design Analyst by the 3M Corporation. As a long-time PC user and an evaluator of a variety of screen access systems for the blind, he has acquired a wealth of knowledge and experience in, among other things, memory management software and its compatibility with screen access programs for the blind. As screen reading software becomes more and more sophisticated, there just seems to be less and less memory left for anything else. One sometimes gets the feeling that the PC is nothing more than a talking terminal with some extra memory left over for word processors and spreadsheets. If you add device drivers for optical character readers and CD-ROM drives, you have even less memory left. Fortunately, there are several solutions to this problem. Having a general knowledge of memory management may assist you in determining how best to get the most from your computer. To begin with, you never get something for nothing. You must have extra memory in your machine before anything can happen. There was a time when those of us having a whopping 640K of memory in our machines thought that we had small mainframes. Those times are long past. Now, even an 80386 system having 2MB of RAM is thought to be on the small side. Although a lot of flexibility can be achieved with at least an 80386-SX microprocessor, there are some memory tricks that can be performed with an 80286 and even with that old IBM-XT with the right software and hardware. Of course we have all heard how Microsoft Windows and IBM's OS/2 can make use of megabytes of memory, but what of our old 640K DOS applications? Before going any further, let's clarify a few terms. The type of memory into which data and programs can be placed is called random access memory or RAM. Some data and programs are permanently stored in your computer in memory that cannot be altered--that is, in read only memory or ROM. An example of this kind of memory is the collection of routines that handle your keyboard, screen, and disks called the basic input output system or BIOS. The specific read-only memory that contains these routines is often referred to as ROM BIOS. Every piece of information stored in Ram or Rom is stored at an "address." The number of characters that can be stored in memory is expressed in terms of the number of characters or "bytes." Since computer memory usually holds thousands or even millions of bytes, the terms kilobytes (KB) and megabytes (MB) are more commonly used when giving statistical information about memory. Kilobytes are often referred to with the single letter "K." For those of you who enjoy such trivia, one kilobyte of memory actually represents 1,024 bytes. (We computer people like to do everything in terms of powers of two, and 1,024 is actually two to the tenth power).But let's get back to the subject at hand. Contrary to popular belief, it isn't precisely true that DOS applications can only use 640K of memory. In fact, DOS can directly access up to 1024K. In a sense, DOS accesses memory above the 640K line whenever information is written to your computer's screen or hard disk. In fact, memory addresses greater then 640K are typically used to refer to hardware devices. Your computer's screen, hard disk, and BIOS all use addresses between 640K and 1MB as do some terminal emulator cards, optical character readers, and network adapters. Unused addresses (those not associated with any hardware) above the 640K line do not have any real memory associated with them. Writing data to these addresses is like pouring water into a bottomless cup, referred to as a "bit bucket". Even if real memory was installed in your computer at addresses between 640K and 1MB, this still does not enable a DOS application to address memory above the 1MB line. The first attempt to overcome this limitation was undertaken jointly by Lotus Development Corporation, Intel, and Microsoft. This common approach to accessing more memory was named the LIM standard after the three major players involved. From this standard comes the two most frequently used memory management terms, extended memory and expanded memory. Although you don't need to be an expert to use either expanded or extended memory, a general understanding of these terms can prove helpful. Using extended memory is a little like using a hard disk. To illustrate, when a program like WordPerfect saves your document to disk, it generally needs to know only the name of the document. WordPerfect doesn't have to be concerned with where the document physically is placed on your hard disk. It lets other software and hardware figure that out. The same is true of extended memory. Even though a program can't directly address more than 1024K of RAM, it can pass data to other software in a standard manner and let that software and hardware deal with the problem. In DOS 5.0, the software that handles extended memory is supplied in the form of a device driver called HIMEM.SYS. DOS 4.0 calls it XMAEMS.SYS. Placing a line in your CONFIG.SYS file such as DEVICE=HIMEM.SYS installs the software that allows extended memory to be used. Expanded memory goes one step further. It takes pieces of extended memory and moves them in and out of the addresses below 1024K so that programs can get at