[Blindmath] mathplayer, jaws, and math in graphics?

Sun Apr 3 22:13:29 UTC 2011

This should go without saying but I'll say it anyway
Be respectful to those legitimately trying to help.
That is all.

-----Original Message-----
From: blindmath-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindmath-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of PR Stanley
Sent: April 3, 2011 4:42 PM
To: Blind Math list for those interested in mathematics
Subject: Re: [Blindmath] mathplayer, jaws, and math in graphics?

The good doctor here has obviously imbibed the myth of the one-eyed 
man in the country of the blind. For the second time 
he's  patronising us with his bilge about LaTeX being too complicated 
to learn and that we like good blind people ought to listen to our 
betters and buy the MathML con wholesale.

"...I have a few documents I can post samples from which will > soon 
disabuse you of that notion."

Once again, he's trying to frighten people off LaTeX in his usual 
condescending and thuggish manner. Just who the devil does he think 
he is to tell us what is complicated or not?
"For each example that you can decode, I can provide another even 
more complicated example (and one that I've actually used in an article)."

If he is so concerned about accessibility and he believes that 
complicated LaTeX isn't easily decipherable by us blind folks, then 
why would he deliberately go out of his way to use obfuscated code in 
his articles? In any case, what makes him think that a blind person 
couldn't learn to hack complicated LaTeX?

"If I came across a web site that presented its mathematics as raw 
LaTeX code then I would not use that web site.  I would consider it 
second rate, and not a serious mathematical web site.  If I think 
like that, why should you think otherwise?"

Because most of us are interested in information and the "raw latex" 
on wikipedia and wikibook serve that purpose perfectly well.  I would 
much rather read raw latex (which is very expressive and terse at the 
same time) than fiddle about with some buggy software that is 
designed on the premise that blind folks are too stupid to use a 
mainstream typesetting tool used by literally millions around the 
world, including academics and publishers from all nationalities.

"... you should protest loudly and explain that raw LaTeX is not an 
accessible way to present mathematics."

Well, I would like to protest loudly at the way he throws his weight 
about on this list for some dubious agenda which has nothing 
whatsoever to do with helping blind people.

Paul
`
At 20:39 03/04/2011, you wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:34:39AM -0700, Roopakshi Pathania wrote:
> >
> > Hi Prof. Stacey,
>
>Thanks for the promotion.  Actually, I'm only a Dr.
>
>I'm not quite sure how to take your email.  Still, I'll have a go.
>
> > 1. The first expression you wrote is actually ASCII text, and not
LaTeX...
>
>My apologies.  I should have written:
>
>\documentclass{article}\begin{document}\(x^2 + y^2 = z^2\)\end{document}
>
>which would have been much clearer.
>
> > 2. Do you want me to decode your second expression? Of course it 
> is quite a simple example as you yourself stated.
>
>For each example that you can decode, I can provide another even more
>complicated example (and one that I've actually used in an article).  But
the
>point is not that there'll always be someone who can decode it, but that
the
>more complicated it gets then the fewer people will be able to do so.
>A mathematical expression is hard enough to understand that putting extra
>barriers in place is not a good idea.
>
> > 3. You are right that a serious LaTeX paper or article can be 
> hard to study. But then I skip initial code for the very same reason.
> > Still, macros are present even in the main part of the article, so...
yes.
>
>I've heard that Donald Knuth says that on first reading, people mentally
>replace all mathematical expressions with "blah" and only go back and fill
in
>the blanks afterwards.
>
>I'll admit that I'm blurring the line slightly between a small extract in
>a larger webpage and a whole document.
>
> > 4. This is also why OCR application InftyReader has a special 
> format in which only math is represented in LaTeX.
> > And yes, most of the websites have LaTeX in alt tags alone, so 
> this makes life much simpler.
> >
> > When it comes to accessible math available on the web and in 
> ebooks, there  aren't many choices.
> > So the lines blur between the real uses of LaTeX and MathML for a 
> screen reader user.
>
>Maybe I can make my point a little differently.  I am a sighted
mathematician.
>If I came across a website that presented its mathematics as raw LaTeX code
>then I would not use that website.  I would consider it second rate, and
not
>a serious mathematical website.  If I think like that, why should you think
>otherwise?
>
>Now I realise that there is a distinction between pragmatism and idealism,
and
>that pragmatically it may be a good idea to learn a few basic LaTeX
symbols.
>But at the same time, you should protest loudly and explain that raw LaTeX
is
>not an accessible way to present mathematics.
>
>Andrew
>
>_______________________________________________
>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%40ntlw
orld.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/sarah.jevnikar%40
utoronto.ca