[Blindmath] No to Accessible LaTeX

[P. R. Stanley]

An international standard? What's your evidence for this? Surely, you 
don't mean it's a W3C recommendation which is an entirely different thing.

At 15:58 06/11/2009, you wrote:
>LaTeX source is not a viable longterm solution for accessibility if 
>for no other reason as it is not an international standard  whereas 
>MathML is.  And, by the way, sighted people do not read unrendered 
>LaTeX source except for proofing something they've written themselves.
>
>There are two possible solutions for making math accessible on the 
>web. One is speech-based and the other is braille-based.
>
>There are a growing number of TTS applications that convert MathML 
>to speech in real time. Whether or not you personally use spoken 
>math, this development is certainly a positive argument for the use 
>of MathML as the basis for math on the Web.
>
>Now to braille-based solutions.  Here there are many different 
>possibilities.  One set of possibilities is based on the use of an 
>ASCII math entry system: either one of the many flavors of LaTeX or 
>some unrelated system  such as ASCIIMathML: 
>http://www1.chapman.edu/~jipsen/mathml/asciimath.html  The other set 
>of possibilities is based on the use of some standard braille system 
>such as Nemeth.
>
>For the benefit of those not familiar with refreshable braille let 
>me pause to explain how braille readers read ASCII math. There are 
>94 different ASCII characters including the 52 small and capital 
>Latin letters.  There are only 63 six-dot braille cells so obviously 
>there cannot be a one-for-one mapping of ASCII characters to six-dot 
>braille or standard embossed braille. However, refreshable braille 
>displays support eight-dot braille which provides for more than 94 
>possible braille cells. Braille displays show the ASCII characters 
>using a mapping generally referred to as a computer braille 
>table.  Different braille displays use different tables although 
>they are generally similar. Commonly a seventh dot (at the bottom 
>left of a braille cell) is used to distinguish the capital letters 
>from the small ones and to distinguish five other ASCII characters.
>
>I am not a braille reader but my understanding is that some braille 
>readers are facile readers of  eight-dot computer braille and some aren't.
>
>So there are thus a number of problems with using an ASCII math 
>system to support braille-based accessibility. One is that these 
>systems are inconsistent with the positive developments as far as 
>MathML-based spoken math. A second reason is that none of these 
>systems are what braille users first learn so there has to be 
>relearning. The third is that it requires eight-dot braille which is 
>not universally acceptable. Finally, there are dozens of ASCII math 
>systems and it seems unlikely at this point that one of them would 
>emerge as a standard solution for accessibility.
>
>The big advantage is, of course, that ASCII math doesn't require 
>further conversion in order to be displayed. Many braille readers 
>have, of course, learned to decode some flavor of LaTeX on the basis 
>that any accessibility is better than none. But since sighted people 
>require electronic math to be rendered in order to be readable, it 
>seems that true accessibility would entail rendering as well.
>
>There are a growing number of applications designed to support 
>realtime conversion from MathML to one or more of the standard 
>braille math systems. However, if you prefer one of the ASCII maths, 
>it is certainly possible to generate one of them from MathML as well.
>
>Sincerely,
>SusanJ
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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