Math and usability/accessibility

**Alan J. Flavell** · Jul 20 '05, 05:00 PM

Re: Math and usability/accessibility

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Andreas Prilop wrote:
[color=blue]
> BTW:
> <http://google.com/search?ie=ISO-8859-7&oe=UTF-8&q=%22exp+x+%E C+2%22>[/color]

WTF? Three of the top 4 hits were in Japanese. Does this tell us
something?

**Jukka K. Korpela** · Jul 20 '05, 05:00 PM

Re: Math and usability/accessibility

"Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > ISSUE 2: Can speech synthesizers even handle these? For example, if
>> > I use symbol ≓ and the user agent speaks Unicode, it's going
>> > to read "image of or approximately equal to" every time it sees this
>> > symbol.[/color]
>>
>> It hopefully won't say "image of" unless you write that. It's supposed
>> to read the alternative content you specify.[/color]
>
> I see that this particular example is confusing, especially in light of
> our earlier conversation on image tags.[/color]

I'm sorry, I had thought you meant the use of an image representing the
character. And I didn't even check that the Unicode name of ≓ is
really "image of or approximately equal to" (and I still have no idea of what
it means).
[color=blue]
> My premise is that if a speech
> synthesizer does render every Unicode character, it will likely use the
> description of each character as provided in the Unicode code charts.[/color]

It's natural to assume that if it recognizes the character, then the simplest
mode of support is to read the name of the character.*) This is by no means
required, and it's usually not the best way - just as we don't want a speech
browser to say FULL STOP when it encounters a full stop (period, "."). But
the more specialized and rare a character is, the more probable it is that
reading the name is the best we can reasonably expect.
*) Well, it's even simpler to read the code number of the character, saying
something like "Unicode character two two five three hex" or something like
that. It would in a sense convey the information and be in that sense better
than saying nothing, or just beeping, but very few people would be able to
make use of the information.
[color=blue]
> In other words, the symbol is used in at least
> a couple of contexts, in which one of which it is read as "image of", and
> in another of which it is read as "approximat ely equal to".)[/color]

I see. In that case, it would appear to be adequate to use "Alan's device":
≓
or
≓
respectively, perhaps with some modification to the wording as required by
context (e.g. "is approximately equal to" or "approximat ely equals"). Whether
speech browsers would make use of it is debatable, but they _could_ at least
give the user optional access to the advisory title - analogously with how
graphic browsers show the advisory title as a tooltip on mouseover. And this
visual effect could be useful to people who have no difficulty in seeing the
character but do not understand what it means.
[color=blue]
> I'm interested, though, in how far beyond
> the practical the regulations expect us to go! (Does Finland have similar
> regulations? I believe the EU does.)[/color]

The EU has no accessibility regulations, just recommendations - which have
been issued at a high political level, by the European Commission and the
European Parliament, specifically declaring it to be important to achieve WAI
Priority level 2 (AA compliance). But it seems that the recommendations are
easily ignored when there are no _requirements_. - Some European countries
(not Finland) have accessibility legislation at the national level, and there
has been some talks on creating some at the EU level, but I don't think there
will be much progress.

In a sense, recommendations can be stricter than regulations. When you just
recommend something, you can ask for the impossible. But if you wish to
enforce something by the law, you can't.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

**Harlan Messinger** · Jul 20 '05, 05:00 PM

Re: Math and usability/accessibility

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tu t.fi> wrote in message
news:Xns944E17B 2A5F53jkorpelac stutfi@193.229. 0.31...[color=blue]
> "Harlan Messinger" <h.messinger@co mcast.net> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> > ISSUE 2: Can speech synthesizers even handle these? For example, if
> >> > I use symbol ≓ and the user agent speaks Unicode, it's going
> >> > to read "image of or approximately equal to" every time it sees this
> >> > symbol.
> >>
> >> It hopefully won't say "image of" unless you write that. It's supposed
> >> to read the alternative content you specify.[/color]
> >
> > I see that this particular example is confusing, especially in light of
> > our earlier conversation on image tags.[/color]
>
> I'm sorry, I had thought you meant the use of an image representing the
> character. And I didn't even check that the Unicode name of ≓ is
> really "image of or approximately equal to" (and I still have no idea of[/color]
what[color=blue]
> it means).
>[color=green]
> > My premise is that if a speech
> > synthesizer does render every Unicode character, it will likely use the
> > description of each character as provided in the Unicode code charts.[/color]
>
> It's natural to assume that if it recognizes the character, then the[/color]
simplest[color=blue]
> mode of support is to read the name of the character.*) This is by no[/color]
means[color=blue]
> required, and it's usually not the best way - just as we don't want a[/color]
speech[color=blue]
> browser to say FULL STOP when it encounters a full stop (period, "."). But
> the more specialized and rare a character is, the more probable it is that
> reading the name is the best we can reasonably expect.
> *) Well, it's even simpler to read the code number of the character,[/color]
saying[color=blue]
> something like "Unicode character two two five three hex" or something[/color]
like[color=blue]
> that. It would in a sense convey the information and be in that sense[/color]
better[color=blue]
> than saying nothing, or just beeping, but very few people would be able to
> make use of the information.
>[color=green]
> > In other words, the symbol is used in at least
> > a couple of contexts, in which one of which it is read as "image of",[/color][/color]
and[color=blue][color=green]
> > in another of which it is read as "approximat ely equal to".)[/color]
>
> I see. In that case, it would appear to be adequate to use "Alan's[/color]
device":[color=blue]
> ≓
> or
> ≓
> respectively, perhaps with some modification to the wording as required by
> context (e.g. "is approximately equal to" or "approximat ely equals").[/color]
Whether[color=blue]
> speech browsers would make use of it is debatable, but they _could_ at[/color]
least[color=blue]
> give the user optional access to the advisory title - analogously with how
> graphic browsers show the advisory title as a tooltip on mouseover. And[/color]
this[color=blue]
> visual effect could be useful to people who have no difficulty in seeing[/color]
the[color=blue]
> character but do not understand what it means.[/color]

Ah. Very good. Thanks.

Math and usability/accessibility

Comment

Comment

Comment