the extra memory more easily. These pieces of extended memory in this context are called expanded memory pages, and the memory addresses that contain these pieces of extended memory are referred to as the expanded memory frame. Generally, this frame occupies up to 64K of the address space between 640K and 1024K, and it must avoid addresses used by other hardware. The DOS 5.0 software that enables expanded memory is EMS386.EXE which, in spite of its "EXE" extension, is loaded as a device driver in your CONFIG.SYS file. It can also be run as a DOS program to provide status information and to exercise some control over expanded memory. The DOS 4.0 software that enables expanded memory is XMA2EMS.SYS. It is generally agreed that extended memory is faster while expanded memory is safer. However, as we shall see later, it can sometimes be undesirable to give up that 64K of address space that the management of expanded memory requires. Moreover, in order for extended or expanded memory to be of any value, your software must be able to use one or the other. Although many programs do, there are many that don't. This leads us into a discussion of other types of memory managers. As was mentioned earlier, it does us no good to refer to addresses for which there is no memory assigned. Memory managers such as QEMM386, 386-To-The-Max and DOS 5.0 solve this problem by filling in the holes between addresses used by hardware with extended memory. In other words, pieces of extended memory are connected or "mapped" to the unused addresses between 640K and 1024K resulting in several new areas of memory above the 640K boundary becoming available. These areas are sometimes called "upper memory blocks," particularly in DOS 5.0. By contrast, the memory below the 640K line is often referred to as "conventional memory." For a number of reasons, upper memory blocks are not suitable to run programs such as WordPerfect. However, they are well suited for programs that remain in memory such as speech screen access programs, print spoolers, and certain DOS functions. They can also hold device drivers such as those used for CD-ROM players, optical character readers, and some speech synthesizers. This can free up significant amounts of conventional memory for your word processor or spreadsheet program. DOS 5.0 even permits most of itself to be loaded into a special kind of extended memory called the "high memory area" or HMA, freeing up even more of the memory below 640K. This feature is enabled by placing the command DOS=HIGH in your CONFIG.SYS file after the HIMEM.SYS line. To decide whether DOS 5.0 can do everything you need to have done, one other aspect of memory management must be touched upon. As we have already seen, it is possible to access small blocks of memory above 640K. These blocks can hold various memory-resident programs and device drivers, but each one must fit inside a single memory block. On the other hand, each block can hold as many programs and/or device drivers as can be made to fit. Because of these two factors, the order in which programs are placed into upper memory blocks can greatly affect how well memory is used. Let's take a simple example. Assume that we have two available memory blocks of 30K and 15K. Further assume that we want to place two programs into these blocks. These programs need 25K and 10K. Since DOS 5.0 starts with the largest block (in this case, the 30K block), loading the 10K program first leaves no place to put the 25K program, except, of course, in conventional memory along with everything else you want to run. This is the case because even though there are 35K left, there are only 20K remaining in the first block and 15K in the second. Remember, our 25K program must reside within one block. If the 25K program is loaded first, there are 5K left in the first block and 15K in the second. Our 10K program will slide nicely into the second block freeing a total of 35K of conventional memory for more important things like that huge adventure game you want to run. So what does this have to do with anything? Placing programs into these blocks of memory in an effective manner can be a little like fitting that square peg into a round hole. You can't always change the order in which you load your programs. For example, what good would it do to load the module that drives your speech synthesizer after your screen reading program. If you find that you just can't do what you would like with DOS 5.0, or if you do not have DOS 5.0, then it is time to look at other commercially available memory managers. The two that are currently leading the pack are QEMM-386 from Quarterdeck Office Systems and 386-To-The-Max from Qualitas. As their names imply, these two programs are designed for computers having at least an 80386-SX microprocessor. Other programs are available for 80286 machines such as Quarterdeck's QRAM. Both Quarterdeck and Qualitas have software specifically tailored to work with particular IBM models. This type of memory management software has the ability to examine your batch files to calculate where your memory-resident programs can best be placed to get the most free memory. It allows memory blocks to be filled in any order, and it will work with