Font Best Practices

[AliceWonder]

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.

It will not help when it is not used, but since it exists, you may be legally liable in some jurisdictions if you do not take the specified steps to identify the accessibility level of content you sell.

How would you feel if you bought a DVD that only worked in Region 5 without being labeled as such, and your Region 1 DVD player refused to play it? You would feel cheated. You paid money for something you can not use that you would not have paid had it been properly labeled so that you know you could not use it.

It is the same way with accessibility standards. If your content does not conform to specified standards and you fail to label it as such resulting in a purchase from someone who can not use it because it did not meet those standards without being labeled as such, you are potentially opening yourself up to a lawsuit.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

It will not help when it is not used, but since it exists, you may be legally liable in some jurisdictions if you do not take the specified steps to identify the accessibility level of content you sell.

How would you feel if you bought a DVD that only worked in Region 5 without being labeled as such, and your Region 1 DVD player refused to play it? You would feel cheated. You paid money for something you can not use that you would not have paid had it been properly labeled so that you know you could not use it.

It is the same way with accessibility standards. If your content does not conform to specified standards and you fail to label it as such resulting in a purchase from someone who can not use it because it did not meet those standards without being labeled as such, you are potentially opening yourself up to a lawsuit.

When I buy something on BR (I don't buy DVD), it says in the description what the region is. You meta tag won't tell me what the accessibility is and neither will the description unless you put it in the description. I've not see a listing for an eBook give the level of accessibility. So you'd have to put it in as part of the description. I'm not saying there aren't any programs that will read this meta tag. But most used programs won't display it. Do you know of any program(s) that will show the information in this meta tag?

[AliceWonder]

Meta tags in the .opf file can be used by online retailers to identify the accessibility features of the product. That is precisely why meta tags in the OPF were added. See https://www.w3.org/Submission/epub-a11y/

Also note that WCAG 2.0 is not just a W3C recommendation, it is an ISO standard and has been since 2012. See https://www.iso.org/standard/58625.html

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Meta tags in the .opf file can be used by online retailers to identify the accessibility features of the product. That is precisely why meta tags in the OPF were added. See https://www.w3.org/Submission/epub-a11y/

But again, this is not the reality of what the actual retailers (B&N, Amazon, Kobo) out there accept or support.

Reality is, retailers require you to submit the metadata separately through their submission forms.

Plus, no reading devices even support some of the more obscure metadata in the OPF (they'll probably read the big ones: Title+Author+ISBN+Year... but roles like Artist, Electrotyper, nope).

Similar situation with EPUB metadata... we wish retailers would pull ISBN and other metadata from the EPUBs themselves... nope.

Side Note: Some of this is discussed in "The Metadata is the Message" from ebookcraft 2018, but this deals with ONIX data and tools only accessible to large publishers. To the normal self-publisher, small publisher, or outsider, these things don't exist either.

* * *

Sure, there are also some pushes for "rating accessibility" in ebooks, like pushes from libraries. See some discussion in:

"The Accessibility Supply Chain" at ebookcraft 2019

You might also have government/universities pushing for some sort of Accessibility standards in EPUBs, but I just don't see it in actual retailers... it doesn't exist.

Side Note: If you want a real boring Accessibility talk about this topic:

"In the Trenches with Accessible EPUB - Charles LaPierre" at ebookcraft 2017

I believe he was from Benetech, and he was one of the creators of the ACE checker, and designing their company around accreditation and giving "Bronze/Silver/Gold" level ratings to ebooks. (I forget the details, it's been years since I watched the talk.)

Side Note on "The Standards The Standards The Standards!!!": And again, there's also things like the EPUB Indexes spec... guess how many readers out there actually support this? 0. Guess how many books actually use this? 0.

When you go cherry picking some obscure thing out of the EPUB standards, sure, it theoretically exists... but reality... nothing supports it, and nothing ever will.

[Tex2002ans]

And perfectly suited for this topic, if you don't believe what me + Hitch have been saying, have a listen to a managing editor from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt:

"Building Ebooks that Last" from ebookcraft 2019

She lists all the stats on why books get rejected (typos, formatting errors, link rot), she mentions things to avoid (Fixed Layout, dropcaps), she mentions needing to support edge cases like the Kindle 1st generation...

... and guess what, she also answers how not to get books returned: KISS!!!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

And perfectly suited for this topic, if you don't believe what me + Hitch have been saying, have a listen to a managing editor from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt:

"Building Ebooks that Last" from ebookcraft 2019

She lists all the stats on why books get rejected (typos, formatting errors, link rot), she mentions things to avoid (Fixed Layout, dropcaps), she mentions needing to support edge cases like the Kindle 1st generation...

... and guess what, she also answers how not to get books returned: KISS!!!

