4 ms·

It's kinda shameful that only one screen reader can read the Unicode. All screen readers should be able to read all Unicode symbols properly. It's hideous that

by Vrondi 4y ago

It's kinda shameful that only one screen reader can read the Unicode. All screen readers should be able to read all Unicode symbols properly. It's hideous that people with accessibility needs have to put up with such shoddy products, some not cheap.

pornel 4y ago
It is incredibly frustrating, because fixing this isn't even rocket science. It doesn't even need super clever AI. A character database and a few regexes could go a long way. A lot of accessibility knowledge and work is spent just on primitive bugs and shortcommings of screen readers. If only screen readers added a few dozen lines of code, the entire world wouldn't need so many workarounds for them.
usrbinbash 4y ago
> All screen readers should be able to read all Unicode symbols properly. Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform_Numbers_and_Punctuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform_Numbers_and_Punctuat... How should 𒐉 be read exactly? Should it just say "Cuneiform Numeric Sign Four Dish"? Should it say 4? Should it say 4, but in Arameic? How should it deal with the fact that the system didn't have a symbol for the Radix Point, and so the actual value of numbers depends on context?
- account42 4y ago
  I don't think we need to worry about cuneiform yet when we have the current lack of even basic support described in the article. Reading the unicode character name out would be a good fallback for less important cases - certainly be better than skipping over characters. Let's not make perfect the enemy of good.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  Okay, that's fair, there are a lot of symbols in unicode. But c'mon, it's pretty obvious how roman numeral unicode characters should be read. The software shouldn't choke on those!
  - Joker_vD 4y ago
    > pretty obvious how roman numerals should be read If you know that they actually exist as separate code points then yeah, sure, it's kinda obvious. The same is true about "AV", "st" and "ſt" ligatures, I guess.
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    > But c'mon, it's pretty obvious how roman numerals should be read. Maybe it is in this special case, but it still sets a precedent that could lead to making something that should be simple and robust to something that is overengineered and complex, just because it has to accomodate an ever-increasing number of special cases, despite these cases making up a miniscule amount of the problem space. However, now that I think of it, it isn't even obvious in this special case. Yes roman numerals do have unicode code points, but many documents just represent them using latin letters instead, because it is easier to type and doesn't require unicode support. Now, should the screen-reader read "IV" as "Four" or as "I-Vee", which is a common abbreviation in medical texts? Sure, we could say "If it isn't using the unicode roman numeral, then its latin letters", and I am sure that it wouldn't be long for people complaining that this is a missing feature.
    - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
      > Sure, we could say "If it isn't using the unicode roman numeral, then its latin letters". No, I don't think screen readers should do that unilaterally! That case—where latin letters are used—is legitimately tricky for the reasons you describe. If screen readers get it wrong, I understand. What I'm talking about is the other case, in which the author used the roman numeral unicode characters specifically. Most of the software in the article did worse with those characters compared to the latin letters! There's really no excuse for that!
      - usrbinbash 4y ago
        > There's really no excuse for that! Yes there is, and it's a pretty good one: The occurrence of these symbols make up a miniscule fraction of the problem space, and they can be written using our everyday arabic numerals without any loss in context or information.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- banannaise 4y ago
  Right, it's hard to make a screen reader understand context, but that's just a development/UX challenge. The point of a screen reader isn't to simply declare what characters are on the screen. Otherwise, it wouldn't be able to read English. The point of a screen reader is to interpret human-readable text into human-listenable sound. How is that character typically used? Perhaps as a scientific signifier of units? Or as an insert for another letter to create emphasis? Maybe both! Can the screen reader infer the context from the surrounding text? Or perhaps it's just a rarely used symbol, and the default output should be a blip that indicates a symbol or something.
BlueTemplar 4y ago
You seem to have completely misunderstood TFA : Unicode makes it easier for a screen reader ??
- account42 4y ago
  Unicode should make it easier for roman numerals by removing ambiguity. From the examples in the article, it makes it worse for many screen readers.
Pxtl 4y ago
I wonder how many incidences of the Unicode roman numerals there are in the wild? The fact that there's no easy way to type 99% of Unicode for most users kind of makes all of this feel a bit pointless. Introducing Roman Numeral VII into a document would require googling in every combination of operating system and software. I've always found it kind of funny that it's easier to type a smiley than an em-dash in most software these days.