earlier versions of DOS. In some cases, QEMM-386 and 386-To-The-Max even permit the use of addresses occupied by ROM's to be used for software. Although DOS 5.0 can provide some information to aid in solving problems, 386-To-The-Max and particularly QEMM-386 go a good deal farther to provide problem solving tools. Only DOS 5.0 can relocate itself beyond the boundaries of conventional memory, however. QEMM-386 also provides a utility called VIDRAM that converts up to 96K immediately above the 640K line to conventional memory. Since this memory is used for CGA and EGA graphics, they are disabled while VIDRAM is active. However, VIDRAM can easily be turned on and off, and besides, those of us using speech and braille can do nicely without graphics. Of course, programs that magnify the screen often need this memory to operate. Now, let's get down to specifics. On the machine I use on the job, before I acquired DOS 5.0 or any memory management software, I had only 340K of memory available for conventional programs after I loaded the IBM Screen Reader along with a terminal emulator. Using expanded memory and DOS 4.0 only improved this figure to 383K. By converting my graphics memory to conventional memory with VIDRAM and relocating my memory-resident programs, I now have 558K in which to run my software. If I were to upgrade to DOS 5.0, I could likely free up another 50K or so. Periodically, I have experienced keyboard lockup when switching from terminal emulation to DOS. However, this occurs only at the DOS prompt and in every case, pressing the ENTER key resolves the problem. I have yet to loose any data; knock on wood. The only time I had to reboot was when I forced Microsoft WORD into graphics mode to see what would happen. (Computer people are like that you know.) If you decide to take the plunge into the world of memory management, you can bet it won't go right the first time. Even with the claims of "foolproof" installation procedures, you will likely need to do some fine tuning. It is my hope, though, that the information set forth here will at least give you a running start. Using the Graphical User Interface by Christopher J. Chaltain Editor's note: Christopher Chaltain is employed by IBM's Control Systems Engineering Department as a Senior Associate Programmer. At the 1992 meeting of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, Mr. Chaltain delivered a speech entitled "Supporting Manufacturing with PC Software." He is one of the few blind individuals in this country who is actually programming applications that run under IBM's OS/2 operating system and therefore knows a lot about how to use the graphical user interface. Copies of the speech presented by Mr. Chaltain at the 1992 NFBCS meeting can be made available by writing to Curtis Chong, President, National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, 3530 Dupont Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55412. The graphical user interface (GUI), when combined with a multi-tasking operating system, such as Presentation Manager (PM) on OS/2 or X-Windows on UNIX, provides a powerful and productive computing environment for the computer user. The GUI provides an intuitive and easy-to-use interface to a multitasking operating system capable of running many applications at once. It is easy to see why these systems are becoming so popular among sighted computer users. The blind computer user needs to face the GUI for two reasons. The first is that with the growing popularity of these systems in today's business office, the blind computer user will no longer be able to find suitable text-based alternatives in the familiar DOS environment. The other and less understood reason is that the blind user stands to gain just as much from the graphical user interface and a multi-tasking operating system as does the sighted computer user. I have been using a prototype of IBM's Screen Reader/2 program with OS/2 and Presentation Manager (PM) for over a year now. Not only does this technology allow me to use the same software as my sighted colleagues and develop software for OS/2, but it also gives me access to an environment much easier to use and more powerful than I ever had in DOS. The problem, as many now know, is that the screen is no longer "character based" but is now "pixel based." Instead of 25 rows of 80-column character lines stored in the PC's memory, there is now a matrix (measuring about a thousand dots wide by a thousand dots high) of different colored dots stored in memory. To the sighted user, these dots make up the windows, icons, and characters of the screen. To the blind user, however, these dots are not readable since the screen access program has no text in memory to access and send to a synthesizer or braille display. This problem is remedied with Screen Reader/2, which uses the concept of an off-screen model (OSM). OSM was first used by Berkeley Systems in Outspoken, a product for the Apple Macintosh. In the off-screen model, system calls that write graphical images to the screen are intercepted, and a text-based database called the off-screen model is constructed. This contains all the information on the screen available to a sighted user, such as icons, windows, and