Minutes of the Meeting of the Braille Authority of North America
Ramada O'Hare Inn Rosemont, Illinois April 4, 1977
ATTENDANCE
Sponsor Representative(s)
American Association of Workers f/t Blind Harold G. Roberts
American Council. of the Blind Floyd Cargill
American Foundation for the Blind Loyal E. Apple
American Printing House for the Blind Ralph E. McCracken
Association for Computing Machinery Robert A. J. Gildea
Association for Education of the
Visually Handicapped James E. Haralson
Canadian National Institute for the Blind E. G. Brown
Darleen Bogart
Clovernook Home and School for the Blind Martin F. Droege
Library of Congress, DBPH Richard Evensen
National Braille Association Mrs. William Epstein
Mrs. Irvin F. Richman
National Federation of the Blind Rami Rabby
(Mr. Apple joined the meeting at 11:15 a.m.)
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Roberts at 10:07 a.m. The minutes of the meeting
of December 2, 1976 were approved as circulated.
REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED BYLAWS
Each section of each Article was considered in order and accepted as submitted or revised.
GC Article I: No changes
Article II
GC Section 1: No changes
GC Section 2: Substitute "hand" for "volunteer" in the last line.
Article III
GC Section 1 No changes.
GC Section 2: No changes
GC Section 3: Substitute "participating organization" for "member" in the last line. Add at
end of the section, "The National Board shall elect another of its members to
complete the unexpired term."
GC Section 4: Insert "National Board" before "Chairperson" in line 3. Add at end of the
section, "Members of technical committees need not be members of a
participating organization.”
GC Section 5: Revise lines 7-11 to read, "After consideration and acceptance by the
National Board, such findings and recommendations for change shall be
submitted to chairpersons of all other technical committees. Their
findings and recommendations will be submitted to the National
Board which, in turn, shall arrange for any additional field review and testing."
BANA Minutes. April 4, 1977 -2-
Article IV
GC Section 1:
MSC Section 2:
GC Section 3:
GC Section 4:
GC Section 5:
GC Article V
GC Article VI
MSC
GC
MSC
GC
Substitute "in" for "and" in line 6.
It was moved by Mr. Apple that the following language be added to this
article. I have numbered it as section 2 and renumbered the following sections.
The motion carried unanimously. "Written notice of the time and place of all
meetings shall be mailed no less than thirty (30) days in advance of the
meeting."
Change "members" to "organizations" in line 2. Change "member" to
"participating organization" in line 4. Change "suspended" to "dropped" in line 6.
No changes
In line 2, place a period after "National Board", delete "and", and capitalize
"Membership".
No changes
No changes.
Mr. Gildea moved the adoption of the revised Bylaws. The vote was
unanimous.
Mr. Evensen and Mr. McDaniel were authorized to incorporate the requirement
of an audit and the bonding of the Treasurer into the Bylaws if this should be
required to obtain incorporation.
Mr. Brown moved that we seek incorporation as a not-for-profit corporation
in the District of Columbia. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Gildea asked that a note of commendation be sent from the National Board
to the members of the Bylaws Committee.
Mr. Evensen said that Maxine Dorf was willing to send copies of the
minutes and reports of the Braille Authority of the United States to the
secretary of BANA.
During the discussion of the Bylaws, Mr. Gildea suggested that BANA place
notices in the various braille magazines when a code change was under
consideration. The notices would contain the name and address to which
comments would be sent.
BANA Minutes. April 4, 1977 -3-
REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
The following changes in the draft of the memorandum were made by general consent.
Page 1, line 4: Replace "represents" with "consists of representatives from".
line 20: Replace "Handicapped Children" with "Education of the Handicapped".
Page 2, #3): Replace "will not duplicate" with "does not plan to duplicate".
#4): Replace "approval and adoption" with "consideration and action".
#5): Replace "will assume" with "has"; "those" with "all". Place a period after "codes" and
MSC
GC
delete the remainder of the sentence.
The secretary was directed to send a copy of the revised memorandum to Dr. Gideon Jones,
and following the approval of the memorandum by Florida State University, to forward a
copy to Mr. John E. Davis, Project Officer; Bureau of Education of Handicapped Children.
