Last week I wrote to the Blind Math mailing list announcing a zoom TeX Hour tonight at 6:30 to 7:30pm UK time on accessible mathematics. I also wrote
Many teachers use LaTeX for course materials. I'd like to have real-world examples of LaTeX math, and accessibility problems and solutions. Please send to this list or to me privately as you wish.
In this post I summarise the responses. You can see my post to the Blind Math list and the public responses here.
My blog post here is one of three posts made today, all on accessible maths. The other posts are Accessibility Tools and Accessibility Evaluation: Open University and RNIB. For more on the TeX Hour see contact.
Petr Pařízek [PP] wrote that he's not aware of a TeX to PDF converter that can add alternative text to math expressions in the PDF. He also wonder why it should be a problem for PDF, when it's no problem for HTML. He wonders if someone could give definite answers to these questions.
Tony Malykh [TM] wrote about an investigation he made a while ago. He gave URLs and analysis. His conclusion is that Latex PDF accessibility is not likely to be a reality in the nearby future. He also wrote:
Even if NFB or any other blindness-related group forms an advocacy group to push for accessible Latex PDFs, it still feels unlikely that widespread accessibility could be achieved, primarily becuase of complexity of the system.
Jonathan Godfrey [JG] wrote that he suspected that to get accessibility tools into common use, they must be built into the system, and require no additional tasks for their use. He wrote
I did put energy into finding the tools to help me build in the access I wanted from documents I had written up using LaTeX. I've given up developing pretty much every document I ever started in LaTeX and moved everything over to an HTML solution because I'm onto a winner with HTML and I've wasted enough energy on losers already.
JG also shares the experience he and his colleagues have had with HTML and PDF. He's somewhat fortunate that the best published resources in his field are now available in HTML (as well as PDF).
Peter Rayner [PR] wrote that his experience is similar to JG's, except that PR's field [Atmospheric Modelling] isn't as far down the HTML route as JG's. PR also wrote that
solutions that isolate us are … also dead-ends
Tony Malykh [TM] wrote that in Machine Learning (TM's field)
none of the major conferences currently offer papers in HTML format, nor in any other accessible format, which poses a big problem for me.
TM wrote that getting LaTeX source instead of PDF would be better than nothing, but not much progress there. TM suspects that persuading publisher to provide HTML in addition to PDF would be difficult.
Jonathan Godfrey [JG] wrote giving examples of how varied the situation is. Ironically, a very large conference that covers blind accessibility offers proceedings [only?] in PDF, because that's what Springer [the publisher] provides. JG gives examples of how he gets involved to change things. This includes being on the R-community advisory group for diversity. JG hopes for better times.
Tony Malykh [TM] wrote that the reason why conference papers stick to PDF is part historic, and part that PDF looks exactly the same on every device, while the same cannot be said regarding HTML.
Jason White [JW] wrote that EPUB is essentially a packaged form of HTML and CSS (with associated metadata).
Tony Malykh [TM] wrote that he's been convinced by JG's comments on the R-community diversity group. TM wrote:
Let me try to talk to ML [Machine Learning?] conferences to see if I can push them to publish in HTML.
TM also asks for help on how to produce accessible HTML from LaTeX. He expects to be asked about that.
Steve Jacobson [SJ] asked if an author can protect an HTML document against change, in a way similar to the way a PDF can be protected (locked).
David Farmer [DF] replied that HTML files are usually posted at a link, while PDF files are often sent [for example as an email attachment].
George (from Techno-Vision) [GTV) replied that many PDF's can be opened and saved in Word, edited, and then re-saved.
Tony Malykh [TM] replied that PDF documents can be digitally signed to protect their content from alteration - this is often used in legal documents.
Jonathan Godfrey [JG] wrote that lawyers don't properly understand the protection PDF provides against tampering. One benefit of PDF is that the layout is the same, no matter who prints it. Competition gives primacy to producers and consumers of material. The features of digital tools change, and dwindling markets get little new effort.
Vincent Martin [VM] supported JG's comment.
Jason White [JW] wrote expressed support for the LaTeX developers’ project to integrate preservation of document structure into the core of LaTeX. He doesn't wish for the present discussion to derail or undermine this project.
Although Markdown meets some [accessibility] needs, JW needs more. He wrote:
Currently, if I want to generate HTML from LaTeX, I need to be somewhat careful which packages I use. The [LaTeX3 tagged PDF] project could improve this situation markedly.
Jonathan Godfrey [JG] wrote
The TeX community needs to continue this work because it is losing the competitive edge it once had. I don't see that that our discussion about reality of our current options as blind people should derail it; it might highlight how important it is to get a better outcome in pdf.
JG also wrote
I applaud all attempts to improve access to information, no matter which context. I also deplore the use (and implied usefulness) of pdf in its current form.
JG shares his work experience as a blind person. I will attempt to summarize. His high proficiency in LaTeX made him employable 20 years ago. About 10 years ago switching to new tools reduced his need for sighted support. Previousl 5 hours a week and now 30 minutes a week. He thrives on his increased independence.
JG wrote
I am concerned for the up and coming blind person wanting an education in STEM which follows onto a fulfilling career, and that motivates me to make sure all blind people are made aware that they have choices today. Right now, that choice is very easy for me, but I love the idea of that choice becoming much more difficult once LaTeX catches up.
Peter Rayner [PR] wrote
Given that the LaTeX source itself is highly accessible I wonder if the simplest solution to this is a package that includes the LaTeX source as an external media type in the generated pdf?
I've not looked much at pdf and included content beyond what's possible with sounds but this seems an option which could be implemented without climbing inside all the packages.
Anyone looked at this?
Jonathan Godfrey [JG] wrote that it's often difficult to get sources files out of people. JG also says that for many users the LaTeX source would not be helpful, particularly if the author defines their own macros. JG gives examples from his own documents.
JG concludes
There have been several initiatives to clean up LaTeX and make it more human readable as well as conversion to Nemeth, and filtering for improved access using the JAWS screen reader. None has attracted widespread use though.
IMO: Until a blind reader can engage with the equations written LaTeX on par with their sighted peers, they cannot claim to have access. Even the HTML based solutions leave us a little to a lot behind our sighted peers.
Petr Pařízek [PP] wrote finds that source LaTeX is often useful, and that making accessible PDFs is a bigger [harder?] issue. PP finds MathML extremely verbose and so not suitable for authoring. The best he's found is Murray Sargent's UnicodeMath (PDF). But PP doesn't know of any converters fomr UnicodeMath to PDF or HTML.
Nikita (at yandex) [NY] wrote about the nvMathViewer. This is an extension for JAWS and NVDA for non-visual viewing mathematical content in LaTeX and AsciiMath notations as MathML. NY also wrote:
Indeed, LaTeX has a high entry threshold. No format is perfect. That is why it is important to develop conversion tools for different cases.
The thread summarised in this post
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。