of course the text. Furthermore, information about the text, such as font, size, color, and position, is also stored. It is this off-screen model which is read by the screen access program. Another problem for the blind computer user is the wealth of information now contained on the screen. The Presentation Manager screen, called the Desktop, is filled with windows and icons of currently running applications. Furthermore, each application running in a window can contain its own set of icons and windows. Also, the text can now appear in any one of a number of fonts, come in any size or color, and be positioned anywhere on the screen. There is no tidy arrangement of rows and columns any more. It is up to the screen access program to determine what information is important to the user. For the blind user, too much information can be just as detrimental as too little. Typically, the sighted computer user will navigate around this crowded screen with a mouse. By moving the mouse pointer and clicking on or dragging objects, like icons or window borders, windows and icons can be resized and rearranged, icons can be expanded into their windows, windows can be shrunk to icons, and background windows can be brought to the foreground. Fortunately for the blind computer user, an IBM standard called the Common User Access (CUA) provides that any action done with a mouse can be achieved by key strokes. For example, holding down the control and escape keys from anywhere on the system will bring up the "Task List." This is a list of all the currently running applications on the system. Using the arrow keys and the enter key, any of these applications can be brought to the foreground. The separate keypad used by IBM's Screen Reader/2 is also able to emulate the mouse in several ways. A pair of keypad key sequences allows one to cycle through the windows and icons on the Desktop. For example, it is possible to set up the user's guide for an application in one window and the application itself in another window and then flip between them without going through the Task List every time. There is also a key sequence on the keypad that simulates a "double mouse click." So, as you are exploring the Desktop, an action bar, pull down menu, or some other set of icons, you can always choose the last one announced by simply using this key sequence. Screen Reader/2 handles all of this action by restricting its view to the currently active window and announcing the title of newly active windows as well as newly highlighted objects, such as icons or menu items. Thus to start the system editor from a window containing an OS/2 command prompt, which is equivalent to the DOS prompt, I would hold down the control and escape keys to bring up the Task List, and I would hear "Task List" followed by "OS/2 Window," since this item would be highlighted as the last active window. Next, I would use the down arrow key and hear announcements like "Communications Manager," "Print Manager," "DOS," and so on, which are the applications currently running on the system. Upon hearing "Group - Main," I would hit enter to bring up a list of programs that can be started. I would hear "Group - Main" as this window came up, followed by the highlighted item. Pressing the arrow keys would lead to announcements of things like "File Manager," OS/2 Window," OS/2 Full Screen," etc. Pressing enter when I heard "OS/2 System Editor" would bring up the system editor, and Screen Reader/2 would announce "OS/2 System Editor." Now I would have an empty window, where the cursor and text would be located; a title, which is OS/2 System Editor; an action bar containing items like "File", "Options," etc.; and a few icons like scroll bars. I could now start entering text into the file, or I could strike the "F10" key to check out the action bar. The synthesizer would announce "File," since as the first item in the action bar, it would become highlighted. The ENTER or arrow keys would bring down the associated pull down menu, and you could select "Open" to enter the name of the file you would like to be editing. This is not unlike many text-based applications running in DOS. These applications (e.g., word processors, spread sheets, and database applications) used concepts like menus, dialogues, and windows. The difference is that under OS/2, these objects are graphical and not text-based. These images can be rearranged or resized on the screen. Smaller or larger text fonts may be used. Furthermore, this is true of every application in the system and not just the word processor or database application. In fact, the entire operating system itself is made up of windows and icons. Therefore, I don't have to consult the command reference for obscure system commands; I can move through a series of windows and menus to format disks, change the time, etc. In addition, OS/2 is a multitasking operating system. Thus, in the example above, I could start a compile in the window with the command prompt, and while I am waiting for it to finish, I can go to the editor and start on the next round of changes. I could also go to the emulator, and so on. The move from the more familiar text-based world of DOS to the graphical world of OS/2 can be