Mr. Apple moved the approval and adoption of the Memorandum
of Understanding with Florida State University as revised. The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Roberts reported on his meeting with Dr. Jones and Miss Hooper at FSU. They indicated
that they would be willing to add members from BANA to their technical committees. The
Mathematics and Scientific Notation Committee and the Music Committee have been fully
formed. All of the members of these two committees were members of the former committee
under the Braille Authority of the United States.
Mathematics and Scientific Notation Committee: Bernard Krebs, Chairman; Mrs. F.J. Mann, Dr.
Abraham Nemeth, Miss Donna Pastore, Mrs. Ruth M. Peters, and Mrs. Barbara Taffet.
Music Committee: George Bennette, John di Francesco, Mrs. Paul DeGarmo, Mrs. Edward
Krolick, Miss Sandra Walberg, William Watkins.
Computer Notation: This committee is not complete at present. The current members are
Robert Hanes and Dr. Abraham Nemeth. Harry Bossier, Mrs. F.J. Mann and Bernard Krebs are
under consideration as members.
There is no plan to appoint a Textbook Format Committee at this time.
It was noted that the grant to FSU expires on September 30, 1979.
Mr. Apple suggested that there should be Canadian representation on the FSU Technical
Committees. Mr. Brown commented that Miss Hooper had invited Canadian
participation. Mr. Roberts suggested that BANA recommend qualified individuals to the
FSU project. Mr. Brown was directed to send the secretary a list of the names and
addresses of potential Canadian members for these committees. He was to include a
resume of there qualifications. Mr. Apple and Mr. Gildea were appointed a committee to
identify potential members for the FSU Technical Committee on Computer Code. They will
submit a list of approximately six names directly to Dr. Gideon Jones.
It was agreed that BANA can recommend members of its National Board for service on the
FSU Technical Committees.
BANA Minutes. April 4, 1977 -4-
GC
PROPOSED PROJECT ON REVISION OF LITERARY CODE TO ACHIEVE COMPUTER
COMPATIBILITY
Mr. Gildea distributed print and braille copies of an unsolicited proposal from_Mr. Peter
Duran, Director of the ARTS Service Bureau for the Protestant Guild for the Blind, Inc.
It was agreed that BANA does wish to pursue the goal of making literary braille computer
compatible. Mr. Roberts will write Mr. Duran notifying him that the proposal has been
received and that we are studying it. Mr. Gildea will obtain copies of the Proceedings of
last June's workshop on this subject and distribute them to the members of the National
Board. Each of us will write a critique of Mr. Duran's proposal and circulate it to the other
members of this Board.
FINANCIAL REPORT
Mr. Droege reported that BANA has $5,707.54 on hand. He has placed $3,207.54 ina
checking account and $2,500.00 in a savings account.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of BANA will take place in the middle of June in the Chicago area.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mrs. Irvin F. Richman, Secretary
UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL
SETTING STANDARDS FOR
BRAILLE PRODUCED BY COMPUTER
By
Peter Duran, Director
ARTS Service Bureau
Protestant Guild for the Blind, Inc.
NTRODUCTION
What is computer-produced braille? How can it benefit the blind in our country and
around the world? What are the ramifications of its eventual wide-spread use?
Computer braille is created by having a computer "translate" symbols of the English
language into symbols of the English Braille code (while accounting for
special rules and contractions), and by embossing the resultant translation. It
eliminates the need for stereotypists (a highly skilled and dying breed), and replaces
them with ordinary typists who need have no knowledge of braille.
It makes possible the "short run" of a translation; that is, just one or only a few
copies of a particular text. Using the traditional braille press, it was not economically
feasible to produce a small number of copies. People who did not need thousands of
copies of their material were unable to get it brailed. This severe limitation has been
solved by the advent of computers. Computers can economically supply one copy of
virtually anything--recipes, children's books, brochures, etc. And because of their great speed,
translations can be produced in hours or days, as opposed to weeks or months.
In short, computers have the capacity to voluminously increase the supply of braille material
available at prices much lower than currently possible.
The problem arises in that while able to translate and emboss virtually unlimited
materials, computer-braille producers now run across more diverse symbolic and
formatting situations; situations which the current braille code is unequipped to
handle. Since there are no standard practices, each translation program deals with
these problems in its own way. The obvious outcome is that there are numerous
variations on the-existing code; none of them official. Pity the poor reader.
What follows is a synopsis of the basic factors involved in computer braille production.
