They seem to be trying: > In addition, arXiv will provide substantially better access to the visually impaired by producing HTML as well as PDF versions of its content. But it's a different question whether they will succeed. A compile-to-HTML pipeline needs to work with every single LaTeX package that people use, or at least work with most ones and fail gracefully for the rest. That was hard enough for compile-to-PD…
It’s a fools errand. pdfTeX didn’t even emit spaces (as in char 32) between words until a few years ago.
Though that one is perhaps to blame on pdfTeX rather than on the TeX format :)
They seem to be trying: > In addition, arXiv will provide substantially better access to the visually impaired by producing HTML as well as PDF versions of its content. But it's a different question whether they will succeed. A compile-to-HTML pipeline needs to work with every single LaTeX package that people use, or at least work with most ones and fail gracefully for the rest. That was hard enough for compile-to-PD…
I am really glad arXiv is getting more funding. It is an essential resource. For me personally, it’ll be really interesting to see if the frontend changes. No doubt there are some important improvements that can be made (a website can always be made more accessible, moderation tools, support for name changes as mentioned, etc.) However, to first approximation, arXiV’s website already seems almost like a platonic idea…
Loads fast, except for the PDFs which load quite slowly
Oh that’s great to hear! I really like arXiv and am glad it’s getting more funding! I hope this will enable arXiv to fix some of the long-time issues it has, including the way identity and attribution are handled. For example: the current system assumes people’s names do not change [1], which in particular negatively affects trans authors. This seems like it could be fixed if they had the bandwidth to, and I hope the…
It seems arXiv does support name changes, just not in citations and references[1] This seems… fine? To modify citations would be a strange alteration of history and an intrusion on authorship. If someone quotes this comment and cites it as “bigyikes” and later Dang changes my name, should he also edit the comments that quote me? I don’t think so, but maybe I’m in a minority here. [1]: https://blog.arxiv.org/2021/03/1…
The link you shared seems great, thank you! I was talking to a friend just yesterday who regularly publishes to arXiv, and my understanding was that changing author names on papers where they weren’t the primary author wasn’t possible. But from the link you’ve shared it seems they’ve made the steps needed to address that. I think this means I might be able to deliver some good news!
They seem to be trying: > In addition, arXiv will provide substantially better access to the visually impaired by producing HTML as well as PDF versions of its content. But it's a different question whether they will succeed. A compile-to-HTML pipeline needs to work with every single LaTeX package that people use, or at least work with most ones and fail gracefully for the rest. That was hard enough for compile-to-PD…
I am really glad arXiv is getting more funding. It is an essential resource. For me personally, it’ll be really interesting to see if the frontend changes. No doubt there are some important improvements that can be made (a website can always be made more accessible, moderation tools, support for name changes as mentioned, etc.) However, to first approximation, arXiV’s website already seems almost like a platonic idea…
Simple HTML, loads fast, has the information and features you need but otherwise gets out of your way
Exactly. I'll be furious if it turns into another trendchasing JS-required SPA.
By all means use the funds to pay for additional bandwidth or storage, but don't waste it on useless hostile UI changes.
Open Source is ... open source. There is nothing wrong with chucking money at Archive to help with costs, provided that money does not come with menaces. The basic idea is that if you profit in some way from an open repository of ... something then why not contribute to it? If enough people/orgs contribute then we are all good. Otherwise, if the org behind the project is an individual doing it as a hobby and they can…
Public money indirectly comes from the most profitable companies, so it's not as bad as you suggest. I'd also say there are worse freeriders of academic research in the economy than big tech.
> Public money indirectly comes from the most profitable companies
Oh that’s great to hear! I really like arXiv and am glad it’s getting more funding! I hope this will enable arXiv to fix some of the long-time issues it has, including the way identity and attribution are handled. For example: the current system assumes people’s names do not change [1], which in particular negatively affects trans authors. This seems like it could be fixed if they had the bandwidth to, and I hope the…
You must not change history. You can use a new name, but that should be considered a new and separate identity.
They seem to be trying: > In addition, arXiv will provide substantially better access to the visually impaired by producing HTML as well as PDF versions of its content. But it's a different question whether they will succeed. A compile-to-HTML pipeline needs to work with every single LaTeX package that people use, or at least work with most ones and fail gracefully for the rest. That was hard enough for compile-to-PD…
It’s a fools errand. pdfTeX didn’t even emit spaces (as in char 32) between words until a few years ago.