Re: MathML - and action 1494.

Rich wrote:

> I have to tell you that the solution to putting this text in the ARIA spec was far too simplistic and rather irresponsible for us. 


Which irresponsible solution are you and John talking about? I haven’t written the related spec text yet, so that can’t be it. 

Neither of you were on the call, but we discussed a variety of pros and cons that I planned to address in a non-normative note. I’m always very responsible with the wording, and I ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt until you have concrete critique of something specific.

I’ll try to write the text today between sessions of toddler-wrangling. I’m hopeful we can have a thoughtful discussion of the topic on tomorrow morning’s call.

James


> On Aug 10, 2014, at 9:43 AM, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
> 
> An extreme +1 to Rich here.
> 
> Please note that I was also tasked, within the HTML5-a11y TF, to provide
> feedback on MathML (ref: @longdesc), and I forwarded the following email to
> that group May 24, 2014:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2014May/0090.html
> 
> 
>    "I contacted 2 well-respected accessibility experts, Sean Keegan
> (Stanford
> University & President of ATHEN - Access Technology Higher Education
> Network) and Greg Kraus (North Carolina State University) to solicit from
> them the current state of accessibility support for MathML. Both men are
> known to be involved specifically with accessibility issues related to
> MathML.
> 
>    Both respondents noted that overall, support for MathML in browsers,
> and in
> combination with Assistive Technology is far from robust. Both were in
> agreement that moving forward, using (and anticipating continued improvement
> for MathML support) was the correct response; however both also noted that
> today using MathML alone does not provide the support to their students that
> they are legally required to provide, and both institutions are using a
> combination of MathML and external (non-html) content to provide that
> support."
> 
> JF
> 
> *************
> 
> From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 5:07 AM
> To: James Craig; cooper@w3.org; Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
> (janina@rednote.net)
> Cc: PF
> Subject: MathML - and action 1494.
> 
> I am reading through the minutes and saw that action 1494 was created about
> recommending that MathML be used over the Math role.
> 
> I have to tell you that the solution to putting this text in the ARIA spec.
> was far too simplistic and rather irresponsible for us. Here is why:
> 
> 1. MathML is rendered in very few browsers so telling authors they should
> use MathML over a Math image having a Math role makes us look naive.
> 2. Very few assistive technologies support MathML. In fact the feature that
> allowed Design Science to hook in and read math in IE was removed and they
> have to find an alternative way in
> 3. Readium, and most companies, are having to use MathJax to render Math and
> Benetech is operating off Microsoft grant to provide a cloud based reading
> solution.
> 
> Net: we cannot just say go use MathML because one platform solution provides
> limited access even though we all want people to use MathML for obvious
> reasons. W3C and PF needs a much better strategy to push the MathML agenda
> with browser manufacturers. Chrome pulled MathML support out and IE does not
> support it. That is a lot of market share with a huge hole in it.
> 
> chicken an egg. We have a huge industry problem where teachers are not
> producing digital Math output because the browser manufacturers are not
> rendering it and browser manufacturers are not supporting it because people
> are not writing to it.
> 
> We need to see a more focused strategy in W3C to push MathML adoption to
> back up the change. I will bring this up on Monday's call.
> 
> I have been very involved with the MathML issue as part of Raising the Floor
> and Readium so this is a huge hot button for me. The need for access to
> digital math may be one of the biggest accessibility issues we have in WAI
> and little has been done about driving its adoption. This is another example
> where a standard was created and no solid strategy was put in place to back
> it up.
> 
> yes, this is a soap box item for me.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 10 August 2014 20:08:39 UTC