COMPUTER BRAILLE TODAY
There are three main steps in using a computer for producing braille. The first
step is to enter the material into the computer; this step is known as "inputting".
The second step is to contract and format the material according to accepted English
Braille rules; this step is known as "translating". The third step is to emboss the
translated material; it is known as "outputting".
Inputting
Putting material into a computer for brailing can be done in several ways. The
most common way is by typing it. A typist sits at a computer terminal and types from a print
copy. What is expected of the typist greatly determines the desired nature of the braille code for
computers. For example, if no rearranging of text is to be expected, and then special symbols and
abbreviations are typed in the order they appear in print.
Materials already put into a computer-readable form by publishing houses,
companies, or other agencies are immediately accessible for brailing. Magnetic or paper
tapes containing the information to be brailed are read into the computer. This encoded
information has already been proofread and corrected for spelling, typing and formatting
errors. Although this method of inputting is thousands of times faster than typing, a
problem arises concerning the formatting procedures. To use these materials
unaltered, printing practices have to be closely followed. For example, publishers
indicate italics in print by prefixing and suffixing a special symbol to the text to be
italicized. This is done no matter whether there are one, two, three, or more words to
be italicized. The braille practice for the same situation is dependent on the number of words
affected.
A potential method of putting material into a computer is by using "Optical
Character Recognition" equipment. This equipment scans a print page and
interprets it character by character. These characters are then directly input into a
computer. There are still technical difficulties involved in recognizing various type
fonts and styles, but if and when "OCR's" become practical and reliable input devices,
the cost of producing braille by computer would drop to little more than the cost of paper
and computer time.
Translating
The translation of material is receiving the most attention by computer programmers. It is
usually viewed in isolation from the other two steps of computer braille production, but this is not
practical. There are many decisions that have to be made while inputting or made not at all. For
example, a single letter followed by a period may or may not be an initial. The decision whether a
single letter is or is not an initial determines two alternative translations. A typist is able to make
this determination, but a braille translation program is not in the writing of good translating
programs for the current English Braille code is intrinsically difficult because of the many
ambiguous rules. That is, braille as a historical writing system (like other writing systems) has
many exceptions, ambiguities, and inconsistencies. In order to write a translating program, a
programmer has to decide which exceptions to obey, which ambiguities to adopt as standard, and
which inconsistencies to ignore. Unfortunately, no two programmers make the same decisions,
and thus no two translating programs do exactly the same thing.
Outputting
The outputting step is usually viewed exclusively as an engineering problem. It is true
that the development and manufacture of embossing devices is primarily a technological
problem, not directly bearing on English Braille. However, the manner in which the
braille is presented to the user physically determines the format of the braille itself.
Traditionally, for example, braille has been embossed on two dimensional pages, which
have physical tops and bottoms. However, "strip" braillers are coming into common
use. They emboss braille on a one-dimensional continuous strip of paper, rolled or
folded. What does that do to the concept of lines? How could you tell when you
were starting a new paragraph?
Still other output devices are being manufactured which display a portion of a
braille line by raising pins or by vibrating crystals. These paperless output devices
display braille in two ways: statically and dynamically. In the static case, a portion
of a line is displayed, examined, and then replaced by the next portion to be
examined. In the dynamic case, the braille passes under the reader's
fingers in a continuous stream while the fingers stay motionless. This would also
have an effect on braille formatting procedures because there would be no need to
hyphenate words; the end of a line would never come.
For both types of devices, the formatting of the braille is quite different from that
of the two-dimensional page embossers. Each output medium has its own formatting
options and boundaries that will in turn affect the format of the Braille produced.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
The above discussion deals with the computer's "needs". However, potential
braille users also have needs: They must be able to learn and read braille effectively and
efficiently. What factors make braille learnable and readable? There area
multitude of opinions on these two subjects, but little concrete empirical evidence is offered to
support them. There are several sources of data, which bear on these
considerations. Many millions of dollars are spent on cryptology the encoding and decoding
of written information. Many factors are known which contribute to learning and
reading of codes. Also, there is a great deal of on-going research in print reading.
Some of this research is generally applicable--for example, the influence of spelling on
readability. Whatever data that exists and bears on these considerations are guides for the
development of computer braille.
There is no doubt that the braille code is improvable so that learnability and
readability are increased. If the existing exceptions, ambiguities, and inconsistencies
eliminated, both would be increased.