gradual for the more hesitant computer user. OS/2 supports a "dual boot" option, so that with a single command, the PC can be rebooted and come up in DOS instead of OS/2, or back into OS/2 from DOS. There is also a "DOS compatibility box" in OS/2 that looks just like DOS, and where most of your DOS programs will run. However, there is no multitasking when you are in the DOS box; for example, if you start formatting a diskette in the DOS box and then go to another session in OS/2, your formatting will stop until you enter the DOS box again. The OS/2 Full Screen Command Prompt gives you a text-based screen which looks similar to DOS, but you still have all of the advantages of multitasking. Therefore, if you start formatting a diskette in a Full Screen session and then move into another session or window, the formatting will continue in the background. These programs must be written and compiled for OS/2 to run in "protect mode." This mode refers to how the 286 or higher Intel chip operates to allow an operating system, like OS/2, to take advantage of all the machine's memory and provide the methods for programs to run at the same time without interfering with one another. The DOS compatibility box first appears as an icon on the Desktop, and is listed in the Task List. When this icon is chosen, the Desktop disappears, and a DOS-like text-based screen appears, complete with the DOS prompt. Similarly, the icon for the OS/2 Full Screen can be found in "Group - Main," the list of applications available on the system. The icon for "Group - Main" can always be found in the Task List. When I first began to work in OS/2, I often used the dual boot option, the DOS compatibility box, and the full screen prompt. Now that I am more comfortable with the graphical environment of Presentation Manager and have found more applications which run under PM, I seldom use anything but the Desktop. Besides the multitasking, OS/2 and Presentation Manager offer several advantages to the blind computer user. Since applications build their user interfaces by using calls in the system, the off-screen model automatically knows which window or pull-down menu is active. In addition, the model always knows what item is selected or highlighted. Since Screen Reader/2 has access to this information through the off-screen model, there is no need for special profiles or artificial intelligence to track windows, menus and selectors. Furthermore, since PM applications conform to the Common User Access (CUA) standard mentioned above, all PM applications have a similar "look and feel." For example, the Alt key together with the F4 key always closes the process, the ESC key cancels a pull down menu or dialogue box, and the F1 key always brings up a help panel. This, along with the automatic handling of selectors and menus, makes using an application as easy for the blind user as it is for his or her sighted colleague. The blind user will also benefit since "on line" or "context sensitive help" is also part of the Common User Access standard. With built-in help existing for almost every application and online user's guides for many, the blind computer user seldom has to scramble around to get documentation into a useable format. In the graphical or windowed environment, it is possible to have the online documentation in one window and the application in another window. The blind person can then quickly switch between the document and the application or copy text from the document into the application. The screen access program, as an application on the system, is able to take advantage of the multitasking and the rich set of system calls provided by OS/2. For instance, the Profile Access Language (PAL), which can be used to customize Screen Reader/2, has been greatly enhanced in Screen Reader/2. There is a function in Screen Reader/2 that will watch the system; and when a particular application is loaded, any profiles or commands you want will be automatically run. These environments switch automatically as you move from program to program, providing a customized Screen Reader/2 for each application. Screen Reader/2 can also react to different events in the system, such as mouse movements, key strokes, or input on the serial devices. Screen Reader/2 also allows for multiple devices to be connected simultaneously. I am fortunate enough to have a EuroBraille attached to my system in addition to an Accent SA synthesizer. I control what text goes to which device through a profile written in PAL. For example, when editing a file, I may have the lines in the file go to both the synthesizer and the braille display. Therefore, as I hear the text, I am also reading it on the braille display. This is great for editing, and noting indentation and capitalization conventions. However, when moving down a menu or across an action bar, I will just have the synthesizer announce the highlighted text. This gives the greatest speed and performance. Sighted computer users have much to gain by using a graphical or windowed environment, especially when it is part of a multitasking operating system. That is why these environments are becoming so popular in the office and at home. To compete with our sighted colleagues, we