Braille Unification
Braille Unification
The Braille Monitor_______
October 1997
(next)
(contents)
PHOTO/CAPTION: Joseph Sullivan
A Perspective
on Braille Unification
by Joseph
E. Sullivan
From the Editor:
Joseph Sullivan is President of Duxbury Systems, Inc. and Chairman of Committee
II of the Unified Braille Code Research Project of the International Council
on English Braille. The following paper was delivered at the tenth World Conference
of the International Council for Education of People with Visual Impairment,
August, 1997 in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Since 1992, or over five
years ago as I write this, there has been a project underway to research and
develop a Unified Braille Code (UBC) for English speakers. Initiated by the
Braille Authority of North America (BANA), the UBC Research Project originally
centered on the concept of a single Braille code for literary, mathematical,
and computer-related notation, replacing the three distinct codes now defined
by BANA for those purposes. The project was later adopted by the International
Council on English Braille (ICEB), at which point unification took on the added
meaning of bringing together not only BANA's codes but also the very different
technical codes that are used in the United Kingdom and many other English-speaking
areas. In all, if UBC's goals are realized, some five major Braille codes stand
to be unified--actually more than that, if various local variations and extensions
of those five are counted separately.
I have been an enthusiastic
participant in the UBC project since its beginning and remain so. From that
experience I have drawn certain conclusions that I think may apply to Braille
unification studies generally and which I will present here. The reader should
of course regard these conclusions as my own opinions, not necessarily shared
by all my fellow laborers for the UBC cause.
Having given that customary
disclaimer, I will venture an observation that I very much doubt will raise
any disagreement-- namely that any proposal for substantial Braille unification,
no matter how carefully drafted and no matter how deeply appealing it may be
to some people, will at the same time be thoroughly abhorrent to other people.
Of course, this is partly due to the natural resistance we humans all have to
any kind of change, but that is not my main point. I believe that it is also
a direct consequence of the fact that no Braille code--or any kind of code,
for that matter--can be equally good for all the various purposes that may be
envisioned for it; and different people typically have different kinds and levels
of interest in those various purposes.
For example, a computer
programmer will naturally be concerned about the efficiency and clarity with
which typical program source text is transcribed, whereas a history teacher
may care little about computer programs but will want to be sure that ordinary
prose is simple as well as clear. While it is possible to satisfy both needs
up to a point, it is not possible to optimize either one without detriment to
the other. In that simple fact lie the seeds of dissatisfaction -- especially
for those people already accustomed to the efficiencies offered by the current
technical codes, which were consciously designed for their respective special
purposes.
Given this reality, we
might first ask: Why pursue Braille unification at all? The main reasons are
given in the paper presented to BANA by Drs. Cranmer and Nemeth [Cranmer &
Nemeth 1991], which was the catalyst for BANA's original launching of the UBC
project. In it the authors first note that the conditions under which the current
Braille codes were designed have changed. Blind people no longer study and work
in relatively isolated spheres but rather in the mainstream, constantly sharing
interests and communications with their sighted colleagues. And at the same
time, in literature various types of technical notation are increasingly likely
to be found mixed in with other types and in general prose.
From these observations
the authors go on to argue convincingly that using separate codes for literary
and technical purposes causes undue difficulty: first, in learning Braille;
second, in reading or writing with precision; and third, in the economics of
conversion between print and Braille. To illustrate all those points, they use
the example of the dollar sign ($), which has a different representation in
each of the three BANA codes. I particularly like that example because it is
a reminder that the production of Braille under a multiple-code system requires
the making of fine distinctions--such as between dollar signs that are literary
and those that are in computer notation. Such distinctions can be difficult
for human transcribers and even more difficult for computer programs used for
automatic transcription. That makes transcription cost more $$$--no matter how
you write the dollar signs! In the context of limited budgets for Braille production,
that is to say in the real world, that means there is simply less Braille produced.
So the motivation for UBC
was easily established and broadly accepted. From there the overall project
goals could be enumerated: (1) UBC is to be based on the traditional 6-dot cell.
(2) UBC is to encompass literary notation and to retain grade-1 and grade-2
English Braille as it is already defined, with no major changes. (3) UBC is
also to encompass the notation for mathematics, computer programming, and related
scientific and engineering disciplines in a single coherent and extensible system.