ASSUMPTIONS
Many assumptions concerning computer braille production are possible. The ones listed here
represent a conservative estimate of the potentials of computer braille production. They are
based on a comparison of standard and computer production methods.
Inputting
It is far easier to train a typist to use a computer terminal than to train a stereo typist to use
a stereograph. It takes about a week to train a typist and about a year to train a stereotypist. The
typist needs to know little braille, if any. The stereo typist needs to be an expert.
Typists are readily available; stereotypists are not. There are potential sources of
volunteer typists; there is no source of volunteer stereotypists. Using computers, material
already available in other computers is directly transferable; using stereographs, material already
available in other computers has to be retyped.
Translating
If a translating program makes errors, they are predictable; if a stereotypist makes errors,
they are not. It is easier to catch consistent errors than variable ones. A translating program can
proceed faster than a stereotypist. How much faster depends on the size of the computer used
and on the complexity of the braille code adopted.
Outputting
Using a computer, initial proofreading can be done via print or braille; using a stereograph,
only braille can be used. Proofreading for typing, ‘spelling, and other errors is faster with print than
with braille. Output from computers can be used for small and large numbers of copies; for
economic reasons, plates from stereographs can only be used for large numbers of copies.
Stereographs that can be used with computers are now being manufactured.
Learning
Braille is too difficult to learn because of exceptions, ambiguities, and
inconsistencies. These anomalies are removable with changes in some rules. Some rules
are unnecessary; they only take care of exceptional cases, which can be eliminated.
Reading
Many rules are present to insure readability but may or may not actually do so. Till
the factors enhancing readability are isolated, these rules are not assessable.
Reading speed is increasable by making use of more uniform rules. It is also
increasable by eliminating infrequently used or obscure contractions.
Braille users are reading a larger variety of literary material: advertisements, brochures,
manuals, etc. Although these materials do not contain any special signs or symbols,
the braille code is inadequate for translating them. This situation is mutable by extending some of
the rules.
OBJECTIVES
There is one main objective: the revision of the braille code according to logical
and educational principles. This goal has several components, which are pursuable jointly or
separately.
Inputting
While inputting, no rearrangement of text should be necessary. This would reduce training
time of typists, permit immediate transfer of material from other computers, and eliminate a major
source of error and time consumption. While inputting, any necessary reformatting should
proceed according to precise rules, algorithms, so that typists or programs are able to
accomplish the alterations without intervention.
Translating
While translating, all contracting should proceed according to precise rules, which
are not dependent on external factors such as the latest edition of a particular dictionary.
If there are remaining ambiguous situations, the translating program should find them for
the user rather than vice versa. The rules governing the translating should take account of
every possible situation that occurs. Presently, only the most common situations are covered by
many resident.
Outputting
The format of the translated material should be appropriate to the output device.
If it is a two-dimensional display, tabbing, line spacing, etc. have to be invoked. If it is a one-
dimensional display, tabbing, line spacing, etc, have to be discarded for more appropriate
conventions.
The content of the translated material should be appropriate to the output device. If
it is a two-dimensional display, running headings, braille page numbers, etc. are
appropriate. If it is a one dimensional display, running headings, braille page numbers,
etc. have no significance; instead, another indexing system is required.
Learning
The braille rules should be made simpler and their number reduced. This is
possible as analysis indicates.
All exceptions to rules should be eliminated. This is possible and practical,
and is necessary if translating programs are to be independent of external factors such
as changing spelling and pronunciation.
Braille should foster learning in other areas-not hinder it. For example, it is
extra learning to remember that special signs follow numbers in print but precede
them in braille, but not in all instances.
English Braille, as the base code, should be compatible with other codes
when possible. For example, there is no logical reason why the symbols for
parentheses should be different for English Braille, textbook formats, and Nemeth code.
Reading
All materials only using the signs covered by braille should be translatable. Currently, this
is not the case. For example, expressions containing punctuation marks within them are
not covered by any rules.
Those factors revealed by research enhancing readability should be inculcated into the braille
code, if not already present, and those factors detracting from readability presently in the braille code
should be removed.
