Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> writes: > Sadly, org isn't great from an accessibility perspective. This is > something I would like to see improved, but it is a huge and complex > task. There are some 'easy' winds we could try. For example, org still > defaults to using the <b></b> and <i></i> tags instead of > <strong></strong> and <em></em>. Likewise, we should move to html5 as > the default, not xhtml, but last time I raised that, there was > considerable push back to stick with xhtml. We also need complete > overhaul of the use of aria tags and numerous other areas. As I said, a > very large job which is complex and extremely time consuming.
I will not argue about html5 switch - I don't have enough knowledge to weigh on this. However, can't we at least address accessibility issues with the existing HTML export? A good starting point could be identifying what can be improved in ox-html.el. > Sadly, I'm not sure there is a lot we can do with accessibility and PDFs > in org mode. This is the one area where TeX/LaTeX does a poor job. Last > time I looked, there was considerable discussion about what to do from > an accessibility standpoint in the TeX community, but seemed to be > little or very slow progress (not a criticism of the efforts of members > of that community, but rather a reflection of how complicated this stuff > is). >From Org perspective, we can do what is available in the exported format. If LaTeX is not great from accessibility point of view, is there a better format? Or are there things we can do to improve situation in ox-latex.el? What about other export backends? Best, Ihor
