PDF (Portable Document Format) has arguably become the de facto + standard in academic publishing. There are many reasons one could + imagine that this became the case.
+PDF documents "look" nice. Electronically-typeset PDFs usually have + nice vectorized fonts that scale with infinite resolution.
+Furthermore, PDFs typeset with LaTeX appear professional + right out of the box because of careful stylistic choices, like using + Computer Modern Roman as the default font rather than Times New Roman, + a surefire way to spot a document made with Microsoft Word.
+Though costly PDF authoring software certainly exists, LaTeX + submissions are accepted by many academic journals. The LaTeX + software is free and open source, with a long history of producing + high-quality documents for publishing.
+PDFs are standalone, meaning you can download one file, save it locally, + and open it later in any PDF reader you like. You don't have to browse + back to the journal's archive to read the paper, which adds to the + convenience of the PDF format.
+Considering each of these points in turn, however, may show you why PDF + is not necessarily the perfect choice for academic publishing.
+PDF documents do look nice, but they are not the only vehicle for + aesthetically-pleasing content. Vectorized fonts are readily available + outside the PDF standard. Changing to another document format does not + mean the documents have to be rasterized or lose their visual appeal.
+Academics, myself included, can usually spot a document typeset with + LaTeX from a mile away. We see them every day on preprint servers and + journal archives, to the point that information conveyed in LaTeX source + or PDF just seems more trustworthy now. Don't believe me? + It's literally the subject of an xkcd comic.
+LaTeX is a common tool for typesetting publication-quality documents that + many researchers use frequently. It is not the only authoring tool freely + available, though, just the current standard.
+Though standalone digital files, PDFs are inherently linked to the idea + of print media. When you download a journal article as a PDF, the document + you receive is divided into pages already, complete with headers, footers, + and page numbers, which are arguably unnecessary in an age when most + academics read the paper in its digital form. When did you last print + out an article on actual, physical paper?
+<code>
+def the_song_that_never_ends():
+ print('Yes: It goes on and on, my friends!')
+ the_song_that_never_ends()
+</code>The <code> block does not
+ take care of syntax highlighting for you; it just indicates that
+ the contents are code. You can use a library like
+ highlight.js to lex and
+ highlight many programming languages.
You might also nest the <code>
+ block inside a <pre> block,
+ a section of preformatted text. A default styling for both
+ <code> and
+ <pre> might be monospaced
+ font, but this can also be customized with styling.
Have you heard about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, commonly known as H\textsubscript{2}O? It is the 1\textsuperscript{st} most abundant molecule in the human body!Have you heard about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, commonly known as H<sub>2</sub>O? It is the 1<sup>st</sup> most abundant molecule in the human body!HTML5 changed the definitions of <b>,
+ <i>, <s>,
+ and <u> from the previous standard.
+ Before, those elements were only given a visual definition, so
+ <b> indicated bold text but did not
+ convey any particular intent. These elements now represent text that would
+ conventionally be typeset with each font variant. <em>
+ and <strong> still carry more
+ unambiguous intent, which allows styling to be specified independently.
| + | LaTeX | +HTML | +
|---|---|---|
| Emphasis | +
+Text enclosed in |
+
+Text between |
+
| Strong importance | +
+ LaTeX does not seem to have a standard way of typesetting strong + importance. If you roll your own macro, you might use bold or + bold-italic font, but that choice can easily vary from user to + user or even document to document. + |
+
+Text between |
+
| Boldface | +
+Text enclosed in |
+
+Text between |
+
| Italics | +
+Text enclosed in |
+
+Text between |
+
| Underline | +
+Text enclosed in |
+
+Text between |
+
| Strikethrough | +
+ LaTeX does not have a standard command for strikethrough text, though + additional packages may add that capability. + |
+
+Text between |
This is a more data-driven look at the current state of accessibility + in science publishing that makes several recommendations for how we + can improve things going forward, starting today.
+The forum took place on April 17, 2023. Even if you weren't there, + recordings of the speakers with ASL translation, presentations, and + discussion boards are all available on the arXiv site. +
The U.S. government has a website dedicated to best practices for accessible + content, geared towards teaching government employees who design federal + websites how to ensure that their content is accessible and inclusive.
+These best practices for typography are of particular interest in + publishing. They give advice about font sizes, line height, and typefaces + best suited for accessible digital content.
+While WCAG 3.0 is still in the draft stage, you can consult the current + version for basic guidance.
+This is a practical primer on what should and should not appear in + alt-text. There are also links showing how to add alt-text in MS Office + software. +
+This resource is particularly helpful for constructing alt-text with + an informative syntax. Alex gives additional advice on describing + race and gender in an inclusive and respectful way.
+This resource in particular calls attention to the different "modes" of + writing that might be used to describe the same image. Your goal might be + to draw focus to a particular aspect of the image or to describe the entire + thing, and your image description should reflect that goal.
+