ARTS SERVICE BUREAU EXPERIENCE WITH
COMPUTER BRAILLE PRODUCTION
There are two distinct requirements for creating an adequate translation system: a
thorough understanding of current English Braille and a thorough appreciation of computers
and their programming. Proficiency in one area but not the other makes it virtually
impossible to create an adequate translation system. Inexperience with braille leads to
programs, which "ignore" details of rules, special circumstances, etc. Inexperience
with computers leads to large, slow, and cumbersome programs.
The ARTS Service Bureau has gained extensive facility in both areas.
An in-house translation system has grown out of three years of effort. This effort
has resulted in a small and efficient translating program requiring little
intervention during translation. It has been in use for over a year in braille
production.
The ARTS translation system is used by persons who have little knowledge of
braille. Its operation is detailed in the accompanying brochure. (Braille copies are
available on request.) It runs on a mini-computer and requires 8K of core memory. It
makes very few errors on literary material and meets Library of Congress
certification standards for transcribers--although these standard do not and
should not apply to translating programs.
Two other results of these efforts are a detailed analysis of the braille code as a
syntactic system and an understanding of its programming limitations. Some of these
insights are summarized in two papers to appear. (Braille copies are available
on request.) The current ARTS translation system does about as well as a translation
system is able without correcting and augmenting the braille code.
Presently, the ARTS Service Bureau is the only installation with long-term
production experience using a mini-computer braille translation system. Itis in a
production setting that the inherent limitations of the braille code and extant
translating programs are truly appreciated. Without production experience, it is virtually
impossible to anticipate the problems and advantages of computer braille production as it
is currently manifested.
ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH BRAILLE
Braille Standards
Many groups are presently writing braille translating programs. No doubt, they
are going to satisfy the basic rules and conventions of English Braille. However, there
are many points at which they are sure to differ since many braille rules are ambiguous
or incomplete and may be interpreted in several ways.
No doubt computer produced braille and hand-transcribed braille are also going to
diverge. For example, programmers are likely to ignore hyphenation at the end of lines
whereas stereotypists are likely to follow the current dictionary in vogue.
A multitude of variant braille codes has numerous disadvantages. The most important
are a degredation of learnability and readability. Even without the introduction of
diverse translating programs, there are too many incompatible braille codes. English
Braille, textbook format braille, and Nemeth code differ on points on which there is no
need to be different. If a common basic braille code is evolved, everyone, especially the
braille user, is sure to benefit.
A basic code is derivable from current English Braille. The current braille code needs
redefinition, improvement, and augmentation rather than total reconstruction. The two main
problems with English Braille are its inprecise specification and its vague scope of application.
As an example of inprecision, consider the rule: "Contractions forming parts of words should
not be used where they would obscure the recognition or pronunciation of a word. "Although
laudable, this rule is not really executable as stated.
Obscurity is a matter of previous experience, and in many instances transcribers are likely to
disagree. Translating programs are totally unable to incorporate the notion of
obscurity. There are dozens of rules that, like this one, are just not programmable.
All rules have to be restated in grammatical (syntactic) terms rather than in the
semantic terms of meaning, pronunciation, obscurity, etc. For example, the rule "Only put
one space between sentences." is not programmable as stated since translating programs are unable
to recognize a sequence of words as a sentence, phrase, etc. This rule is, however,
restatable in terms of syntactic notions: "If two spaces are present after a punctuation
mark, eliminate one of them."
In short, two descriptions of English braille are needed: one for programmers
and one for transcribers. The version for programmers has to be wholly in syntactic
terms, algorithmic, etc. The version for transcribers has to be mostly semantic, easily stated,
etc. Both versions, however, are to be exactly equivalent with respect to the braille
produced (in the two-dimensional case).
What types of literary material are transcribable into braille? The general answer
is: "Any materials. only containing signs represented by English Braille are transcribable."
These signs include the alphabet, numbers, and various punctuation marks. The ARTS
Service Bureau has, in the last year, come across dozens of expressions and phrases that
do contain only these signs but are still not translatable. For example, ".txt" (a period
followed by the letters "txt" used as a label) has no correct translation.
As another example, the "Harvard Radcliffe Student Time Sharing System" is
abbreviated as "hrsts". If this is considered a common abbreviation, the letters "is" in
the middle of the abbreviation are contracted. In that case, "hrsts" and "hr/s" appear the
same in braille.
