4 ms·

I used to use Mathematica or MatLab to export image files of equations or matrices, and embed those images into my papers. I would already have those equations

I used to use Mathematica or MatLab to export image files of equations or matrices, and embed those images into my papers. I would already have those equations loaded into the software as part of the research, so it really wasn't any extra work, and ensured they were copied over as they were actually used. Why is so much time spent trying to get complex math rendering added to text editors, especially when math research may define new renderings? /get off my lawn

teruakohatu 6y ago
This is a math rendering engine. It has nothing to do with text editors anymore than any other software. Mathematica can export to Latex which is definitely preferable to embedding images into papers.
gostsamo 6y ago
Accessibility. Your nice images are someone blind's nightmare when the most important parts of a stem web page or pdf are actually just an empty alt tag.
- hashtagmarkup 6y ago
  I really hate to engage further on this as no one seems receptive, but, believe me... accessibility was a must as NSF grants through the university were involved. LaTex and illegible raw ASCII were also embedded in the PDF. There were other diagrams and charts and graphs, but at some point, no text editor could process and render everything natively, or be fully accessible to every disability.
  - gostsamo 6y ago
    That's why standards. Partial implementations are always a best attempt at something and having it in a uniform way makes it easier for everyone. NSF grands are only part of the picture. Knowledge is dispersed among arxive.org papers, pdf textbooks and random blog articles with each of them doing different thing and very often this thing is just slap an image of the formula and go on.
    - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
      How do you standardize new mathematical expressions that haven't been invented/discovered yet? How do you deal with fundamental disagreements surrounding those standards? Politics and Capitalism creep in everywhere, and pretending that a "uniform way" will present itself is childish.
      - gostsamo 6y ago
        I think that you are missing the point. A standard must not dictate which symbols should be used, if it is a straight arrow, curved arrow, or a dotted one. Its purpose is to allow all kinds of symbols, positioning and denoting of relationships so that all symbols, relationships and positioning could be reproduced from the consumer of the data, be it a browser or a screen reader.
        hashtagmarkup 6y ago
        I think that you are missing the point. The set of all kinds of symbols is more expressive than you are prepared to codify.
        gostsamo 6y ago
        Well, you don't do it. I'm not asking it from you and we are all good. Not sure that we can go anywhere otherwise.
        hashtagmarkup 6y ago
        You still don't get it. It is all I do. Detractors amass.
        gostsamo 6y ago
        What you do might be nice, but it does not scale. People do not include stuff for accessibility's sake. Web is the ultimate proof of that. That's why I prefer if accessibility is included in the workflow itself.

teruakohatu 6y ago

This is a math rendering engine. It has nothing to do with text editors anymore than any other software. Mathematica can export to Latex which is definitely preferable to embedding images into papers.

gostsamo 6y ago

Accessibility. Your nice images are someone blind's nightmare when the most important parts of a stem web page or pdf are actually just an empty alt tag.

hashtagmarkup 6y ago
I really hate to engage further on this as no one seems receptive, but, believe me... accessibility was a must as NSF grants through the university were involved. LaTex and illegible raw ASCII were also embedded in the PDF. There were other diagrams and charts and graphs, but at some point, no text editor could process and render everything natively, or be fully accessible to every disability.
- gostsamo 6y ago
  That's why standards. Partial implementations are always a best attempt at something and having it in a uniform way makes it easier for everyone. NSF grands are only part of the picture. Knowledge is dispersed among arxive.org papers, pdf textbooks and random blog articles with each of them doing different thing and very often this thing is just slap an image of the formula and go on.
  - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
    How do you standardize new mathematical expressions that haven't been invented/discovered yet? How do you deal with fundamental disagreements surrounding those standards? Politics and Capitalism creep in everywhere, and pretending that a "uniform way" will present itself is childish.
    - gostsamo 6y ago
      I think that you are missing the point. A standard must not dictate which symbols should be used, if it is a straight arrow, curved arrow, or a dotted one. Its purpose is to allow all kinds of symbols, positioning and denoting of relationships so that all symbols, relationships and positioning could be reproduced from the consumer of the data, be it a browser or a screen reader.
      - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
        I think that you are missing the point. The set of all kinds of symbols is more expressive than you are prepared to codify.
        gostsamo 6y ago
        Well, you don't do it. I'm not asking it from you and we are all good. Not sure that we can go anywhere otherwise.
        hashtagmarkup 6y ago
        You still don't get it. It is all I do. Detractors amass.
        gostsamo 6y ago
        What you do might be nice, but it does not scale. People do not include stuff for accessibility's sake. Web is the ultimate proof of that. That's why I prefer if accessibility is included in the workflow itself.