[BlindMath] Please, more talk between blind math users and LaTeX developers

Thu Mar 18 03:17:42 UTC 2021

I'll address Jonathan F's comment about converting LaTeX to PreTeXt.

PreTeXt is easy to understand, and the basics of the markup are
not too hard to learn, by anyone who knows LaTeX.  It is XML,
so all the tags are in angle brackets:  <theorem> and </theorem>
instead of \begin{theorem} and \end{theorem}.

Converting LaTeX to PreTeXt would be easy, if only people wrote
nice, clean, semantic LaTeX.  Unfortunately, that is rare.  Every
instance of micromanaging the layout is an impediment to conversion,
because PreTeXt actually separates the content from the presentation.
LaTeX was intended to do that, but that is not what happens in practice.

Using PreTeXt (currently) has the added hurdle of requiring technical
knowledge to use.  That is why we are not going around claiming that
PreTeXt now is the solution to the accessibility issues for technical
documents.  But we are working hard to lower the barrier to adoption.

Regards,

David

ps.  It is HTML from PreTeXt which is accessible.  PreTeXt produces PDF,
but that is just as inaccessible as the PDF from LaTeX -- because the
path is PreTeXt converts to LaTeX converts to PDF.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2021, Godfrey, Jonathan via BlindMath wrote:

> Hello Jonathan/Neil and all,
>
> I understand Neil's points and they are relevant, but even before I saw Jonathan's reply, I was reaching for my file of quotes from people considerably wiser than me, starting with a couple from Einstein:
>
> "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
>
> "The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science."
>
> Something has to change in the very way people use LaTeX if we are ever to get truly accessible pdf documents. I've laboured the point that we need access to information much more than we need access to a specific file format, and I'll keep doing so. Jonathan's comments about developers sticking to one way of solving problems reminds me of a quote that I can't attribute to the right person, but if goes something like:
>
> "When you know how to use a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."
>
>
> I do think a fundamental shift in thinking about how we get access to information is required across most STEM disciplines. I'm now over halfway between the age of an undergraduate and a retiree; I had no (reliable) access to pdf as an undergraduate, and offering me a promise of access as a retiree feels cold and dismissive, even if I know from personal interactions that this is not a label I would put on anyone within the software development community.
>
> Jonathan G
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlindMath <blindmath-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Jonathan Fine via BlindMath
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 March 2021 12:05 AM
> To: Neil Soiffer <soiffer at alum.mit.edu>
> Cc: Jonathan Fine <jfine2358 at gmail.com>; Blind Math list for those interested in mathematics <blindmath at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [BlindMath] Please, more talk between blind math users and LaTeX developers
>
> Hi Neil
>
> I'll respond and contribute to some of the technical questions you raised
> in your open, honest and helpful message. I hope we can have a respectful
> difference of opinion on these important matters. I start with this. As I
> recall, in 1997 the LaTeX team said that it would develop LaTeX3 to provide
> new input document syntax, that aligns with SGML/XML. We still don't have
> that. If we did then math accessibility would be much easier, for both PDF
> and HTML output.
>
> You wrote:
>
> 1. Adding the tagging in a way that doesn't require authors to alter what
> they wrote means the deep down guts of the program need to be modified.
> 2. This is not an easy task, especially when dealing with a large, old
> program!
> 3. If it were easy, it would have been done by now.
>
> I'd like to break the problem down into three main parts.
>
> A. From a LaTeX file produce a PDF document.
> B. From a LaTeX file produce a tagged document.
> C. Merge the outputs of (A) and (B) into a single document
>
> The whole problem would be much easier if we already had (B) as a starting
> point. And (B) would be much easier if we had a new LaTeX input syntax. But
> though development of this started in 1997, it seems to have now been
> abandoned. I'd like to resume that work.
>
> The LaTeX Team wishes to solve problems largely by writing TeX macros. They
> wrote that about 25% of the project would be preliminary work needed to
> modernize the document processing functionality of the LATEX kernel. And
> then they can start programming.
>
> By document processing they mean text processing rather than typesetting
> and PDF generation. Things that languages and systems such as Pandoc,
> Python and XSLT already do very well. However hard the task is when using
> the best available tools, it becomes much easier if you impose some
> reasonable restrictions on the input, and much harder when TeX macros is
> the only programming language you use.
>
> Their feasibility study doesn't even consider the idea of using
> pre-processing the input to LaTeX, and post-processing the output. The
> LaTeX Team love LaTeX and writing TeX macros. I'm grateful to them for the
> positive contributions they've made in this area. But I do not think it
> wise for us to promote their project without first considering the use of
> more suitable tools and existing technologies for the document processing
> functionality.
>
> I would also consider alternative means of achieving accessibility, such as
> providing just (B), namely producing just a tagged document from LaTeX. The
> PreTeX system shows how much can be achieved once one has a suitable tagged
> document. I think a good authoring environment for tagged documents is
> vital. It could be a restricted subset of LaTeX. Or a markdown variant.
>
> Finally I think that whatever the technology a tagged PDF enhancement will
> work only for a subset of present-day valid LaTeX files, except with
> massive (and I would say Quixotic effort). It would be best to start with a
> safe subset of LaTeX files. Success here will encourage authors to adjust
> their way to cooperate with the new system. And provide insight for dealing
> with a growing larger subset.
>
> Here's the PreTeXt URL: https://pretextbook.org/. Perhap a LaTeX-like to
> PreTeXt XML could be made quite easily.
>
> with best regards
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> BlindMath mailing list
> BlindMath at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindmath_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindMath:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindmath_nfbnet.org/a.j.godfrey%40massey.ac.nz
> BlindMath Gems can be found at <http://www.blindscience.org/blindmath-gems-home>
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindMath mailing list
> BlindMath at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindmath_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindMath:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindmath_nfbnet.org/farmer%40aimath.org
> BlindMath Gems can be found at <http://www.blindscience.org/blindmath-gems-home>
>