Braille Syntax
A complete syntactic analysis of the braille rules governing contractions is proposed. In
outline, this analysis involves:
1. a review of the ink-print signs represented and their representations
2. extension of the signs represented to include all of ASCII (the Standard Code
for Information Interchange in the computer industry)
3. analysis of each rule into its simplest components
4. replacement of each semantic subrule by a syntactic equivalent
5. generalization of each incomplete subrule
6. correction of each inconsistent subrule by replacing it with a consistent
alternative
7. elimination of each unnecessary subrule
Several benefits acrue from this analysis, which is intended to improve and augment
the existing braille code, rather than to drastically change it. The braille code will be
simplified and corrected, thus increasing learnability and readability. It will be easier
to program since it is stated in syntactic terms amenable to encoding. A uniform
braille code which is acceptable to both hand transcribers and computer programmers will
be established.
The Braille code will become more efficient in several ways. A simpler and
condensed braille code is sure to shorten the training time required of potential
braille users. Since one of the common complaints about braille is its difficulty, a
diminution in required training is likely to encourage more trainees. Simplification
and consistency also implies shorter and easier-to-write translating programs. It
is anticipated that if the programming effort is substantially reduced, numerous
groups are likely to write their own in-house translating programs; and the
Affirmative Action Act is probably going to encourage this practice among businesses.
Braille Format
A complete analysis of the braille rules governing format is proposed. In
outline, this analysis involves:
surveying the formatting commands and conventions used by phototypesetters
analyzing the formatting conventions used in the braille code
elaboration of a formatting system compatible with printing and brailling practices
W D N
devices
Bringing phototypesetting and brailing format practices together is of vital
importance. Once accomplished, an enormous wealth of material is immediately available
for brailing.
Presently, the limiting step in computer braille production is inputting via
typing. This step is very time consuming and costly. It, in turn, necessitates
proofreading of the output because typin’ errors are bound to occur. Proofreading is
another laborious, time consuming, and costly step. Proceeding directly from
phototypeset copy eliminates both the need for inputting and the subsequent proofreading.
Even if the phototypeset copy has to be corrected, it is still a much less troublesome task
than the other two steps would be.
EVALUATION OF ENGLISH BRAILLE
Three types of evaluation of the analyses are proposed. Braille experts are to
advise on the proposals in light of their experience with the current braille code and its
development. Computer programmers are to review the programming efficiency of the
suggested alterations. Educators are to empirically compare the changed braille code
with the current braille code with respect to learnability and readability.
Evaluation by Braillists
At the outset, the results of the American Foundation for the Blind
conference on Computer Braille Production (June 1976) are to be assessed. Those
ideas and concepts of merit are to be inculcated into the revision and augmentation
of English Braille. A cursory review of the conference proceedings indicates that a
great deal of consensus prevailed.
Two braillists are to advise on the analyses. An expert in English Braille is
to evaluate the suggested changes. In many instances, more than one alternative
to a subrule is possible; the one chosen is a matter of enlightened preference,
rather than logical necessity. An expert in Nemeth braille is to evaluate the
upward compatibility of English braille with math braille and other codes. The
potential for extending the ability of translating programs beyond literary
materials is certainly desirable; to what degree it is possible remains to be
determined.
Evaluation by Programmers
Once the analyses are assessed by the brailists, a proposed braille code is to
be prepared. It is then to receive scrutiny by programming experts. They are
to establish: the syntactic clarity of subrules, the ease with which subrules
can be programmed, and the compatibility with phototypesetting software. All
programming modifications of the proposed braille code are then to be reviewed by
the braille experts before being inculcated into the proposed braille code. No
elaboration of formatting conventions compatible with one-dimensional embossing and display
doubt, there are going to be divergence of opinions between braillists and programmers.
These differences are to be settled by the next evaluation procedure.
Evaluation by Educators
Once the braillists and programmers assess the proposed braille code and their
findings are inculcated, the various alternatives to subrule changes are to be tested
empirically. The most important criteria for accepting or rejecting any alteration in
the braille code are its effect on learnability and readability. Training
materials are to be created by the educators and embossed on the ARTS
system, embodying the proposed braille code in all its likely variations. Educators
are then to administer these materials to a sample of potential braille users,
measure the learning and reading factors, and statistically assess the
alternative subrules.
The final proposal for a braille code is to be based on the results of this evaluation.
