Input on 4.6 Charts, diagrams, math, and formulas

[jonaslil]

Logic issue

In the EPUB techniques, accessibilityFeature "describedMath" is used in 4.6.3 step 5 to identify the presence of math content, but it is not used in step 4 as an indication of accessible math. Shouldn't it be included there as well?

Specificity of explanations

In my view, LaTex and MathML for math content are so different that they should be expressed as separate explanations. For example, a screen reader user who doesn’t know LaTeX notation won’t find it helpful at all. However, I understand the intention is to keep things non-technical and to limit the number of explanations, so I won’t insist on this point.

Discrepancy between Display guide and Techniques

The explanation "Visualized data also available as non-graphical data" in the ONIX techniques is missing in the Display guidelines.

Phrasing and structure of explanations

Current: Charts and diagrams are present and described by extended descriptions
Suggested: Charts and diagrams are present and have extended descriptions
(Avoids the repetition in "described by ... description.")

Current: Charts and diagrams have extended descriptions Accessible math content Accessible chemistry content
Suggested: Split these into separate list items.

• Charts and diagrams have extended descriptions
• Accessible math content
• Accessible chemistry content

Current: Accessibility of formulas, charts, math, and diagrams not identified as being accessible
Suggested revision:

• Either: Formulas, charts, math, and diagrams not identified as being accessible
• Or: Accessibility of formulas, charts, math, and diagrams not identified