by Kim Charlson
(Editor’s note: Kim Charlson serves on the board of the Braille Authority of North America (BANA) as the representative of the American Council of the Blind.)
With braille literacy rates in the United States still lower than advocates and educators would like, with expanded opportunities through the use of technology for quick and efficient braille translation and embossing of ink print materials constantly improving, why isn’t braille more readily available and why aren’t more people who are blind using braille?
These questions, among many others, are currently under consideration and examination by experts in the braille field in many English-speaking countries around the world. My goal in this article is to provide readers with basic background information on the concept of a Unified English Braille Code, what it proposes and what it attempts to accomplish, and where the process is with respect to a timeline for its possible acceptance or adoption. For ease in reading, UEBC, in this article, refers to Unified English Braille Code, also known in the past as the Unified Braille Code (UBC).
What is UEBC anyway?
Many people who use braille in their daily lives have asked this question and wondered if a UEBC would mean yet another braille code to learn, adding to the already existing codes authorized by BANA. The purpose of the UEBC is to develop one code for literary braille, math and science notation, computer code and formatting rules for all of the English-speaking countries in the world.
With the exception of the Braille Music Code, which has already been adopted as an international code, the four primary BANA codes mentioned above were developed independently of each other, are somewhat complex, often ambiguous, and can be highly context dependent. For instance, there are different signs within the literary, mathematics, and computer codes for the one ink print symbol for a dollar sign. Thus, new braille readers, teachers of blind or visually impaired children and adults, and transcribers must learn and re-familiarize themselves with these types of symbols and their given context.
Moreover, if someone wishes to study mathematics at Oxford in England and at Harvard in the U.S., they must master two different math codes authorized by the Braille Authority of the United Kingdom (BAUK) and BANA respectively. Given these complexities, the certification process for transcribers, and the length of time necessary for learning the codes, it’s no surprise that some professionals in the field of braille have endorsed the need for a unified and restructured code.
Another fundamental principle of the UEBC is that it would resemble ink print, where most given symbols would have a specific identity regardless of subject matter or surrounding text. For example, the number sign in braille (dots 3, 4, 5, and 6) would only represent a number sign, and the contraction for “ble” (also dots 3, 4, 5, and 6) would no longer exist.
How did the concept of a UEBC come about?
The concept of UEBC was brought to the board of BANA initially by two braille readers, Dr. Abraham Nemeth and Dr. Tim Cranmer in 1991. BANA accepted the principle of UEBC as one of its major projects in 1992, but then voted unanimously in 1993 to allow it to become a project of the International Council on English Braille (ICEB).
During the same time period, ICEB had started initial work on unifying the English literary braille codes for BANA (Canada and the United States) and BAUK (which includes England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales). It would have made little sense at that time for ICEB to continue to try to unify the English braille code without international cooperation. Likewise, for BANA to change English Braille American Edition (the base code for U.S. and Canadian braille) without input from ICEB and the international braille community would have destroyed those international efforts to unify the code.
In order for BANA to relinquish its supervision over the UEBC research project, which was already under way, ICEB agreed to keep all the members of BANA as active participants in the development of the UEBC. Although the United States and Canada only have one vote each on issues, every member organization of BANA participates in all aspects of the code’s development and deliberation.
The UEBC project is committed to the requirement, first stated by BANA and subsequently affirmed by ICEB that this project must be based on English Literary Braille. The charge to the Project Committee stipulated that English Braille American Edition could be expanded to include some symbols required to transcribe technical materials so long as the literary braille code, as we all know it, was not fundamentally compromised in any significant way. Thus, the UEBC must retain the “look and feel” of literary braille. Since three of the seven ICEB countries (Canada, New Zealand and the U.S.) already used English Braille American Edition as their base code, and since that code is used by more transcribers than any other code in the world, it was a logical choice and direction for a UEBC to move.
A call for a unified code is not new to modern times. Helen Keller’s plea in 1932 was “to choose one among the many competing codes.” Fortunately, the adoption of English Braille American Edition, our North American standard for braille, resulted from her outcry. However, hers was not the first call for a uniform and universal code. One of the earliest calls for a universal code came from Charles W. Holmes, founder of the Matilda Ziegler Magazine for the Blind, who lamented in 1905 that “there were five distinct codes for transcribing ink print materials into a tactual code that could be read by the blind, and what was needed was an international universal code of embossed type for all English-speaking countries.”
Much of the struggle that followed Holmes’ remark, known as “the war of the dots,” was quite divisive within the blindness community. Eventually, a literary code in the United States was adopted, but not one code for all subject matters in all countries in the English-speaking world.
