3 ms·

> 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 s

> 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.
  - Wowfunhappy 4y ago
    I'm not sure I understand. I do not think that any time anyone on the internet writes "XV" to represent "15", they should be required to use the special roman numeral characters. I certainly don't intend to do that in my own life—I don't have enough hours in my day—even though I recognize the problem it represents for screen readers. However, if I do go out of my way to use the special unicode characters, that should not trip up screen readers! I have done the screen reader an extra favor that they should be taking advantage of. As an imperfect analogy, imagine if a screen reader was ignoring the alt text on images. You might say "well, images with alt text represent a small fraction of the problem space", considering how many photos are casually uploaded to Instagram every day. And I agree—the internet is always going to contain some untagged images, and especially with the rise of AI, I'd love to see screen readers actually attempt to describe them. However, that is not an excuse for ignoring alt text when it is present! Covering "edge cases" like this is the core job of the screen reader!
    - usrbinbash 4y ago
      > However, if I do go out of my way to use the special unicode characters, that should not trip up screen readers! It is exactly the "going out of my way" that makes software tripping up on this understandable to me. It's not a common occurrence. Simple as that. Same as Babylonian Cuneiform Numerals are not. Sure, it's way more likely that a screenreader has to read a Ⅳ than a 𒐉, but compared to the size of the problem space, both are just miniscule, and a system that doesn't handle either, will still behave correctly almost the entire time. > You might say "well, images with alt text represent a small fraction of the problem space", considering how many photos are casually uploaded to Instagram every day. But images are a common occurrence in the problem space. The fact that the `alt` attribute is often not set, doesn't change that. In addition, the `alt` attribute is a simple system, designed with systems having to parse it in mind, that conveys a tangible advantage over not using it. What advantage does writing "In Hamlet, Act Ⅳ, Scene Ⅸ..." have over writing "In Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 9..."?

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.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  I'm not sure I understand. I do not think that any time anyone on the internet writes "XV" to represent "15", they should be required to use the special roman numeral characters. I certainly don't intend to do that in my own life—I don't have enough hours in my day—even though I recognize the problem it represents for screen readers. However, if I do go out of my way to use the special unicode characters, that should not trip up screen readers! I have done the screen reader an extra favor that they should be taking advantage of. As an imperfect analogy, imagine if a screen reader was ignoring the alt text on images. You might say "well, images with alt text represent a small fraction of the problem space", considering how many photos are casually uploaded to Instagram every day. And I agree—the internet is always going to contain some untagged images, and especially with the rise of AI, I'd love to see screen readers actually attempt to describe them. However, that is not an excuse for ignoring alt text when it is present! Covering "edge cases" like this is the core job of the screen reader!
  - usrbinbash 4y ago
    > However, if I do go out of my way to use the special unicode characters, that should not trip up screen readers! It is exactly the "going out of my way" that makes software tripping up on this understandable to me. It's not a common occurrence. Simple as that. Same as Babylonian Cuneiform Numerals are not. Sure, it's way more likely that a screenreader has to read a Ⅳ than a 𒐉, but compared to the size of the problem space, both are just miniscule, and a system that doesn't handle either, will still behave correctly almost the entire time. > You might say "well, images with alt text represent a small fraction of the problem space", considering how many photos are casually uploaded to Instagram every day. But images are a common occurrence in the problem space. The fact that the `alt` attribute is often not set, doesn't change that. In addition, the `alt` attribute is a simple system, designed with systems having to parse it in mind, that conveys a tangible advantage over not using it. What advantage does writing "In Hamlet, Act Ⅳ, Scene Ⅸ..." have over writing "In Hamlet, Act 4, Scene 9..."?