briangpowell writes: P.S. Please dont quote me out of context. I did not say pdftex and pdflatex were not useful, I still rely on them heavily. > "[I suspect that the exported documents can similarly be improved to > reduce the amount of effort required from visually impaired users to > read > such documents. The question is what improvements can be made on > Org side.] > > Best, > Ihor" > > Very glad to hear from TV Raman, the creator of EmacSpeak, > > I'm not blind like TV but I was motivated to turn my a main OrgMode > buffer into an audio desktop like TV's > > But now back to the topic; much agree with Ihor, we should focus on > "what improvements can be made on OrgMode side" > > & TV's points are well made too: "pdftex and pdflatex were built in > the late 90's"--very true & they were rarely useful > > Suggest OrgMode make changes aimed at the "Lowest Common Denominator" > of accessibility--accessibility in the visual sense AND in the machine > or program processable sense or more exactly the "document convertible > sense"--I mean documents should be made firstly in a form that all > computers can easily navigate & present on computer screens and/or > audio desktops in addition to being readily able to print out > > TV's right, the usual pipeline of LaTeX->PDF can produce tagged & > useful documents but can an end user easily copy and paste the > document? How useful are pretty documents that run on proprietary > systems? Many PDF's can make simple processes like this very hard or > impossible--the documents can be very pretty but they can contain > control characters & special characters & even malicious code > > Suggest OrgMode outputs focus on creating "Lowest Common Denominator" > documents as output: > TeXinfo docs should be used as the LCD doctype--suggest you focus on > creating 1 document in Texinfo that you use to create all other sorts > of documents, when possible: > > Pipeline should be more like > OrgMode->Texinfo->TROFF||DTD/XML/HTML/XHTML->LaTeX/TeX->DVI||SVG->PS->PDF > > > * TeXinfo: https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/texinfo > https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo > > ** "Texinfo uses a single source file to produce output in a number of > formats, both online and printed (dvi, html, info, pdf, xml, etc.). > This means that instead of writing different documents for online > information and another for a printed manual, you need write only one > document. And when the work is revised, you need revise only that one > document. The Texinfo system is integrated well with GNU Emacs. > > *** Texinfo docs can also be viewed & used by ALL end-users without > any issues--regardless of the power of their computer or monitor or > even if they're blind like TV Raman--he uses an audio desktop or > EmacSpeak--and the same docs can be printed on any printer & remain > navigable with "rn" & other simple news-reading software--or the > "info" program > > * Output formats currently supported by Texinfo: > https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/html_node/Output-Formats.html > <=> Info,Text,HTML,DVI,PostScript{PS},PDF,DocBook,XML > > ** Related/useful may be: "latex2nemeth"--a LATEX to Braille/Nemeth, > approach "Simple pictures in PSTricks are also supported in order to > produce tactile graphics": https://ctan.org/pkg/latex2nemeth > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:53 AM Ihor Radchenko > wrote: > > "T.V Raman" 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 > Org side. > > Best, > Ihor > -- Thanks, --Raman(I Search, I Find, I Misplace, I Research) ♈ Id: kg:/m/0285kf1 🦮