Evaluation by BANA
Once BANA reviews and sanctions a version of the proposed braille code, detailed
plans for programming and teaching this code are to be developed. The
programmers involved in the evaluation are to prepare a comprehensive explanation of the
programming of the code for others to use and are also to prepare detailed
documentation of the "software" for the code. The educators involved in the
evaluation are to prepare a comprehensive explanation of the teaching of the
code for others to use and are also to prepare detailed documentation of the "courseware"
for the code. Together, the software and courseware descriptions are to be sufficient for
setting up a brailling installation.
PROJECT PLAN
To summarize the preceding two sections, this proposal has three main
components. An analysis and synthesis of English Braille is to be made. Next,
the resulting braille code is to be evaluated in three ways--braille standards,
programmability, learnability and readability. Finally, the braille code
sanctioned by the BANA is to be implemented in software and courseware. These three
components are distinct and separate. The first two steps are necessary for an
adequate development of a braille code acceptable to braille users, transcribers, and
programmers. The third step is necessary for promoting wide distribution and use
of computer braille.
The ARTS staff to participate on the project are selected. They are to carry
out the analysis and synthesis of the braille code. In addition, they are to
coordinate and supervise the other two phases of the project.
The braille expert and to participate on the project are selected. They
are to work on parts one and two. They and the ARTS staff are to meet at regular
intervals at a mutually acceptable place.
Programming consultants are to be recruited from the local area after the
completion of part one. In addition, those persons who have already written
translating programs are to be asked to review the anticipated changes; previous
experience although biasing during the creative process, is helpful in evaluation.
While carrying out part one, educators in reading research and courseware design
are to be recruited and oriented to the project. The design of test procedures,
evaluation protocols, statistical procedures, etc, are to be ready at the end of part
one.
PROJECT STAFF
The ARTS staff participating on the project are Peter Duran and Alane
Gertner. Duran is the principle investigator and director of the project.
Gertner is to assist in literature searches and preparation of project results and
reports. All materials are to, be generated in print and braille on the ARTS
system, thus providing computer versions of all project information.
Bernard Krebs and Abraham Nemeth are participating as braille experts on
the project. These two gentlemen are the most appropriate individuals to serve on the project
as they have complementary points of view. Krebs is primarily concerned with braille as it applies
to literary materials and general uses. Nemeth is primarily concerned with braille as it
applies to technical materials (in the sense of being highly symbolic) and specialized uses. If
the resulting braille code is to be as simple as possible in the literary case and applicable in
specialized cases, each point of view has to be inculcated into the proposed code.
Both gentlemen recognize that braille is certainly improvable and are
willing to make the necessary changes. They have an appreciation of the potential
benefits to braille users if braille is efficiently produced by computer.
The computer aspects of the project are to be done by consultants expert in word
processing software; that is, programs for rearranging and altering textual data.
Previous experience with translating programs is undesirable for several reasons. Such
individuals are likely to bring preconceptions and prior programming strategies into
the evaluation and are likely to prefer the familiar code rather than be impartial to the
possible alternatives. One of the factors to be assessed is the ease of programming of
the proposed code; prior experience is likely to obscure the initial encoding difficulties faced
by most programmers. The goal is to prescribe a braille code that programmers with a modicum of
word-processing experience are able to successfully encode without knowledge of braille.
The evaluation of learnability and readability is intrinsically a difficult task. The required
expertise to isolate those factors correlate with learning and reading include: test and protocol
design and statistical analyses (factor analysis, multi-dimensional scaling, etc.). Members of
an education department of a university are the best choices for conducting this type of
evaluation. The required procedures are, for the most part, extant and only have to be
modified for the particular evaluation format required by this project. If long-term
research is required, graduate theses are an inexpensive source of research effort.
To adequately conduct this evaluation, experience with braille is not a
prerequisite. The techniques to be employed apply in all such analyses and across sense
modalities.
It is, in fact, desirable that the evaluation group does not have prior exposure to
braille. The goal of the evaluation is to obtain an unbiased analysis of those factors
influencing braille learning and reading. Since long-held opinions are to be scrutinized,
perhaps rejected, those holding such views are likely to find it difficult to divorce
themselves from biases. As a point of fact, the braille experts participating at the
American Foundation for the Blind conference on Computer Braille Production are already,
implicitly or explicitly, decided on the nature of readability. It is unlikely that any of us
are able to be as objective as required by a competent scientific investigation.