need to be able to run and access the same applications. In addition, however, many of the same advantages a sighted user has in a graphical interface are shared by blind users. I am able to back up my system, edit several files, run multiple terminal sessions, work with spread sheets, compile applications, and so on all at the same time. Furthermore, I can switch from session to session and work in a custom environment with a single click of a key combination on the key pad. As you can see, the GUI is not something to be feared; it is something to be embraced. The Problem with Printers by Vicky Winslow The problem with printers as I often rail is the outrageous cost when the print is in braille. And although the price is, in fact, rather dear the noise these things make is quite something to hear. The quiet ones sound just like popcorn machines while the loud ones sound like machine gunning marines. And over this racket your co-workers shout, "We can't even hear what we're thinking about." To which you reply, that you'd move it, you would, to some other office, if only you could. But this dinosaur printer just bought by the State weighs at least thirty pounds or at most sixty-eight. While printers of ink are set through a font from a WordPerfect screen for the print that you want braille printers are set through a menu or two, four pages are used while you choose what to do. Or if it's not that, then the waste that you get is from trying to make sure that the form top is set. Your frustration is peeked after sending a file, that's at least fifty pages and will print for a while. Well after a couple of K have gone by, the printer behaves as if it might die. It starts brailling garbage, and to your distress, you have to word process, the whole sorry mess. To cut out the part, that is already brailled then reprint at the point at which printing first failed. Is it RAM that's the problem? Is the memory too small? When you call Tech Support, they know nothing at all. Now the bells and the whistles you can take back and keep I don't need it to talk, I don't want it to beep. But the one little thing that I want it to do, is to translate my document into grade two. But hold on, better wait, if they add what I ask, it could prove to be so overwhelming a task, that the model would change, and the price would increase, and the maintenance on my old printer would cease. Of course "sorry, no trade-ins: Who'd want that old thing." the adaptive equipment trades people would sing. So, forget all the things, I've just recently said. I think I'll just keep my old printer instead! National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science Minutes Annual Meeting June 30, 1992 by Michael Freeman, Secretary The 1992 annual meeting of the NFB in Computer Science was held in the Convention Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Tuesday, June 30, 1992. Registration began at approximately 1:00 p.m. President Curtis Chong opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. After welcoming remarks and opening announcements President Chong introduced the first program item which featured three blind PC programmers. SUPPORTING MANUFACTURING WITH PC SOFTWARE was presented by Christopher Chaltain, Senior Associate Programmer, Control Systems Engineering Department, IBM Corporation. Mr. Chaltain works in a plant manufacturing IC'S and maintains operator workstations which interface with the computers that control the manufacturing process. He has found OS/2 and IBM Screen Reader invaluable and the multi-tasking capability of OS/2 helpful to his productivity. He feels that his colleagues and management respect him and that management has a good attitude toward his blindness. THE BLIND AT WORK USING MICROCOMPUTERS was presented by Brian Buhrow, Vice President, California Association of Blind Students. Mr. Buhrow works in a university computer center supporting various types of computers: UNIX machines, PC'S, Macintoshes and Sun workstations. He has found it possible (without special equipment) to help people using "unfriendly" systems such as the Macintosh by memorizing the various menus and results of choices. He programs for various machines in both assembly-language and in higher-level languages. He is working on updating the firmware for the Speaqualizer, the hardware-based screen access system for the PC developed by the National Federation of the Blind. Larry Skutchan of MICROTALK presented the program item entitled THE ART OF PROGRAMMING ON A MICROCOMPUTER. He began with the lowly TI-94A, graduating to the APPLE II-E and then to PC'S. He concocted a method to review his work on the TI, wrote word processors and terminal programs for the APPLE and is the author of ASAP, a screen-reader for MS/DOS systems. He emphasized that if one has the knowledge and needs a programming tool, one can write it. He also emphasized that many of the gimmicks he used for debugging (beeps and clicks at strategic points in programs, for example) have been left in programs because they proved useful to all. One of his biggest challenges in writing screen-review software is that he must debug the product using that same product (that is, he is debugging in an unstable