[BlindMath] BlindMath Digest, Vol 238, Issue 8
kperry at blinksoft.com
kperry at blinksoft.com
Sun May 31 16:27:27 UTC 2026
You should try simpy it wdoes some amazing things that is in python, simja is in java.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: BlindMath <blindmath-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Ray McAllister via BlindMath
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 12:20 PM
To: 'Blind Math list for those interested in mathematics' <blindmath at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Ray McAllister <raymcal at att.net>
Subject: Re: [BlindMath] BlindMath Digest, Vol 238, Issue 8
So, thinking about complications in math entry: Here's an idea: Most of us know some form of coding, some computer language. I know LB Booster BASIC, but Python is pretty popular. I know, when I do math, I usually have to write out long formulas in computer code to test them anyway, and then I know I have the formula right. What if there were the option, that, when a user chose, they could write a long, 2d formula, in computer code, and have a few main languages to choose from. Then the computer could take that code and convert it into the 2d formula with all the "bells and whistles." Now, this would NOT take the place of other math entry options. Coding really doesn't work for limits, integrals, derivatives, in the same way, though there could be the option of lim(x, 4, x^2 / (x-4) to mean, limit as x approaches 4 of x^2 / (x-4), I suppose. But, a user could choose to enter a big formula as code and then have it converted as needed. You have to deal with nested parentheses and junk, but you have to when coding if you want to test your formula.
If you need to break a formula up in parts, so say a= this, b =that, and then have an a+b formula at the end, you can replace that out using search/replace rather easily.
I wonder, though, if an option like this would be helpful, but not to remove any existing options. Actually, sighted people might like this option too, as, most of us do coding, at least, a little, and still need to test everything to make sure we did it right.
Ray.
-----Original Message-----
From: BlindMath <blindmath-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Maylene Bird via BlindMath
Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2026 11:39 AM
To: blindmath at nfbnet.org
Cc: Maylene Bird <maylenebird at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [BlindMath] BlindMath Digest, Vol 238, Issue 8
Nemeth Code is a complete math code. The Equalize Editor by Lakeline’s Braille is interesting.
https://www.lakepinesbraille.com/aee/
On Sun, May 31, 2026 at 7:01 AM <blindmath-request at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Send BlindMath mailing list submissions to
> blindmath at nfbnet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindmath_nfbnet.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> blindmath-request at nfbnet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> blindmath-owner at nfbnet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of BlindMath digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Areas still to work on? (Ray McAllister)
> 2. Re: Areas still to work on? (Sukriti Suri)
> 3. Re: Areas still to work on? (Jonathan Godfrey)
> 4. Re: Areas still to work on? (Sukriti Suri)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 30 May 2026 22:30:22 -0400
> From: "Ray McAllister" <raymcal at att.net>
> To: "'Blind Math list for those interested in mathematics'"
> <blindmath at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: [BlindMath] Areas still to work on?
> Message-ID: <000001dcf0a5$76137910$623a6b30$@att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi, so, just wondering, are there any areas in mathematics that still
> need a lot of work for making them accessible to the blind? Maybe
> some new discipline or something, or something, that, maybe it is
> accessible, but very cumbersome, and so a better way would really
> help. Just wondering what’s left, and, well, maybe, I might put some
> creativity to figuring it out, possibly. 😊
>
>
>
> Ray.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 31 May 2026 10:36:40 +0530
> From: Sukriti Suri <surisukriti29 at gmail.com>
> To: blindmath at nfbnet.org
> Cc: Ray McAllister <raymcal at att.net>, blindmath at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [BlindMath] Areas still to work on?
> Message-ID: <A5074530-9343-4C86-8DEC-52221692B938 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> In my opinion, typing mathematics is still an area needing refinement.
> Latex though accessible is combersum and time-taking. While typing
> through a braille display, UEB can transcribe everything else but
> spatial symbols like fractions and subscripts. Softwares taking input
> in Nemeth are still not many and even I wonder if there are any.
> Thanks
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 31 May 2026 07:40:52 +0000
> From: Jonathan Godfrey <A.J.Godfrey at massey.ac.nz>
> To: Blind Math list for those interested in mathematics
> <blindmath at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [BlindMath] Areas still to work on?
> Message-ID:
> <
> ME3PR01MB7030A8F894C429222772187993142 at ME3PR01MB7030.ausprd01.prod.out
> look.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi all,
>
> I accept that every typesetting option for mathematical content is
> slower than anyone who is able to hand-write.
>
> But this is a problem everyone doing math has, not just blind people.
> That's probably why so many sighted mathematicians are busy with pen
> or pencils on paper, or writing on black or white boards.
>
> It's also why I write in a personal shorthand code if I am having to
> work things out using my screen reader.
>
> Setting aside the inability blind people have to read and/or write
> like our sighted peers, The question for me is whether the choices we
> make are in fact effective (100% accuracy) and then whether they are
> efficient.
>
> The choice for me was clear. I learned LaTeX before I learned Braille.
> I am now too long in the tooth to contemplate becoming proficient in
> any Braille maths code so I am almost certainly going to remain a
> person who reads his LaTeX in Braille.