Reading research groups are presently being contacted and interviewed. The group
already most able to meet the needs of the project is to be selected as a subcontractor.
PROJECT TIME FRAME
The following time estimates are based on the ARTS staff's prior experience
performing similar research. The estimates for programming and testing are only
approximate since they depend on the outcome of the two analyses and on the braille and
programming evaluations.
Project Time Schedule
2 months for the necessary literature searches and reviews
6 months for the analyses (syntax and format) and braille evaluation of these analyses
6 months for the programming evaluation and reading research design
3 months for conducting the learning and reading tests of the proposed code
6 months for completing the braille code and all documentation
Staff Time Requirements
Estimates only for the first year of the project given. The required efforts for the
next phase depend on the outcome of the initial research. all time commitments are
based on a 40-hour workweek
Duran 40%
Gerlner 40%
Krebs 15%
Nandh 1%
Consultant Time Requirements
One programming consultant is sufficient. The reading research group requires at
least a supervisor and two graduate students.
programmer 20%
Supervisor 25%
student 40%
student 40%
FIRST YEAR BUDGET
DIRECT COSTS:
Salaries
Duran (.40*24,000) 9,600
Gertner (.40*9,000) 3,600
Nemeth (.15*12,000) 1,800
Krebs (.15*12,000) 1,800
Programmer (.20*12,000) 2,400
supervisor (.2514,000) 3,500
student (.403,000) 1,200
student (.40*3,000) 1,200
fringe for ARTS (.15*13,200) 1,980
total 27,080
Supplies
punch tape (10 cartons) 600
brailler paper (15 cartons) 450
printer paper (6 cartons) 72
computer time (16 hr/wk) 1,872
calls to Krebs (20 hr) 456
calls to Nemeth (20 hr) 431
mailing 40
duplicating 60
total 3,981
Supplemental funds are required for travel for project participants. Depending on
how often and where BANA wishes the project members to convene, the travel
allowance and per diem will be different.
The fringe benefit rate (15 percent) has been accepted by several funding
sources as an approved rate.
INDIRECT COSTS:
(Total ARTS salary*.10) 1,518
Total Direct Costs 31,061
Total Indirect Costs 1,518
TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED 32,579
Memorandum of Understanding between the Braille Authority of North America and Florida
State University
The purpose of this memorandum is to set forth the basis for cooperation and collaboration
between the Braille Authority of North America and Florida State University with respect to the
standardization of braille codes.
The Braille Authority of North America, which consists of representatives from the
following agencies and organizations, is the recognized authority for approving and adopting
changes in all existing braille codes in use both in the United States and Canada.
American Council of the Blind
American Association of Workers for the Blind
Association for Computing Machinery
Association for Education of the Visually Handicapped
American Foundation for the Blind
American Printing House for the Blind
Canadian National Institute for the Blind
Clovernook Home and School for the Blind
Library of Congress, DBPH
National Braille Association
National Federation of the Blind
Florida State University (Visual Disabilities Section, Division of Professional and
Clinical Programs, College of Education) has been awarded a grant by the U.S. Office of
Education, Bureau for Education of the Handicapped, to conduct a project entitled
"Braille Codes Standardization Project." Dr. Gideon R. Jones, Professor, Coordinator,
Visual Disabilities, is the Project Director, and Miss Marjorie Hooper is the Major
Investigator. The project was formally initiated on October 1, 1976 and its completion is
scheduled for September 30, 1979.
During discussions held in Tallahassee, Florida on January 17 and 18, 1977, the
participants (Dr. Jones and Miss Hooper representing Florida State University, and Mr.
Harold G. Roberts and Mr. Durward McDaniel representing the Braille Authority of North
America) reached the following agreement:
1. Recognizing their mutuality of interest in better meeting the needs of blind persons
by improving and expanding existing braille codes, FSU and BANA agree to
coordinate their respective activities.
2. BANA will serve as a source of advice and consultation to FSU regarding all aspects of
its Braille Codes Standardization Project, including the composition of its Technical
Committees.
BANA does not plan to duplicate the work of the Technical Committees
established by FSU in revising the mathematics, computer and music codes.
FSU will submit its proposed code revisions to BANA for consideration and action.
BANA has responsibility for reviewing and revising all braille codes.
