Font Best Practices

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I don't see an issue using SVG.

There's many devices out there that don't support properly displaying SVG (see Android readers). You also have font/background color bugs (remember back in 2014 when we talked about SVG Tables?).

Also, when you have SVG with a bitmap fallback, many readers wrongly display both images instead.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Instead of using MathML, use a program that will convert MathML to SVG and use the SVG.

Hence why I linked to my tutorial. Using LaTeX equations as the source, then generating both SVG + bitmaps + MathML from there.

(And yes, similar could be done with MathML or LibreOffice Math as a source.)

But it would be a extremely bad idea to try to sell a MathML-only EPUB3, and then tell them "it's the standards" and they can only read on program X. (Only case you might be able to get away with that is selling an iBooks-specific EPUB, since they severely lock their ecosystem down and include MathJax in iBooks.)

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Just today I came across a reader that treats the "abbr" tag as if it had display set to none (the reader is KyBook 2) - should I not use the standard tag for noting a word is an abbreviation because it causes display issues in that reader [...]

Exactly, now you're getting it.

Kindles don't support it either, so it's best to avoid <abbr>.

If they were important, you would have to replicate that one using normal <span>. If not, you would have to strip them.

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

let people who use that reader know their reader is broken?

You could let them know it's busted, and hope they go to a more compliant reader... as many users always stress whenever someone comes here with "yet-another-Android-Reader-X-problems".

But it's on you, as the ebook creator, to work around known bugs. Can't just shrug your shoulders.

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

I assume that the Latin-1/Latin-9/Windows 1252 glyphs *mostly* work, with the exception of soft-hyphen which is in all three of those encoding but seems to not be in the fonts some readers include.

Probably a good assumption.

Devices that were focused on "American" audiences like the Nook didn't have good character support.

Kindles + Kobos have quite good fallback fonts.

Android readers are more likely going to have much more expansive font support as well.

(And forget about the soft hyphen, it's abysmal.)

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Here's another thing to consider - say I have high confidence every glyph is supported in 99.99% of the market share. I then don't have to embed.

But the next publication in the series uses a glyph or two that isn't. [...]

If it's only a very small handful of characters, it probably wouldn't matter if the reader sees 1 or 2 blank squares.

For example, I've worked on books where a single person's/article's name uses: Turkish dotted İ or the dotless ı, or a Czech name with the ž.

In that case, I wouldn't waste time embedding a font.

Now, if you're working on a fully Turkish or Czech book, that might be a different story.

Or I've also discussed Polytonic Greek. If the book has quite a few Greek phrases in there, then that's when I embed a font (and mark everything with proper lang + xml:lang):

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...47#post3866247

Many devices have support for the basic Greek letters, but not the accented ones.

If you start getting into:

• Unicode 6+ (2010)
  • Versions beyond when the devices were even created.
• Wingdings/Webdings
  • Like the ones I posted here 🙦 🢨 ➫
• Emojis
• Complex Maths
• Rarer spaces
  • See Post #12 and citations in "break/no-break and other spaces".
• Rarer punctuation
  • Like the Interrobang ‽
• Rarer symbols
  • Like the Chi Rho ☧ (I once read a King Arthur book with that in it).
• Asian languages
• More eastern european characters/alphabets

then you'll probably want to start embedding fonts for that.

[JSWolf]

@Tex2002ans, what is your opinion on using ADE 2.0.1 to test an ePub?

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

@Tex2002ans, what is your opinion on using ADE 2.0.1 to test an ePub?

I've said it multiple times throughout (I think even multiple times in this thread!).

I agree with you. It's a decent approximation for RMSDK on many of those older devices (like my Nook).

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

I've said it multiple times throughout (I think even multiple times in this thread!).

I agree with you. It's a decent approximation for RMSDK on many of those older devices (like my Nook).

Ditto.

Hitch

[DNSB]

Just to toss in my 2¢'s worth. For ebooks I'm editing for my own use, I will use whatever I know works on my collections of applications and ereaders. When I am helping someone else, I very deliberately make KISS the mantra to make it easier to have the ebook look decent on as many platforms as possible. And please note that is not look the best since the last time I went that route, we ended up with 5 versions of the final product and I started a hate affair with media queries of any flavour.

[AliceWonder]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

Exactly, now you're getting it.

Kindles don't support it either, so it's best to avoid <abbr>.

No, abbr should not be avoided. People who use screen readers benefit from it greatly, even when no title attribute is used (in fact the title attribute can be over-used)

What the effing point of standards if we are just going to make up our own based upon what some crappy software happens to support?

The web sucks *especially for non visual users* because almost no one follows standards. Is that what you want with ePub?

[AliceWonder]

https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#tech-expand-abbr

W3C #a11y specifies that abbreviations have an expansion of the abbreviation where they first occur, and that *requires* the abbr tag.

In addition to screen readers, there are issues of cognitive disabilities. Some people have trouble remembering what abbreviations stand for, even common abbreviations. It doesn't help that social media is full of people giving incorrect expansions of abbreviations.

