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

[Roopakshi Pathania]

Hi,

I strongly oppose any disrespect towards Dr. Stacey or any other member for that matter.
Disagreeing with him is one thing, but name calling is extremely insulting and not to mention unproductive.

I might also add that his arguments are sound and hold true for most people. 
To accuse him or any one for complicating their code with complex macros is ludicrous.

Regards

--- On Mon, 4/4/11, Andrew Stacey <andrew.stacey at math.ntnu.no> wrote:

> From: Andrew Stacey <andrew.stacey at math.ntnu.no>
> Subject: Re: [Blindmath] mathplayer, jaws, and math in graphics?
> To: "Roopakshi Pathania" <r_akshi_tgk at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Blind Math list for those interested in mathematics" <blindmath at nfbnet.org>
> Date: Monday, April 4, 2011, 1:09 AM
> 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
>