1. Mireia Ribera, Miquel Centelles, Alberto Huélamo,
Bruno Splendiani, Marina Salse
ULD Conference 2013 - 13/02/2013

2. LIS Department – University of Barcelona
(Spain)
Grup Adaptabit: Working group on digital
accessibility for teaching, research and teaching
innovation
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 2

3.  Background
 Issue
 Proposal
 Methodology
 Further work
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 3

4. Accessible teaching documents project
 Every educational institution must ensure access
to the information for all students
 Goal: Promote equal opportunities / full
integration into university academic life by the use
of accessible materials in academic community
 Provide templates for the creation of most
widespread teaching documents, and easy
procedures to create alternate versions of them.
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 4

5. Outputs
 “Guides for creating Accessible Digital Contents”
 Templates
▪ Teaching documents in academic community
(exams, exercises, tutorials, lessons and slides)
▪ Best format suited to each context (Office, PDF,
LaTex…)
▪ Adaptation to the needs of blind and low vision
students and students with dyslexia
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 5

6. Templates for the conversions to accessible
digital formats, but
Mathematical notation / formulae present
specific accessibility barriers and impose
specific requirements in conversion
Why?
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 6

7.  Most word processors process mathematical
notations/formulae through a codification
system or graphical formats procedures.
 Not suitable for assistive technology (e.g. JAWS,
Zoom Text)
 Consequences
 Barriers to blind and low-vision people
 Barriers to people with dyslexia or Attention-
Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD)
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 7

8.  Solution: MathML
 XML language for the markup of
mathematical formulae
 Renderized audio of electronic documents
 Expressions magnifiers (low-vision users)
 Limitations
▪ Mathematicians writing on text processors or in
LaTex, not in MathML
▪ MathML not fully supported by browsers
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 8

9.  Test which text editor/LaTex and browser
best creates and renders mathematical
formulae in MathML
 Obtain evidences of capability on writing
mathematical formulae
 Obtain evidences of capability and quality on
viewing and listening to mathematical formulae.
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 9

10. Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 10

11.  Testbed was designed with two main
components:
 Catalogue of a selection of 139 different
formulae (LibreOffice Math 3.3.2)
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 11

12.  Three text processors + one LaTex editor with specific
capabilities for processing mathematical notation
 Text processors
▪ MS Word 2007 (12.0.6661.5000) SP3 MSO (12.0.6662.5000)
▪ MS Word 2007
▪ MS Word 2007 with MathType 6.0 (DesignScience)
▪ LibreOffice Math 3.3.2
 Latex editor
▪ MiKTeX 2.9 TeXnicCentre 1.0
 The most used editors by faculty members of UB
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 12

13. Results of the formulae processed with the
editors were converted into MathML
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 13

14.  To view and listen on different internet
browsers the results of conversion to MathML
 Visualization
 Firefox 12.0 (Win)MathML native support
 Opera 12.02 (Win) MathML native support
 Safari 6.01 (Mac) MathML native support
 Visualization and Listening
 Internet Explorer 8 ( + MathPlayer Plug-in)
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 14

15. Two different indicators
 Visualization review  Quality of displays values
 Not acceptable display;
 acceptable display;
 best display
 Listening review  Quality of reading
(Mathplayer options : Spanish language / Reading for the blind)
 MathPlayer doesn’t read the formula;
 MathPlayer reads the formula partially;
 MathPlayer reads the formula correctly
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 15

16. MS Word empowered with MathType
best solution in terms of
 number of symbols correctly interpreted
 quality of displays for visualization
 quality of readings for listening
 Strengths
 the high quality in visualization of big operators (sum,
prod, coprod…) and resizable delimiters
 Better results even compared to LibreOffice
 Limitations
 6 mathematical expressions not rendered (out of 139)
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 16

17. LaTex
 11 mathematical expressions not rendered
(out of 139)
 By default LaTex exports formulas in a
nonstandard typography  limitation in
viewing and in Mathplayer listening
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 17

18.  IE+MathPlayer visualization of expressions
processed by MSWord 2007+MathType is
the best solution
 Firefox is the better browser without plugins
 Opera lowest performance
 Safari quite good, but bad performance with
accents
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 18

19.  Best results on IE+MathPlayer is MS Word
2007+MathType
 LaTeX MiKTeX 2.9 + TeX2ht lower
performance
19

20.  Recommendations addressed to University
professors (research based)
 Manuals for the creation on how to convert
Latex formulas and how to create formulas
with MathType
 Share results data
 Conversion from paper (Inftyreader)
Bruno Splendiani (2013) – splendiani@ub.edu 20

21. Questions
Opinions
Suggestions…
splendiani@ub.edu
21