The abbr is a very important tag. Visually it may not make a difference, but semantically it is of tremendous help to assistive technology.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

No, abbr should not be avoided. People who use screen readers benefit from it greatly, even when no title attribute is used (in fact the title attribute can be over-used)

What the effing point of standards if we are just going to make up our own based upon what some crappy software happens to support?

The web sucks *especially for non visual users* because almost no one follows standards. Is that what you want with ePub?

It's not a matter of what we want. It would be good to have all ePub software be able to handle the latest ePub specifications to the fullest of the hardware in use. It's a matter of what is. The software just isn't there to do it how you want. The problem is that ePub wasn't done correctly in the first place and getting old software updated is not happening the way it should. Adobe made a huge blunder with DRM and because of that, a lot of people are sticking with ADE 2.0.1 on their computers. That's why I still have ADE 2.0.1 on my computers.

You have two choices. You go with what works or you go with what you think should work (that won't work in most cases).

A lot of Android reading software is quite poor. Some iOS reading software is quite poor. A lot of software doesn't handle advanced ePub 3 features. Accessibility is one of the things not well supported. I have no software that supports ePub 3 accessibility features. The most compatible ePub 3 software I have is the Access renderer that's installed on my Kobo Aura H2O. But the H2O doesn't have sound. So that's out. I've never tried video, but without sound, why bother? I don't know what else does or doesn't work. But people that have older devices like Sony Readers or an older nook will not have software for ePub 3 comparability.

There is even an issue trying to create an eBook or iBooks. Apple doesn't update it individually. It gets updated when there is a new iOS. So there are a lot of iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches out there with an older version of iBooks going back to iOS 8 or 9 (and maybe even earlier).

This is a losing battle that you are going to lose. So i suggest you listen to us as we know this stuff.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#tech-expand-abbr

W3C #a11y specifies that abbreviations have an expansion of the abbreviation where they first occur, and that *requires* the abbr tag.

In addition to screen readers, there are issues of cognitive disabilities. Some people have trouble remembering what abbreviations stand for, even common abbreviations. It doesn't help that social media is full of people giving incorrect expansions of abbreviations.

The abbr is a very important tag. Visually it may not make a difference, but semantically it is of tremendous help to assistive technology.

Support just isn't there in most programs that display ePub. That's the problem.

[AliceWonder]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Support just isn't there in most programs that display ePub. That's the problem.

Those who need assistive technology will use readers that have the support they need, even if that technology is a web browser add-on (I know one exists for FireFox).

To not use the specified tags that assistive technology needs to do its job because some poorly coded readers don't display the contents of an abbr tag is just plain wrong. Those readers should be fixed or abandoned.

[AliceWonder]

If you don't use the abbr tag with abbreviations - then according to ePub accessibility guidelines you are suppose to put that lack of standard accessibility technology into a meta tag in your .opf file so that those who need it can know to avoid your book.

I hope those who don't use abbr tag with abbreviations do that.

Basically you should aim for either WCAG 2.0 (or 2.1) AA or AAA conformance and if you don't have AA conformance, you need to identify what accessibility features your ePub is missing. There's a meta tag for doing just that.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

If you don't use the abbr tag with abbreviations - then according to ePub accessibility guidelines you are suppose to put that lack of standard accessibility technology into a meta tag in your .opf file so that those who need it can know to avoid your book.

I hope those who don't use abbr tag with abbreviations do that.

Basically you should aim for either WCAG 2.0 (or 2.1) AA or AAA conformance and if you don't have AA conformance, you need to identify what accessibility features your ePub is missing. There's a meta tag for doing just that.

That meta tag won't help anyone. Most people don't look at the code for an eBook. That meta tag won't help when someone is buying your eBook. You have to give up trying to do things with what the current standards say and go with what actually works.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That meta tag won't help anyone. Most people don't look at the code for an eBook. That meta tag won't help when someone is buying your eBook. You have to give up trying to do things with what the current standards say and go with what actually works.

People--is there some reason we're still discussing this? WHY? I realize that here in the ePUB forum, we can all get a bit bored, but...sheesh.

She's going to do what she's going to do, that's obvious. If she ends up spending half her time dealing with annoyed magazine buyers--it's not our problem and it's certainly not our fault. Why are we sitting here, on a thread ironically named "font best practices" when she clearly couldn't give a rat's ass about the, what, twenty-thousand-plus books' worth of experiences from this group, instead arguing, repeatedly, with all of us about why what she wants, what she thinks SHOULD BE the case, is what's "best?"

She thinks that "font best practices" means "what I think the world ought to be," while we all think it's "what is." Why on EARTH are we still even in this thread? God knows, I have better things to do.

