by Winifred Downing
Background
Early in the 1990s, there began a formal discussion about developing a single braille code to embrace literary braille, mathematics, computer codes, linguistics, and other technical codes.
A number of factors precipitated this discussion. Primary among them was that the pool of generous persons, mostly women, willing to give their time to the arduous task of learning braille and then of dedicating many hours each week to transcribing books was diminishing markedly. By their unselfish labor over more than 40 years, they had made possible the mainstreaming of blind children in public schools by furnishing them with the books they needed. Some transcribers, who are still working today, had even prepared hundreds of pages with a board slate and stylus before Perkins braillers were readily available. By the 1990s, however, many well-educated women were exchanging the challenge of volunteer work for the rewards of the job market.
The emergence of computers, of programs for keying braille on a computer, and of braille printers made it possible for individual transcribers to prepare greater amounts of material; but even so, it was evident that they could not carry the whole load. Some help came from braille translation programs which were used increasingly, and the authors of these programs were eager for a code that would meet all braille needs and involve less intervention to prepare materials for varying uses.
It was also argued that the task of learning a separate code for literary braille, computer notation, mathematics, and the sciences was unnecessarily difficult for some braille readers, especially for students. It was troublesome, the argument went, to find that one braille symbol could have one meaning in literary braille, another in the computer code, and still a third in mathematical material.
In addition, the computer software that now converted print into braille required a braille reader to have a more intimate knowledge of the idiosyncracies of print than had manual methods. In braille, for example, the opening and closing parentheses signs are the same, whereas in print the symbols are different. In braille the opening and closing quotation marks are different, whereas in print the symbol for both is the same. These and other anomalies caused confusion for braille users attempting to understand material on computers and working to prepare print material for use on computers. All in all, the braille world needed help.
ICEB Guidelines for the UBC
Responding to this situation, the Braille Authority of North America (BANA) and later the International Council on English Braille (ICEB) initiated a research project whose goal was “the development of a single braille code providing notation for mathematics, computer science, and other scientific and engineering disciplines as well as general English literature.”
A group of experts from various English-speaking countries was assembled to carry forward the UBC Research Project, with Committee II having the primary responsibility for developing the actual code. The guidelines adopted by ICEB for the overall project stipulated that the unified code would:
a) use a six-dot braille cell;
b) encompass Grade I and Grade II braille without making any major changes to the contractions of Grade II braille;
c) be usable by both beginning and advanced braille readers;
d) be computable to the greatest degree possible, without detriment to readability, from print to braille to print, employing an unambiguous braille representation of each print symbol;
e) imbed textbook, mathematics, computer and other technical codes (excluding the music code);
f) consider all submitted English braille codes in its formulation.
Committee II Decisions
Based on these guidelines, Committee II developed a general method for extending the basic literary code so that it could encompass the symbologies employed in various scientific and technical disciplines, defined the terms used, determined the extent of symbols — encompassing all print symbols as well as specialized indicators — ensured that new symbols allowed by an extension would be unambiguous and would permit the same general form of expression in braille as in print, and ensured that symbols in the basic code would not be altered except to bring about parallel forms in braille and print.
Guideline (b) promised that the UBC would embrace both “Grade I and Grade II without making major changes to the contractions of Grade II braille;” and the committee pledged that “symbols in the basic code would not be altered except to bring about parallel forms in braille and print.”
As members of Committee II decided to interpret those rules, the committee determined to continue expressing braille numbers in the upper four dots of the braille cell. This decision completely canceled the Nemeth Code since it employs the practice of expressing numbers in the lower part of the braille cell. Committee II, therefore, has had to define an entirely new approach to mathematics.
In the expression of ordinary English literature in braille, Committee II has abandoned some contractions and altered the spacing practices with regard to others. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that anyone reading material in the UBC would have significant difficulty in doing so — even without retraining or extensive explanations. Further, it is highly unlikely that anyone educated in the UBC would have any real problem deciphering the thousands of books now available in Standard English Braille.
