[Blindmath] Mathematical document accessibility

[P. R. Stanley]

"The accessibility of these word processors (either free or 
commercial offerings) probably (almost certainly) could be improved ..."
         I rest my case.

>I accept what you are saying and yes plenty do use LaTeX for 
>documents without mathematical content (eg. the documentation for 
>various opensource software is written in LaTeX, as an example the 
>python documentation used to be written in LaTeX). The thing I would 
>raise though is that for non-mathematical documents there are other 
>alternatives (even without having to go to those wysiwyg word 
>processors) and may be some of those alternatives would suit some 
>people better than LaTeX (eg. ReStructureText is now used for python 
>documentation). Each one of these alternatives have their strengths, 
>LaTeX's is that it is very powerful and flexible, something simpler 
>might suit those who have a lower requirements.
>
>My argument is that there is no one answer for all. Sometimes the 
>choices are limited (eg. producing maths) so a particular option may 
>become a fairly obvious choice for most people (LaTeX for maths). 
>When there are more options the answer may be less clear. I am not 
>trying to bring down LaTeX (in fact I think it is a very good 
>system) but rather suggesting we give the alternatives a fair consideration.
>
>One thing I will finally state, I do have to disagree with you 
>saying about shelling out money for a word processor, there are some 
>free ones like openoffice. The accessibility of these word 
>processors (either free or commercial offerings) probably (almost 
>certainly) could be improved, but this is another matter.
>
>Michael Whapples
>On 14/03/09 02:55, P. R. Stanley wrote:
>>That's true, Jason, we have had this discussion several times yet 
>>it seems our efforts to highlight the benefits of LaTeX aren't 
>>bearing any fruit.
>>
>>I think it'd be easier to persuade the previous U.S. republican 
>>administration to join the taliban.
>>>P. R. Stanley <prstanley at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> > I disagree! LaTeX isn't just for typesetting maths. Learning LaTeX would
>>> > allow you the freedom to typeset professional quality documents without
>>> > having to shell out hundreds on a less than accessible editor.
>>>
>>>We've had this discussion before on the list, where it was pointed out that
>>>LaTeX can be used as a better alternative to word processors for a wide
>>>variety of documents. This is why there are LaTeX styles for everything from
>>>post cards, to resumes, reports, articles, books and so on.
>>>
>>>After making the switch to LaTeX, I didn't need a word processor anymore.
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Blindmath mailing list
>>>Blindmath at nfbnet.org
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindmath_nfbnet.org
>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>>>for Blindmath:
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindmath_nfbnet.org/prstanley%40ntlworld.com 
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Blindmath mailing list
>>Blindmath at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindmath_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>>for Blindmath:
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindmath_nfbnet.org/mwhapples%40aim.com 
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Blindmath mailing list
>Blindmath at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindmath_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>for Blindmath:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindmath_nfbnet.org/prstanley%40ntlworld.com