Asmus Freytag wrote,
> ...What this teaches you is that italicizing (or boldfacing)
> text is fundamentally related to picking out parts of your
> text in a different font.
Typically from the same typeface, though.
> So those screen readers got it right, except that they could
> have used one of the more typical notational conventions that
> the mathalphabetics are used to express (e.g. "vector" etc.),
> rather than rattling off the Unicode name.
WRT text-to-voice applications, such as "VoiceOver", I wonder how well
they would do when encountering /any/ exotic text runs or characters.
Like Yi, or Vai, or even an isolated CJK ideograph in otherwise Latin
text. For example: "The Han radical # 72, which looks like '日', means
'sun'." Would the application "say" the character as a Japanese reader
would expect to hear it? Or in one of the Chinese dialects? Or would
the application just give the hex code point?
In an era where most of the states in my country no longer teach cursive
writing in public schools, it seems unlikely that Twitter users (and so
forth) will be clamoring for the ability to implement Chicago Style text
properly on their cell phone screens. (Many users would probably prefer
to use the cell phone to order a Chicago style pizza.) But, stranger
things have happened.