Consequences for Mathematics
The situation with regard to UBC mathematical braille, though, is very different. The new code is so unlike the Nemeth Code that no one educated in its use would be able to read Nemeth; and, conversely, no one experienced in the Nemeth Code could make any sense at all of the UBC mathematical expressions.
Without too much difficulty or delay, computer translation programs embracing the UBC mathematical features could be developed, but how will students now using the Nemeth Code be trained in this new approach? How will the university personnel preparation programs gear up to prepare braille teachers, both new teachers and those who have been conveying Nemeth Code to students for years? How will remaining braille transcribers (those who are experienced in the Nemeth Code are in great demand) take to this new situation, and who will originate the materials to train them?
Another grave concern is the complicated nature of the UBC as applied to mathematics. An experienced braille transcriber has prepared a very basic algebra problem in both Nemeth Code and UBC. The problem, with its answer choices, requires 65 characters as written in Nemeth Code and 95 in UBC.
While few studies have been conducted to determine just how the fingers and brain work together to recognize braille characters, at least one respected study suggests that a braille reader recognizes characters sequentially (unlike the way most print readers can identify and interpret the meaning of printed letters and numbers). Would a “typical” blind student be able to wade through the extensive task of identifying 95 characters to achieve an understanding of an otherwise relatively simple problem? How much extra testing time would be necessary to give a student using braille a competitive opportunity?
Is the UBC a Fait Accompli?
At its meeting in November of 1999, the ICEB voted to accept the principles of the UBC even though many elements were incomplete and several of the countries had produced few samples for braille readers, or in some cases, none at all. ICEB took this action despite the fact that the Braille Authority of North America had voted the previous spring not to take a position on this matter until extensive samples could be made available to braille users, teachers of braille, and transcribers.
Only one sample has been produced thus far, “A Simple Math Web Page in UBC,” by Joseph Sullivan in the spring 2000 issue of “DOTS for Braille Literacy,” which was circulated by the American Foundation for the Blind. A list of 16 symbols, many of them consisting of two characters, precedes the problem.
Helpful as the “DOTS for Braille Literacy” publication is, it reaches but a small fraction of the teachers of braille in this country and almost no blind braille users. At the quarterly meeting in January 2000 of the VI Subcommittee of the Low Incidence Disability Advisory Committee in California, only one teacher present had heard anything about the plan to change the math code; and when the 12 San Francisco vision teachers met in May of this year, not one of them was aware of this matter either.
Efforts to secure from AFB additional copies of the DOTS publication either in braille or simulated braille have not been successful, so there is almost no information to be circulated. There is a real danger that, because a number of well recognized and important organizations in the blindness field have contributed substantial amounts of money, time, and energy to developing the UBC, sufficient momentum will have been generated to ensure the adoption of this code without adequate consideration of the problems involved or of alternatives that are available. We can have a code totally lacking ambiguity with a braille representation for every character that print contains but the same code may be so difficult to learn and time-consuming to read that it will seriously limit the use of braille.
How many members of Committee II or the BANA board have been long-time teachers of braille? How many persons in either group are avid users of braille, i.e., people who employ braille every day in all sorts of ways to meet their life needs? These are the types of individuals who should be making judgments on the practical aspects of any code before it is adopted.
An unbiased discussion of alternatives has not been conducted — and, in the view of many observers, has even been strongly resisted by those involved in the research project. For example, recognizing that it just may be impossible to design a single code to deal with all disciplines that would accommodate the learning capabilities of most students, teachers, and transcribers, one alternative could be the development of two codes, one literary and the other technical.
Another alternative that is favored by many is the Unified Braille System being developed by Abraham Nemeth with the review and support of the “Brl-zylx” (Braille as You Like It) Committee. Nemeth’s unified system features a dual numbering arrangement which allows mathematical expressions to continue to be constructed with numbers in the lower 4 dots of the braille cell.
In view of the serious problems the UBC brings with it, examination of the merits of these and other approaches to solving the difficulties of braille should certainly be undertaken. All those who use and love braille must be assured that an open process is employed in selecting the code or codes that will replace those in use today.