[Blindmath] accessible math websites

[Neil Soiffer]

troff (with its equation part "eqn") has been mostly obsoleted by TeX.  I'm
sure there remain some diehard users.  It has no accessibility advantage
over TeX and involves the same basic model of writing text and compiling it
to produce something that can be viewed.  Since TeX is so much more widely
used and supported, I would not spend time learning trying to learn it (I'm
old enough to have used it before using TeX).

Neil Soiffer
Senior Scientist
Design Science, Inc.
www.dessci.com
~ Makers of MathType, MathFlow, MathPlayer, MathDaisy, WebEQ, Equation
Editor ~


On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Jared Wright <wright.jaredm at gmail.com>wrote:

> Well I haven't heard of or investigated Troff or its offshoots, so I
> appreciate the testimonial. I'll have to give it a look.
>
> Jared
>
> On 3/16/2009 11:28 AM, Michael Whapples wrote:
>
>> Regarding the alternative systems, I said that with a memory of one
>> lecturer at university saying that he used troff (some other implementations
>> of troff include groff and mroff). From what I can tell troff input files
>> are all in plain text, so like LaTeX the input source files should pose no
>> accessibility issues. Checking output, like with LaTeX, may be a slight
>> problem (particularly if you want to guarantee a certain formatting) if you
>> want to do it all independently. I am not going to make any claim as to what
>> it is like to use/learn as I haven't used it, but this should be about the
>> same as it is for any sighted user of troff.
>>
>> I do believe LaTeX is more popular, so if you want to use something likely
>> to be used by others then LaTeX is possibly a better choice. I mentioned
>> about alternatives simply to say LaTeX is not the only system.
>>
>> Michael Whapples
>> On 16/03/09 11:14, Jared Wright wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, 100% accessible is probably a slight exaggeration, but I
>>> certainly don't know of any equivalent notation systems that provide the
>>> level of access for the blind that LaTeX does. Yes, you may need sighted
>>> assistance to confirm the way LaTeX compiled at some point, but don't you
>>> need sighted asistance to tell you the WYSYWYG editor you're using did what
>>> you want? If you know of some way of editing documents without vision that
>>> allows you to check all potential facets of a document for correctness
>>> without any sort of sighted confirmation, lead me to it! *smile*
>>>
>>> Jared
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/wright.jaredm%40gmail.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/neils%40dessci.com
>