>
> One thing I always found frustrating while I was doing my thesis was
> the inability to find a decent LaTeX editor which would speed up my
> creation of mathematical content. In the end, I used plenty of LaTeX
> tricks like user-defined functions which were shortcuts. After all,
> typing \SumOverAllK{x_k} was much easier than \sum_{k=0}^{K}{x_k}
>
> Even finding an editor which had hot keys for the Greek letters in
> LaTeX proved so challenging that I developed my own editor which did
> have those hot keys and many more.
>
> I still use a version of the editor today, over 15 years later. I've
> tailored it to work better for the work I now do, which is
> predominantly in some form of markdown. My markdown documents are of
> course easily moved to LaTeX if necessary.
>
> In effect, I was addressing the efficiency problem and avoided the
> effectiveness issues associated with Braille maths codes.
>
> At the risk of sounding like a heretic, I'm wondering if just for a
> moment we imagined a world with no Braille math codes, and we had to
> decide on the right way for blind people to write mathematical content
> for a sighted audience, if we'd ever have chosen a code that was only
> used by blind people.
>
> I know I can force my screen reader to receive input as If I was
> typing on a Braille display or typewriter, and for the moment assuming
> I was perfect at entering fault-free Braille math, I don't know if I
> would be efficient as compared to what I am now doing.
>
> I guess my problem is that learning how to create fault-free Braille
> math assumes the code itself has complete coverage. At present, it
> seems to me that the various codes are able to generate a subset of
> what is able to be created in LaTeX. Surely this means anyone hoping
> to go onto advanced level maths will ultimately find themselves short
> if they were restricted to a Braille code. At that point, they'd need
> to know LaTeX to survive or they'd invent additions to the Braille code that only they understand.
>
> Imagine a world with no Braille mats codes and how we'd be doing. I
> think we'd be fine, even if the length of the fully laid out LaTeX
> equations might run off the page (in both directions).
>
> Of course, all this would be so much easier if the \ could be
> represented in a single six dot Braille cell. <sigh>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlindMath <blindmath-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Sukriti
> Suri via BlindMath
> Sent: Sunday, 31 May 2026 5:07 pm
> To: blindmath at nfbnet.org
> Cc: Sukriti Suri <surisukriti29 at gmail.com>; blindmath at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [BlindMath] Areas still to work on?
>
> In my opinion, typing mathematics is still an area needing refinement.
> Latex though accessible is combersum and time-taking. While typing
> through a braille display, UEB can transcribe everything else but
> spatial symbols like fractions and subscripts. Softwares taking input
> in Nemeth are still not many and even I wonder if there are any.
> Thanks
> _______________________________________________
> 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%40m
> assey.ac.nz
> BlindMath Gems can be found at <
> http://www.blindscience.org/blindmath-gems-home>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 31 May 2026 13:47:33 +0530
> From: Sukriti Suri <surisukriti29 at gmail.com>
> To: blindmath at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [BlindMath] Areas still to work on?
> Message-ID: <491A9A80-781A-43B9-B8F7-B2791720853E at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Agree with you on general inability to type math but would have a
> difference of opinion about braille code in math. UEB currently has a
> full braille code but not sure why the spatial representations like
> fractions and subscripts are not output when given UEB command for
> respective characters. As a braille user more than a technology
> expert, I list some advantages of braille code over latex which are of
> course not to deny your perspective but to add some nuance to the subject:
> 1. What I find useful about writing through a braille display is that
> I can simultaneously read quickly in braille whatever I have written.
> With latex, reading entire code instead of output symbols
> simultaneously seems annoying while solving questions. Here, I wish to
> emphasize on the fact that typing with maths is not just writing
> something; it demands continuous introspection as various steps are
> interdependent. Reading what I have written in braille is much more
> comfortable than listening to entire code but there too the issue of single line display bothers a lot.
> 2. Another thing I have found annoying about latex editters is that
> they do not accept direct symbols. E.g if I am writing in a latex
> editter through my braille display and if I enter ⊂ symbol directly
> through braille code, it will mark it inappropriate and I will be
> forced to write \subset which is much more time consuming especially
> when seen in terms of cumilitive effect.
> 3. Even if you are not using a braille display and know the braille
> code, I think solving part can more comfortably be done on a brailler
> and then steps could be transcribed in a latex code. This is of course
> time consuming but at least cumbersome steps can be handled through
> this technique. This may sound absurd but this gives one the joy and
> comfort of doing maths the like of which sighted people have with pen and paper.
> Having said that, I do feel that I do recognize the utility of latex
> for the advantages highlighted by you and also the fact that resources
> to learn it and awareness regarding it is quite more and can be used
> even by those not having braille display or not knowing braille for
> some reason. At the end, it does depend upon the user and the
> resources available but the area needs improvement is a fact for sure.
> Thanks
> Sukriti
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindMath mailing list
> BlindMath at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindmath_nfbnet.org
> BlindMath Gems can be found at <
> http://www.blindscience.org/blindmath-gems-home>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of BlindMath Digest, Vol 238, Issue 8
> *****************************************
>
_______________________________________________
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/raymcal%40att.net
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/kperry%40blinksoft.com
BlindMath Gems can be found at <http://www.blindscience.org/blindmath-gems-home>
More information about the BlindMath
mailing list