The video is very good and well worth watching and listening to. Thank you for this. It does point out a lot of what's been said in this thread.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Meta tags in the .opf file can be used by online retailers to identify the accessibility features of the product. That is precisely why meta tags in the OPF were added. See https://www.w3.org/Submission/epub-a11y/

Also note that WCAG 2.0 is not just a W3C recommendation, it is an ISO standard and has been since 2012. See https://www.iso.org/standard/58625.html

Retailers and manufacturers AVOID telling you what there product will (bad)/won't (limits) do UNLESS required by law. It discourages sales.

"The Surgeon General..."

How many years were Cancer sticks sold without mentioning the nasty side effect? Nope! The glamour type ads prevailed for years.

[AliceWonder]

I think you are missing the point. Several businesses have been sued over not meeting accessibility requirements, the Americans for Disabilities Act. It will happen.

But regardless - EPUB specifically allows for the abbr tag, it is part of HTML5 and epubcheck validates the content.

WCAG not only dates back to 90s, but WCAG 2 is an ISO/IEC standard.

If an ePub reader breaks because a standard compliant tag that is part of complying with a 7 year old ISO standard, the problem is that epub reader, not the use of the tag.

I know a lot of people think those with disabilities are a burden on society and don't like catering to them, but I refuse to be part of a community that makes their anti-disability bias so blatant.

So this is the last you will hear from me.

Please rethink your position.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

But regardless - EPUB specifically allows for the abbr tag, it is part of HTML5 and epubcheck validates the content.

And again, the EPUB Reading Systems reality says... don't use it.

<pre>... nope. Avoid it. Goes flying off page in many readers.

HTML5's <mark> tag. Guess what, it's not a good idea to use it. (Night mode overrides the highlight color in many readers.)

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

WCAG not only dates back to 90s, but WCAG 2 is an ISO/IEC standard.

Lots of things are ISO standards. Doesn't mean anything. The reality does not match the specs.

OOXML is "an ISO standard" too, and Microsoft constantly appends tons of proprietary garbage to it and doesn't even follow their own specs...

You could design a DOCX reader to the specs, point to the specs, light incense and pray to the specs, and guess what... Microsoft will still be off pumping out their DOCX files, and you'll get blamed when your program doesn't break the specs the same way Microsoft does so you can be cross-compatible (look at LibreOffice).

The parallel is... customers will be returning your "super duper accessible but it's in the specs EPUBs" and blaming you for creating broken books.

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

I know a lot of people think those with disabilities are a burden on society and don't like catering to them, but I refuse to be part of a community that makes their anti-disability bias so blatant.

Nobody said this.

Many on MobileRead design ebooks with Accessibility in mind. If anything, we're telling you how to make the books more accessible and actually work for 99% of the readers. (And take a look at the MobileRead library, so many of those ebooks beat the pants off the big publishers.)

When your soft hyphens break their auto-translation and English->French Dictionaries

... when they can't reliably search

... when there's missing character squares every fifth character

... when the WOFF2 EPUB refuses to open on their ereader

... when the text has completely disappeared words in it

... when 50% of the <pre> code blocks can't even fit on the screen

... when it's only readable on the latest and greatest thousand dollar Apple device.

Yep... really Accessible!

[AliceWonder]

I NEVER EFFING SAID TO USE SOFT HYPHENS.

I SPECIFICALLY SAID I DO NOT LIKE THEM.

I SPECIFICALLY SAID THEY VIOLATE THE CONCEPT OF KEEPING LAYOUT AND DESIGN SEPARATE AND I SAID IT SEVERAL EFFING TIMES.

ARE YOU JUST A TROLL LOOKING TO ANGER ME? IT'S WORKING.

THE ISSUE WITH SOFT HYPHENS WAS NEVER THAT I WANTED TO USE THEM.

THE ISSUE IS THAT WHEN READERS DO NOT INCLUDE WHAT HAS BEEN A STANDARD GLYPH SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE INTERNET, HOW CAN I EXPECT THEY WILL INCLUDE OTHER STANDARD GLYPHS LIKE 1/3 AND 2/3 THAT ARE PART OF WGLS4?

WILL THEY HAVE THE U+1F310 GLYPH THAT IS FREQUENTLY USED TO INDICATE A LINK IS TO AN EXTERNAL SITE ON SYSTEMS (LIKE EPUB READERS) WHERE TITLE ATTRIBUTE DOESN'T RESULT IN A TOOL TIP FROM A MOUSE OVER?

I DOUBT IT.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS FIXATION IS ON NOT EMBEDDING A FONT WHEN USERS CAN TURN OFF PUBLISHER FONTS IF THEY DO NOT LIKE THEM.

AND THE ISSUE WITH THE ABBR TAG IS THAT A USER WHO NEEDS THAT ACCESSIBILITY ISN'T GOING TO BE USING PIECE OF SHIT READER THAT DOESN'T SUPPORT IT, THEY WILL BE USING A READER THAT DOES SUPPORT IT - SUCH AS A WEB BROWSER.

BUT YOU WANT TO DENY THEM THE ACCESSIBILITY FEATURES THEY NEED BECAUSE YOU WANT AN EPUB TO WORK IN A PIECE OF SHIT READER THAT IS TOO STUPID TO JUST IGNORE A TAG IT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.

