Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ArXiv now offers papers in HTML format

blog.arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 325 posts

Re: ArXiv now offers papers in HTML format

#151

Post by spookie »

miki123211 wrote: post #46
tarboreus wrote: post #39

One of the reasons is to make the papers more accessible to people with disabilities, especially the blind. I participated in a conference they hosted on this a few months ago, I recommend taking a look at the recordings if you're interested in thinking on this. https://accessibility2023.arxiv.org/

Blind person here, can confirm this. Reading PDFs with a screen reader is bad, reading PDFs that come from LaTeX is worse, reading LaTeX math is pretty much impossible. All the semantic info you need is just thrown away. You can make decently accessible PDFs but it's lots of work, you need Acrobat on the producer' side and might also need it on the consumer's side. Free tools don't even come close. There's also the f…

Yup LaTeX math doesn't make sense. I've been trying to hack my way into getting a voice model to read it but no real progress.

Re: ArXiv now offers papers in HTML format

#152

Post by spookie »

jakderrida wrote: post #111
miki123211 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blind person here, can confirm this. Reading PDFs with a screen reader is bad, reading PDFs that come from LaTeX is worse, reading LaTeX math is pretty much impossible. All the semantic info you need is just thrown away. You can make decently accessible PDFs but it's lots of work, you need Acrobat on the producer' side and might also need it on the consumer's side. Free tools don't even come close. There's also the f…

Hold on... Are you telling me that all these complex sentences are being typed out based on your voice alone? That's insane.

There are braille keyboards too

Re: ArXiv now offers papers in HTML format

#153

Post by LordDragonfang »

wolverine876 wrote: post #138
murphyslab wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel surprised by how succinct, easy-to-understand, and sensible the policy (M-23-22) is: > Default to HTML: HyperText Markup Language (HTML) is the standard for publishing documents designed to be displayed in a web browser. HTML provides numerous advantages (e.g., easier to make accessible, friendlier to assistive technology, more dynamic and responsive, easier to maintain). When developing information for the we…

Hmmm ... accessibility is essential, but PDF is far better for static documents: There's no straightfoward, standard way to read an html document on another platform. Also, the html document may not be readable in 10+ years (unlike most PDFs), and updates are too fluid and hard to track. I think the general problem is that the end-user doesn't control an html document, e.g., for annotation, as a local record, etc.

...What are you talking about? HTML files are readable on basically every platform, even moreso because they are fundamentally text files (unlike PDFs, which are binaries). PDFs need special software, html can be read on the command line. Likewise, HTML is dead simple to edit and annotate.

Seriously, name a single device that has PDF support that doesn't allow you to view HTML.

I think you're conflating "html" and "things stored on a server", because all of your objections apply to pdfs stored on a server. The ability to save and annotate pdfs is not an inherent feature of the file format, they exist because the format is such a PITA to interact with that specialized programs have to be written. HTML can be saved just as easily, and usually is (on archive.org).

Re: ArXiv now offers papers in HTML format

#154

Post by dataflow »

IlliOnato wrote: post #79
jez wrote: post #33

It would be neat if they offered submitters the chance to upload their own HTML version alongside the PDF version, instead of always relying on an automatic conversion process. - I can imagine authors feeling frustrated if someone reaches out about a problem in the HTML version of their paper, but they have no way to correct it except by hoping that a change to the PDF fixes a change to the generated HTML. Easier to…

No, it would not. It's critically important that there is only one "logical" article, albeit with different representations. In other words, a single "source of truth". With "sideloading" of HTML there is no way in general to make sure that the contents of LaTeX (and PDF) on one side and HTML on the other side is the same.

> With "sideloading" of HTML there is no way in general to make sure that the contents of LaTeX (and PDF) on one side and HTML on the other side is the same.

Is it not possible to write LaTeX code that produces different contents in HTML vs. PDF?

Re: ArXiv now offers papers in HTML format

#157

Post by Blikkentrekker »

miki123211 wrote: post #46
tarboreus wrote: post #39

One of the reasons is to make the papers more accessible to people with disabilities, especially the blind. I participated in a conference they hosted on this a few months ago, I recommend taking a look at the recordings if you're interested in thinking on this. https://accessibility2023.arxiv.org/

Blind person here, can confirm this. Reading PDFs with a screen reader is bad, reading PDFs that come from LaTeX is worse, reading LaTeX math is pretty much impossible. All the semantic info you need is just thrown away. You can make decently accessible PDFs but it's lots of work, you need Acrobat on the producer' side and might also need it on the consumer's side. Free tools don't even come close. There's also the f…

I made these arguments two decades ago when I was still in university that PDF is a horrible format because it's purely præsentational, especially for people with disabilities whose software relies on semantic information. LaTeX last time I used it didn't even have a different symbol for uppercase Alpha and A because the glyphs are indistinguishable.

They argued that PDF was superior because the publisher could control how it looked and it looked the same everywhere but the point is that it should not. Things such as font size and line spacing should be at the control of the consumer, not the publisher. This isn't simply blind people but for instance also persons with dyslexia who use particular fonts to make it easier to read for them. Or in my case, someone who simply gets a headache from fronts and line-spacing that is too big. I've also been using darkmode everywhere for so long now that reading black text on a white surface on a screen gives me a headache.

Re: ArXiv now offers papers in HTML format

#158

Post by hollerith »

cozzyd wrote: post #99
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you work extensively with LaTeX? Two columns is good, albeit annoying on mobile. But the font. The typeface kills me, and almost every LaTeX-generated document sports it.

Hating on Computer Modern (ok, probably now Latin Modern) is something close to blasphemy.

I hate Computer Modern, and I'm not even particularly fussy about typefaces.

Re: ArXiv now offers papers in HTML format

#159

Post by Blikkentrekker »

spookie wrote: post #152
jakderrida wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold on... Are you telling me that all these complex sentences are being typed out based on your voice alone? That's insane.

There are braille keyboards too

Or normal keyboards? Many people can type blind. Some learned to do so while born blind, others became blind after they had already learned this skill.

I would assume that the majority of persons on HN are not looking at their keyboard as they type.

Re: ArXiv now offers papers in HTML format

#160

Post by Blikkentrekker »

FredPret wrote: post #28
burkaman wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here's the PDF of the same paper for comparison: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.12451.pdf

The contrast is massive. I'm much more likely to read the html version; that PDF is deeply off-putting in some hard to define way. Maybe it's the two columns, or the font, or the fact that the format doesn't adjust to fit different screen sizes.

Quite so. The font annoys me. This is one of the reasons I hate PDF and why I believe these things should be controlled by the person reading it, not the publisher.

I do not much care what font the auctor finds pleasant to read, but what I find pleasant to read, and this font isn't it, and neither are the colors.

Post reply on HN