From: Ihor Radchenko <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "T.V Raman" <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Org mode export accessibility
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 15:53:47 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87czeq7fjo.fsf@localhost> (raw)
"T.V Raman" <email@example.com> writes:
> 1. Accessibility as word used in isolation has now become mostly
> meaningless, to be concrete one has to ask "Accessibility to whom"?
> 2. So in the following, everything I say is with respect to users with
> visual impairments.
This is exactly the perspective I was hoping to hear from you. Though
this thread is not dedicated to visual impairments. (I guess you also
did not touch the question of color blindness).
> 3. It's incorrect to define "Accessibility" in terms of a specific
> user access tool or technology -- that usage is marketing jargon
> for a specific Access Solution like a screenreader --- so I refrain in general from
> defining this in terms of Screenreaders.
Yet, in order to simplify the efforts needed to read a document exported
from Org mode one needs to use some kind of tool/technology. Unless a
common standard exist in this area, we have to support at least the most
common Access Solutions (prioritizing Free software, if possible).
From you message, it does not look like there is any common standard.
> With those meta-thoughts out of the way:
> A: Org-generated documents are mostly well-structured documents, and ...
> B: The LaTeX->PDF pipeline *can* produce tagged PDF with respect to ...
> C: pdftex and pdflatex were built in the late 90's by a student in ...
> D: All that said, it is likely still easier to go from org->HTML ...
Do I understand correctly that you have no issues with reading documents
exported using current version of Org?
> E: Finally, note that in (D) I said "machine processable" not
> "Accessible"; machine-processable is a pre-requisite to "repurpose "
> what you publish, and making that result usable by different user
> communities is a direct consequence of suche machine-processability.
I understand. But one can similarly say that .org files are "machine
processable" and Org export code is not strictly necessary. Yet, it ends
up extremely useful in practice.
I suspect that the exported documents can similarly be improved to
reduce the amount of efforts required from visually impair users to read
such documents. The question is what kinds improvements can be made on
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-30 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-23 14:30 About 'inline special blocks' Juan Manuel Macías
2022-05-23 15:20 ` Kaushal Modi
2022-05-23 21:06 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2022-05-24 2:36 ` Tim Cross
2022-05-24 2:51 ` Timothy
2022-05-24 6:54 ` Eric S Fraga
2022-05-26 7:30 ` Christian Moe
2022-05-24 15:09 ` Max Nikulin
2022-05-25 7:22 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-05-25 17:05 ` Max Nikulin
2022-05-26 2:54 ` Merging paragraphs separated by comment lines during export (was: About 'inline special blocks') Ihor Radchenko
2022-05-24 3:56 ` About 'inline special blocks' Ihor Radchenko
2022-05-24 14:05 ` João Pedro
2022-05-26 4:56 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-05-26 11:30 ` João Pedro
2022-05-26 12:20 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-05-26 17:35 ` João Pedro
2022-05-26 21:22 ` About opening issues vs email [Was: About 'inline special blocks'] Kaushal Modi
2022-05-27 4:24 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-05-27 4:36 ` João Pedro
2022-05-25 13:55 ` About 'inline special blocks' Juan Manuel Macías
2022-06-17 6:28 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-06-17 19:49 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2022-06-19 12:47 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2022-06-19 19:30 ` Christian Moe
2022-06-19 20:15 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2022-06-19 22:18 ` Tim Cross
2022-06-20 16:57 ` Max Nikulin
2022-06-20 19:06 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2022-06-21 16:39 ` Max Nikulin
2022-06-21 18:19 ` Juan Manuel Macías
2022-06-20 22:46 ` Tim Cross
2022-06-26 4:07 ` Org mode export accessibility (was: About 'inline special blocks') Ihor Radchenko
2022-06-26 6:29 ` Tim Cross
2022-06-26 10:46 ` Org mode export accessibility Juan Manuel Macías
2022-06-26 10:54 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-06-27 14:40 ` T.V Raman
2022-06-30 7:53 ` Ihor Radchenko [this message]
2022-07-07 14:18 ` briangpowell
2022-07-07 14:42 ` T.V Raman
2022-07-08 4:38 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-07-08 13:55 ` T.V Raman
2022-07-09 3:39 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-07-09 13:20 ` T.V Raman
2022-09-30 11:07 ` Max Nikulin
2022-09-30 13:29 ` T.V Raman
2022-09-30 16:43 ` Max Nikulin
2022-09-30 16:55 ` T.V Raman
2022-10-01 4:36 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-10-01 14:59 ` T.V Raman
2022-10-02 2:54 ` Org source in PDF (Re: Org mode export accessibility) Max Nikulin
2022-10-02 3:50 ` Timothy
2022-07-07 14:43 ` Org mode export accessibility T.V Raman
2022-07-07 15:37 ` T.V Raman
2022-07-08 4:33 ` Ihor Radchenko
2022-07-08 13:54 ` T.V Raman
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).