by Vrondi 4y ago

pornel 4y ago

It is incredibly frustrating, because fixing this isn't even rocket science. It doesn't even need super clever AI. A character database and a few regexes could go a long way. A lot of accessibility knowledge and work is spent just on primitive bugs and shortcommings of screen readers. If only screen readers added a few dozen lines of code, the entire world wouldn't need so many workarounds for them.

usrbinbash 4y ago

> All screen readers should be able to read all Unicode symbols properly. Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform_Numbers_and_Punctuation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform_Numbers_and_Punctuat... How should 𒐉 be read exactly? Should it just say "Cuneiform Numeric Sign Four Dish"? Should it say 4? Should it say 4, but in Arameic? How should it deal with the fact that the system didn't have a symbol for the Radix Point, and so the actual value of numbers depends on context?

account42 4y ago
I don't think we need to worry about cuneiform yet when we have the current lack of even basic support described in the article. Reading the unicode character name out would be a good fallback for less important cases - certainly be better than skipping over characters. Let's not make perfect the enemy of good.
Wowfunhappy 4y ago
Okay, that's fair, there are a lot of symbols in unicode. But c'mon, it's pretty obvious how roman numeral unicode characters should be read. The software shouldn't choke on those!
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  > pretty obvious how roman numerals should be read If you know that they actually exist as separate code points then yeah, sure, it's kinda obvious. The same is true about "AV", "st" and "ſt" ligatures, I guess.
- usrbinbash 4y ago
  > But c'mon, it's pretty obvious how roman numerals should be read. Maybe it is in this special case, but it still sets a precedent that could lead to making something that should be simple and robust to something that is overengineered and complex, just because it has to accomodate an ever-increasing number of special cases, despite these cases making up a miniscule amount of the problem space. However, now that I think of it, it isn't even obvious in this special case. Yes roman numerals do have unicode code points, but many documents just represent them using latin letters instead, because it is easier to type and doesn't require unicode support. Now, should the screen-reader read "IV" as "Four" or as "I-Vee", which is a common abbreviation in medical texts? Sure, we could say "If it isn't using the unicode roman numeral, then its latin letters", and I am sure that it wouldn't be long for people complaining that this is a missing feature.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    > Sure, we could say "If it isn't using the unicode roman numeral, then its latin letters". No, I don't think screen readers should do that unilaterally! That case—where latin letters are used—is legitimately tricky for the reasons you describe. If screen readers get it wrong, I understand. What I'm talking about is the other case, in which the author used the roman numeral unicode characters specifically. Most of the software in the article did worse with those characters compared to the latin letters! There's really no excuse for that!
    - usrbinbash 4y ago
      > There's really no excuse for that! Yes there is, and it's a pretty good one: The occurrence of these symbols make up a miniscule fraction of the problem space, and they can be written using our everyday arabic numerals without any loss in context or information.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
banannaise 4y ago
Right, it's hard to make a screen reader understand context, but that's just a development/UX challenge. The point of a screen reader isn't to simply declare what characters are on the screen. Otherwise, it wouldn't be able to read English. The point of a screen reader is to interpret human-readable text into human-listenable sound. How is that character typically used? Perhaps as a scientific signifier of units? Or as an insert for another letter to create emphasis? Maybe both! Can the screen reader infer the context from the surrounding text? Or perhaps it's just a rarely used symbol, and the default output should be a blip that indicates a symbol or something.

BlueTemplar 4y ago

You seem to have completely misunderstood TFA : Unicode makes it easier for a screen reader ??

account42 4y ago
Unicode should make it easier for roman numerals by removing ambiguity. From the examples in the article, it makes it worse for many screen readers.

Pxtl 4y ago

I wonder how many incidences of the Unicode roman numerals there are in the wild? The fact that there's no easy way to type 99% of Unicode for most users kind of makes all of this feel a bit pointless. Introducing Roman Numeral VII into a document would require googling in every combination of operating system and software. I've always found it kind of funny that it's easier to type a smiley than an em-dash in most software these days.