On 2/20/2020 4:42 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 1:28 PM sukil wrote: > >> >> El 19/02/2020 a las 22:40, Cuddle Beam via agora-business escribiΓ³: >>> I don't find this overly obscure, because it's fairly easily readable. >>> >>> This is normal English, but in a cool font. It says "Judicial Jocularity >>> Act". >>> >>> "Judicial Jocularity Act" and "π₯ππΉπΎπΈπΎπΆπ π₯ππΈπππΆππΎππ >> ππΈπ" >>> are the same thing but written in different fonts, and the font used is >> not >>> relevant for differences between titles (as long as it is reasonably >>> understandable). >>> >>> I judge TRUE >>> >> >> >> Remark: For screen reader speech users (like me) it may be rendered as: >> fine (but maybe each character prefixed with "math symbol", and / or >> spelled out), assuming the screen reader or the synthesizer recognizes >> the symbols in question, or the user has configured the reader >> accordingly by adding the symbols manually; as nothing at all; or as a >> collection of Unicode Hex values preceded by "symbol" each time. I >> experience the three cases depending on which screen reader and >> synthesizer combination I choose. Braille users are probably out of luck >> here, as they'll probably onlhy see the Unicode hex values (will test >> later if you are interested). I wonder why these symbols aren't made >> equivalent with the latin letters in screen readers, braille tables and >> synthesizers. Oh well. > > I was thinking about that but I think it fits the scope of "reasonably > understandable". > > You can only read normal boringtext with a device that let you read it. > That's a condition. You can only read the fancytext if you have the right > device for it too, that's another condition. > > That latter condition is not too difficult or inaccessible for play (which > would have rendered it dead by CFJ 3530), especially when considering the > multiple precedents where special symbols were explicit/implied to be fine. > > The conditions for it to be understandable are on the bar of... > "reasonable". > > It feels like quite a bit of a subjective call to determine that it's > reasonable or not but I guess that's what the Judge is for at times. Definitely a perspective to keep in mind - just like google translate has made foreign-language play occasionally possible (as it is no longer beyond a reasonable effort to figure out a simple translations, as it was 10-15 years ago), odd fonts have become easier to work around these days for the "typical" Agoran reader. But looks like there's still plenty of gaps depending on what tools you're using.
As recently as 2018, I was using a variant of text-only Pine for Agora - which was how a large percentage of players were playing circa 2001 (I just never bothered to migrate until I was forced last year). Much of the Unicode (at least until some very recent patches) would show up as ?????? and be unreadable. It caused difficulties for me while 倩η«η (Tenhigitsune) was playing I just kinda assumed what the ?????? meant from context. Just as another example, back in 2001, Γrjan's name would be transliterated to either Oerjan or Orjan and in fact I'm looking at an 2001 email that uses all three simultaneously (in the email address, the email alias, and the signature): On 8/8/2001 8:28 AM, Orjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > > [gameplay stuff] > > Greetings, > Γrjan. I imagine past Agorans whose native languages had non-English characters and older text clients have had to come up with various workarounds (and the characters were mostly limited to names, for which context can fill in nicely). But it's definitely an important reminder for accessibility to keep the nonstandard characters limited to proper names and occasional test cases! -G.