environment). Questions and discussion followed. The next item, YOUR PC AS A TERMINAL, was presented by Steve Jacobson, Systems Design Analyst, 3M Corporation and by Curtis Chong, Senior Systems Programmer, IDS Financial Services. A synopsis of this topic is omitted as much of the material may be found in a recently-published NFBCS article. The NFB in Computer Science business meeting began at 2:57 p.m. The minutes of the 1991 meeting of NFBCS were approved as printed in the Summer, 1991 issue of Computer Science Update. Susie Stanzel next gave the Treasurer's report, indicating that the NFBCS treasury is in good health. Elections were held; the following officers were elected for two-year terms: Curtis Chong, President; Steve Jacobson, Vice President; Mike Freeman, Secretary and Susie Stanzel, Treasurer. The following persons were elected for two-year terms on the NFBCS Board of Directors: Jim Willows, Curtis Willoughby and Lloyd Rasmussen. The "Technical Exchange" followed. Next came two presentations on IBM'S OS/2 Screen Reader. The first, entitled OF GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES, OS/2 AND WINDOWS APPLICATIONS, was presented by James Thatcher, Staff Researcher, Thomas J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corporation. Dr. Thatcher announced that Screen Reader for OS/2 (Screen Reader/2) will be available for delivery in September. He then proceeded to explain some of the schemes whereby the OS/2 and graphical environment is navigated using this new software. The second item, SCREEN READER FOR OS/2, A USER'S PERSPECTIVE, was presented by Cathy Schroeder, Systems Analyst, New Mexico Department of Labor. She said that although a new user would be confused at first, the OS/2 environment could be mastered. She said that Screen Reader did a good job of presenting material in a form that the blind could access efficiently. She also said that IBM was working on documentation to assist blind users in accomplishing mouse movements from the keyboard. The topic entitled INDEPENDENT ACCESS TO THE WINDOWS PLATFORM was next presented by Don Dillin, Senior System Engineer, Government Special Needs Access Project, AT&T Federal Systems. After an introduction outlining the search by his staff for possible programs and tools which might be adapted to be used by the blind to access the Windows environment, Mr. Dillin demonstrated SLIMWARE'S Windowbridge. The system appeared to work, and information from MicroSoft Word was indeed spoken. The program has rough edges, however, and the participants in the meeting did not get a chance to try the system for themselves. The final program item, TOOLKIT FOR ACCESSING WINDOWS, was presented by Mark Sutton of Berkeley Systems, Inc. Berkeley Systems is working on a toolkit that can be used by other screen access developers to make Windows talk. The toolkit provides the "hooks" into Windows while allowing screen access systems to continue functioning pretty much as they do today. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Freeman, Secretary Using Your PC as a Terminal The National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science has recently produced a publication called "Using Your PC as a Terminal," written by Curtis Chong (NFBCS President) and Steve Jacobson (NFBCS Vice President). This publication discusses a variety of ways in which your PC can be made to function as a terminal including communication with ASCII hosts, local area networks, and IBM 3270 and 5250 emulation. The publication also lists some sources for terminal emulation software and hardware and discusses compatibility between terminal emulation systems and screen access technology for the blind. Individuals wanting braille or print copies of the publication should contact: Curtis Chong, President National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science 3530 Dupont Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55412 Phone: (612) 521-3202 "Using Your PC as a Terminal" is also available in machine readable form on NFB-NET, the NFB's electronic bulletin board system (BBS). The publication is stored in area 1 as TERMINAL.ZIP and requires that you have the PKZIP and PKUNZIP software on your PC. For access to NFB-NET, instruct your modem to call (410) 752-5011. Roy Zuvers Passes Away by Curtis Chong It is with sadness and regret that I must report that early on the morning of Monday, October 19, Roy Zuvers of Kansas City, Missouri, passed away as a result of diabetic complications. Roy was a long time member of the National Federation of the Blind in Computer Science, an active participant on many national bulletin board networks, an active and committed Federationist, and a pioneer for the blind in the field of computer programming. A number of blind people who are currently employed in responsible positions at the U.S. Department of Agriculture owe their success to Roy. Roy truly believed in the ability of the blind to get and keep good, high paying jobs. He also believed in the ability of the blind to live in the world as fully productive, first-class citizens. Roy worked tirelessly to promote our movement and to improve public attitudes toward the blind. I am sure that he will be missed by all of us.