YOU WANT TO REDUCE ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF CRAPWARE.

HOW THE HELL DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT?

I really am out of here.

Yes, I'm having a meltdown (yes I'm autistic - meltdowns happen when people are completely irrational in their arguments)

I don't like to have meltdowns but I guarantee they will happen again here because certain users are upset that I did not instantly bow at their feet and worship them like gods.

[AliceWonder]

Oh and for those reading - it's easy to use a div and style it like a pre that wraps and it works on every epub reader I've tried. Even the crap ones.

Basic CSS.

[Turtle91]

Hey Alice.... try not to use autism as an excuse. Your "meltdown" is not necessarily caused by other's lack of logic, but by your own lack of ability to understand someone else's point of view - especially when it conflicts with yours. And yes, I have raised two autistic children, three with ADHD, one bi-polar, one with severe dyslexia and dysgraphia, and two with hearing challenges....

Take a deep breath.

- Everyone agrees that current readers/apps do not meet the spec. It is the subject of much complaining around here - regularly.

- Everyone also agrees that it would be wonderful for everyone to follow the spec - the way they interpret it.

- Your argument is correct that people with disabilities are probably going to be using a device/app that addresses their accessibility needs.... the issue with your argument is that for the people who DON'T have accessibility needs - that DON'T have the newer/better/more compliant reader/app - THEY will have the issues mentioned above.

- You are more than welcome to develop two versions of your book... one that is 100% accessible, label it as such, and sell it on the appropriate venue... the other that will work for everyone else. OR... you can take the well-intentioned advice being given here on how to bypass all these issues. THEN - you can use all your profit and launch a crusade for ebook spec compliance.

[DiapDealer]

Moderator Notice
We don't allow angry, screaming meltdowns on Mobileread--whatever the reason. Keep your disagreements civil or you may find your ability to take part in forum conversations quite limited. Please familiarize yourself with our posting guidelines.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

I NEVER EFFING SAID TO USE SOFT HYPHENS.

I SPECIFICALLY SAID I DO NOT LIKE THEM.

I SPECIFICALLY SAID THEY VIOLATE THE CONCEPT OF KEEPING LAYOUT AND DESIGN SEPARATE AND I SAID IT SEVERAL EFFING TIMES.

ARE YOU JUST A TROLL LOOKING TO ANGER ME? IT'S WORKING.

THE ISSUE WITH SOFT HYPHENS WAS NEVER THAT I WANTED TO USE THEM.

THE ISSUE IS THAT WHEN READERS DO NOT INCLUDE WHAT HAS BEEN A STANDARD GLYPH SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE INTERNET, HOW CAN I EXPECT THEY WILL INCLUDE OTHER STANDARD GLYPHS LIKE 1/3 AND 2/3 THAT ARE PART OF WGLS4?

WILL THEY HAVE THE U+1F310 GLYPH THAT IS FREQUENTLY USED TO INDICATE A LINK IS TO AN EXTERNAL SITE ON SYSTEMS (LIKE EPUB READERS) WHERE TITLE ATTRIBUTE DOESN'T RESULT IN A TOOL TIP FROM A MOUSE OVER?

I DOUBT IT.

I have seen cases where the soft-hyphen displayed every time. It was not a case of not having the character. It was a case of the software not handling soft hyphens correctly.

I've just tested n ePub with soft-hphens with ADE 2.0.1. The text looked OK, but I cannot search for words with a soft hyphen.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS FIXATION IS ON NOT EMBEDDING A FONT WHEN USERS CAN TURN OFF PUBLISHER FONTS IF THEY DO NOT LIKE THEM.

Not every program can override an embedded font. There are a lot of older Readers out there. Some do not support fonts. Some will not override an embedded font. So if your font does not work (i.e., maybe too light on eInk), the user is stuck with it.

AND THE ISSUE WITH THE ABBR TAG IS THAT A USER WHO NEEDS THAT ACCESSIBILITY ISN'T GOING TO BE USING PIECE OF SHIT READER THAT DOESN'T SUPPORT IT, THEY WILL BE USING A READER THAT DOES SUPPORT IT - SUCH AS A WEB BROWSER.

<abbr> does work in the Calibre viewer. It does not work in ADE 2.0.1. But it does not cause a problem with the display. So in most cases, I would think it would either work or not work with no display issues.

BUT YOU WANT TO DENY THEM THE ACCESSIBILITY FEATURES THEY NEED BECAUSE YOU WANT AN EPUB TO WORK IN A PIECE OF SHIT READER THAT IS TOO STUPID TO JUST IGNORE A TAG IT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND.

YOU WANT TO REDUCE ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF CRAPWARE.

HOW THE HELL DO YOU JUSTIFY THAT?

We are not trying to deny anyone accessibility features. The problem is, if you put in features what most software won't handle, then that can make it worse. What you need to have is a collection of Readers with different software and older software versions for testing (aka ADE 2.0.1). Then you can see what the accessibility code will or will not do on a variety of devices/software.