Not disruptive in the slightest. How important you think they are depends on the person reading the book, but I'd recommend keeping them in, because they help with pronunciations in the event that you should have to read the book aloud. it's especially useful in DAISY rather than Braille, because in most cases, the Braille translators used to open the BRF files interpret any marks as acute or grave accent signs, even if they aren't, and in rare cases render the book unreadable, whereas if you read the XML that comes with the DAISY files, the signs will read as they are supposed to. In one extreme instance, in Jaroslav Hašek's The Good Soldier Švejk and his fortunes in the world war, every time the special S character that you see in Svejk or Hasek appears in the book, which is very, very often in this novel (I don't know if it looks different to the sighted reader, but a screenreader reads it with an "sh" sound, something which also appears at the end of the name of Danilo Kiš), in the Braille copy it would show up as many garbled characters, but when I switched to the DAISY and read the XML file, it was fine.
Tl;dr version: keep them. They don't get in the way and can be helpful. On 09-Nov-12 20:11, Cindy Rosenthal wrote:
How important, or, conversely, disruptive to reading by non-sighted members is the use of diacritical marks like acute, grave, or umlauts (sp.?) in foreign words and names?If the scanner did not put them in must the proofer?
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
