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

[PR Stanley]

" The point is that LaTex is not the format that you really wan't 
to  recieve math in"

As it happens I do prefer LaTeX source to all other formats. it works 
for me and many other blind people, some of whom are on this list.

"LaTex is an _type_setting_language_ not a language for communicating math, "

I'm sorry but that's a totally vacuous statement. Who cares what it 
was intended for. What I'm concerned with is that it serves the 
purpose of communicating maths and sciences very effectively.

"The point is that it would be hard to read, and that's true there is
complicated LaTex out there, and it is hard to get the content out of,
its do able but its not trivial, and a waste of your time."

I disagree. Most LaTeX source out there is fairly manageable.  I have 
seldom had any problems making effective use of LaTeX documents. As a 
matter of fact, I find the formatting elements very helpful and 
instructive for typesetting my own documents. I always pick up tips 
and hints for layout formatting by studying other people's LaTeX source.

I don't know what screen reader you use, but both window eyes and jfw 
allow you to go through the alt text character by character.


"You will not that most people make available for reading the pdf they
produce from LaTex source not the source itself.  So you can see that"

That's totally untrue. The people I deal with in fact prefer reading 
the LaTeX source as they're able to make the necessary alterations.

Paul

At 23:09 03/04/2011, you wrote:
>On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 09:41:45PM +0100, PR Stanley wrote:
> > 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.
>
>con? mathml is a *standard* for representing math on the web, I'm
>really not shure how a standard can be a conn since the authors won't
>make any money from the standard existing or being implemented.  If you
>want to say that math player is a con that atleast makes sense, but 
>never having
>used math player I won't comment on the claims accuracy.  However I will
>say that it is  very unfortunate that we can't access mathml content in
>any webrowser that can render it the same as sighted people.
>
> > "...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?
>
>  The point is that LaTex is not the format that you really wan't to
>  recieve math in, and as a blind person I agree, it often works, and
>  there is often no better alternative, but its not wonderful.  When I'm
>  reading math I don't want to have to filter out formating commands and
>  look up other people's macro definition just so I can understand what
>  they are saying.
>
> > "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
>
>
>LaTex is an _type_setting_language_ not a language for communicating
>math, so he wrote the LaTex that would produce the formating he wanted.
>Note that this also proves his earlier point that you really don't want
>to read laTex unless there is no other option.
>
> > person couldn't learn to hack complicated LaTeX?
>
>The point is that it would be hard to read, and that's true there is
>complicated LaTex out there, and it is hard to get the content out of,
>its do able but its not trivial, and a waste of your time.
>
> > "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
>
>I would disagree, reading alt tags for images is particularly painful
>because some screen readers can only read the whole tag in one shot, but
>There is also the issue that LaTex just isn't the format you want to
>read, it contains a lot of formating commands, that help you understand
>nothing, and consume cycles that could be spent on something useful.  So
>while I need the information and can get it from raw LaTex on wikipedia
>I think that I _have_ to get it that way sucks.
>
> > 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.
>
>yes, and they use it as a format to _write_ math not to _read_ math.
>You will not that most people make available for reading the pdf they
>produce from LaTex source not the source itself.  So you can see that
>infact he is correct most people would prefer to read something other
>than raw LaTex.
>
>math player may be buggy, I have never used it and have no idea, but it
>is only one tool for using mathml.  We can and should have better tools
>for getting access to mathml, particularly web browsers should directly
>provide the information to screen readers.
>
> > "... you should protest loudly and explain that raw LaTeX is not an
> > accessible way to present mathematics."
>
>I agree, I'm not sure that mathml is the best answer, but if we can get
>good support from web browsers and screen readers it should be much
>better than reading raw LaTex.
>
> > >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.
>
>I'm not sure of the details here, but it may also be the case that it is
>good to know LaTex so that one can accessibily produces documents such
>as home work and papers.
>
> > >But at the same time, you should protest loudly and explain that 
> raw LaTeX is
> > >not an accessible way to present mathematics.
>
>yes, but given the current state of the world I'm not completely sure
>that websites have a better alternative.  What I men is that if a
>website uses mathml then currently you _need_ windows and internet
>explorer and math player and jaws to access the content.  Providing both
>LaTex and mathml helps this alittle.  On the other hand having a lot of
>math on the internet that is completely unusable because mathml is only
>accessible with one tool chain might cause other browsers and screen
>readers to start working with mathml.
>
>Trev
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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