Subsequently, BANA launched the Unified English Braille Code project with the same goal, but with a significant difference. Unifying a literary code at the beginning of the century would have been a simpler task for that time. But now, the UEBC effort is attempting to unite four codes — to take a system of complex mathematics and scientific notation, a computer braille code (that didn’t even exist in 1905) and braille format guidelines as well, and bring them all together under one code.
What decisions have been made thus far regarding UEBC?
Literary braille is proposed as the foundation for the base code. For every print symbol there would be only one braille equivalent. For instance, there would be only one comma, regardless of context, one period rather than the current three braille representations of a period, decimal point or ellipses, just as examples. Sequencing, or the elimination of spaces between words such as “and,” “for,” “of,” “the,” and “with” would no longer be allowed in UEBC. In other words, spaces would be inserted in braille if they exist in print.
Many print symbols that had no representation in a literary context, such as plus, times, and equals have been assigned a braille symbol. Upper numbers (numbers using dots 1, 2, 4, and 5) as opposed to lower numbers (numbers using dots 2, 3, 5, and 6) would be used in the UEBC. Three committees of the UEBC project, Committee I on braille code comparison, Committee II which was responsible for development of the base code, and Committee III on Contractions have completed their work.
Has there been any form of evaluation of UEBC among braille readers, teachers and transcribers?
In 1997, the seven participating members of ICEB conducted an evaluation of the proposed UEBC. The International Braille Research Center prepared the evaluation and distributed it to those in North America who volunteered to participate. When the data was analyzed there was general support for many concepts of a unified code. However, as one would expect in the context of research, opposition was expressed toward some elements. Objections were made toward the proposed quotation mark, and the possible elimination of contractions in which ambiguity was a factor. Contractions slated for elimination are “ble,” “com,” “dd,” “into,” “to,” “by,” “ally” and “ation.” In response to the expressed opposition, the quotation mark change was revised in the UEBC, and the literary code usage for common quotes was retained. Considerable opposition was also expressed toward the use of upper numbers instead of lower numbers in the UEBC.
What is the timeline for UEBC?
A number of resolutions adopted by ICEB at the November 2-5, 1999 General Assembly project a timetable with a completion date of October 31, 2003. By the fall of 2001, ICEB’s technical committees will have completed their work and written their reports. In January 2002, the executive committee of ICEB will meet in New Zealand and vote on the remaining reports of the technical committees, those not yet voted upon. It would appear that the UEBC enjoys a fairly high approval rating among braille readers within the other six member countries of ICEB which include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa and the United Kingdom. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of BANA to accept a UEBC for braille readers in the U.S. In the fall of 2003, the general assembly of ICEB meets in Canada and it is expected to vote on the possible adoption of the entire UEBC. In the spring of 2004, BANA would then receive the project back from ICEB, and would need to vote on its potential adoption for the United States and Canada.
BANA is currently seeking government funding for a scientifically based evaluation of the proposed UEBC and thorough field testing of the proposed code in the U.S. and additional testing in Canada. BANA has been very clear about the continuing need for additional research and evaluation of the UEBC, and such funding will be significant in furthering a reliable evaluation of the proposed code.
Do braille readers have any say in the development of UEBC?
There is definitely an important role for braille readers in the development of UEBC — both through BANA and ICEB. Every technical committee of BANA and ICEB has braille readers serving on it, as do the BANA and ICEB boards.
BANA is actively developing a document of UEBC samples that will be distributed to interested braille readers. By providing braille users with real-life examples of a UEBC, BANA hopes to inform braille readers firsthand of what a UEBC is all about, and demonstrate that the unified code can still be readable. With examples in hand, braille readers can then provide informed input to BANA members. A decision by BANA on whether the U.S. would consider a UEBC must be made with thoughtful input from braille readers on what their braille code needs to do. Braille is not for the teachers, or the transcribers, but ultimately, it is for the braille reader.
Please read the sample document of UEBC, which is anticipated to be produced and mailed to all braille readers of “The Braille Forum” in late spring 2001. The availability of the UEBC samples will be widely publicized, so if you haven’t received it and you see an announcement about its availability in “The Braille Forum” or another newsletter, request that one be sent to you so you can then review the UEBC samples and provide your feedback. For additional information on the UEBC and samples visit the ICEB web site, http://www.iceb.org.
Laudable as the goal is for completion of the UEBC project, we must all ask will standardizing the code create more problems for the typical braille user, braille teacher, or transcriber? Will the benefits outweigh the perceived liabilities?
Considering where we are in this process, wide distribution of information to braille readers, and thorough expanded evaluation will help everyone involved make factual judgments about UEBC. Widespread evaluation will give the decision-makers a better perspective on the principles and progress of UEBC, and will clarify the goals and direction for actions in the future. The process must enable everyone, regardless of their position, to contribute to the continued development and decision-making of a unified code for the future, a code that must work for everyone.