Having invested at least half of my life in providing unpaid tech support for my customers over the last decade, I know all too well what it means to have users that buy something or want something and how they ALL, repeat, ALL, expect it to a) be instantly immediately intuitive to use and b) work, period. If her magazine sells and she sticks with things like abbr, using Calibre to test ePUBs instead of ADE, etc., she too will find out the joy of unpaid tech support.

I know that Jon will keep arguing, 'cuz, Jon. But for the rest of us, why are we wasting our breath?

/done here.

Hitch

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Hitch

People--is there some reason we're still discussing this? WHY? I realize that here in the ePUB forum, we can all get a bit bored, but...sheesh.

She's going to do what she's going to do, that's obvious. If she ends up spending half her time dealing with annoyed magazine buyers--it's not our problem and it's certainly not our fault. Why are we sitting here, on a thread ironically named "font best practices" when she clearly couldn't give a rat's ass about the, what, twenty-thousand-plus books' worth of experiences from this group, instead arguing, repeatedly, with all of us about why what she wants, what she thinks SHOULD BE the case, is what's "best?"

She thinks that "font best practices" means "what I think the world ought to be," while we all think it's "what is." Why on EARTH are we still even in this thread? God knows, I have better things to do.

Having invested at least half of my life in providing unpaid tech support for my customers over the last decade, I know all too well what it means to have users that buy something or want something and how they ALL, repeat, ALL, expect it to a) be instantly immediately intuitive to use and b) work, period. If her magazine sells and she sticks with things like abbr, using Calibre to test ePUBs instead of ADE, etc., she too will find out the joy of unpaid tech support.

I know that Jon will keep arguing, 'cuz, Jon. But for the rest of us, why are we wasting our breath?

/done here.

Hitch

I'm still arguing because I can put my thoughts out there for others to read. But I doubt that what I'm saying will make any difference. The fact that I think there's not one program that fully supports the current iteration of ePub 3 and even if iBooks did so, there are so many older version out there that can never be updated, that iBooks is not even a good use case.

But anyway, we'll see what happens next in this thread.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

The web sucks *especially for non visual users* because almost no one follows standards. Is that what you want with ePub?

That's the reality, so you learn to work within the bounds of the tech that's out there.

EPUB (and ebooks) =/= Web =/= Latest/Greatest Web Standards.

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

No, abbr should not be avoided.

[...]

https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#tech-expand-abbr

W3C #a11y specifies that abbreviations have an expansion of the abbreviation where they first occur, and that *requires* the abbr tag.

Again, there's probably nobody on MobileRead who's written more about Accessibility than I have.

I would recommend using WCAG 2.1 (much nicer site design too):

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickr...iew#principle1

And you can see, there are different "Levels" of recommendations (from A, AA, to AAA).

Many things are "nice to have" and goals to aim for (as the technology permits).

Higher-level important aims (Level A) would be things such as:

• Headings <h1-h6>
• alt text
• color/contrast
• <table>s instead of images of tables
• [...]

Others are very minor (Level AAA), such as abbreviations.

* * *

Another solution to <abbr> itself, if you work directly with authors on books (as you are with the magazine), you can tweak the input and have it built directly into the text:

As the DOJ says...

As the DOJ (Department of Justice) says...

This solution:

• Doesn't rely on mouse-hover
  
  • Remember, many ereaders are also not even touch-devices.
• Works for people who can see/can't see
• Is supported by all Text-to-Speech (even crappier Android readers)
• Is completely readable by everyone
• Works in Print, Ebook, Web, Word/LibreOffice/Notepad, [...]
• [...]

* * *

In the EPUB space itself, there's also KevinH's Access-Aide plugin:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=294900

It can also doublecheck and make sure you have <title> filled (even auto-fill it from the first heading), have alt text, have lang+xml:lang, etc. etc.

And DAISY released ACE (Accessibility Checker). There's a Sigil plugin here:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=294678

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

People who use screen readers benefit from it greatly, even when no title attribute is used (in fact the title attribute can be over-used)

Indeed.

I've written about <title> extensively here as well:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=294678

and even something as basic as alt support in EPUB readers is shaky. See the post here:

Accessibility question: TTS and ligatures

But, the key thing is... adding human-readable <title> and alt can only HELP, they won't completely break (as in the case of <abbr>).

Side Note: And I wanted to preemptively tackle this, since we're in the "Font Best Practices" thread. Similar to Vulgar Fractions, don't use the legacy Unicode ligature characters (ff, fi, st, [...])—rely on OpenType support instead (see link above).

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

What the effing point of standards if we are just going to make up our own based upon what some crappy software happens to support?

It's always good to aim for more Accessibility, but again, you have to remember the drawbacks and limitations of the actual tools/readers/technologies out there.

Side Note: Since you're also interested in Accessibility, I would recommend watching many of the talks from Ebookcraft over the years:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv6...Pv9H9-A/videos

And even looks like the ebookcraft 2019 talk "The User's Perspective: Accessibility Features in Action" was given by a blind person.

(Somehow, this year's conference slipped by me, I guess I have a lot more speeches to watch/summarize!)