Symbols learned at earlier stages remain the same even in advanced technical
text, so that one need learn only specifically new symbols and meanings in the
same way as the print reader, not a whole new code. (4) While UBC is envisioned
as supplanting only English codes (except for Music Braille, which is not affected),
the design process is to consider all currently used Braille codes, so as to
avoid any proliferation of unnecessary differences. (5) While remaining "readable,"
UBC is to convey symbols unambiguously, without reliance on meaning, thereby
enabling precise understanding and communication and also simplifying automated
conversion in either direction. (6) UBC is to be usable by both beginners and
advanced users.
These goals, which I have
slightly re-stated and re-ordered, have generally been seen as derived from
the overall concept of unification along with a common-sense desire not to discard
what is good from the current system--including literary works already in Braille
and the hard-won skills of current Braille readers. As such, these goals are
broad enough to be generally regarded as desirable and so have not been particularly
controversial. But as a committee has worked towards those goals, following
standard debating and voting procedures, the resulting concrete preliminary
proposal [ICEB 95] has indeed sparked controversy. It seems that with UBC, as
with many other things in life, the old saying applies: "The devil is in
the details."
For in one way or another
the source of the controversy comes down to one issue: the varying interpretations
and degrees of importance that different people attribute to each of the project
goals. For example, some people regard retention of the current grade-2 system
as an absolute requirement so that not even a few of the 189 contractions should
be modified or dropped in order to remove ambiguities. Quite early the UBC design
committee recognized that each of the project goals, even the rather central
one calling for nonambiguity, had to be regarded constructively rather than
absolutely, if the work was even to be possible. But not everyone sees it that
way.
Some of the more interesting
and important examples of this effect are implicit in the last of the stated
goals: "UBC is to be usable by both beginners and advanced users."
As in other respects, the design committee believes that it has met both parts
of this goal, having provided for technical symbology that is typical of very
advanced levels of study, but in a way that remains consistent from the earliest
stages of reading. However, the committee has also felt it necessary to consider
the other stated goals and also where the greatest needs lie--that is, where
the most people will be using the code most of the time. It may be said that
such considerations have caused the committee to lean, where it was necessary
to lean one way or the other, more towards the beginners or, more precisely,
towards general readers and learners, rather than towards the experienced professionals
in advanced subjects.
An example may help clarify
the kind of leaning that I am talking about. In many kinds of mathematical and
scientific notation, including chemistry as one obvious example, numbers that
immediately follow letters are quite likely to be in the subscript position.
For that reason, existing Braille codes that are designed for technical notation
tend to optimize for that case. In BANA's mathematics code (Nemeth code), for
instance, numbers written immediately after letters, without any intervening
indicator, are implicitly in the subscript position. That of course means that
a special indicator is needed to represent digits that are directly in line
with preceding letters--such as in catalog part numbers and similar designations
that are common in literary context. In order to keep things simple and to keep
faith with both kinds of notation and the other project goals, UBC in its current
(and not necessarily final) proposal requires an explicit subscript indicator
in all cases where a subscript is used, even in cases where practically every
number is a subscript, as in a chemical equation.
The simplicity and consistency
of that approach appeals to many people, because it means that the occasional
chemical formula, which we all encounter in all kinds of contexts, is easily
and accurately readable without any new learning. It also fosters learning,
especially at the early stages, even about chemistry, because the student using
Braille need not cope with some new way of understanding the notation itself.
Rather, just like the student using print, his essential task will be to learn
the subject matter that is the meaning behind the notation. But predictably--and
understandably--those people who regard chemistry as their life's work are less
enthusiastic about the prospect of writing and reading what they perceive to
be great numbers of subscript indicators in chemical formulae, all just to avoid
what they perceive to be relatively few indicators in catalog part numbers.
Such perceptions, incidentally, may or may not be accurate in a given case--we
humans are notoriously prone to a lot of subjective skew when it comes to estimating
statistics--but in any event it is perceptions that matter when it comes to
making judgments.
So does this mean that
UBC has reached an inherent contradiction, a dead end from which there is no
escape? Not at all, in my opinion, but it does mean that we may have to be clearer
about some of the limitations that any practical UBC is likely to have, as well
as its benefits--not to oversell the concept, in other words, lest we unconsciously
encourage expectations that are unlikely to be met. In particular we may need
to contemplate the possibility that UBC may not totally eliminate all private
and otherwise specialized Braille codes. Rather I believe that UBC will become
the broad-spectrum publishing code that everyone will be able to read and write
for just about every purpose, even if it is not necessarily what a professional
always uses for private notes and direct notational work in his own specialty.
By thus occupying more of the ground, so to speak, UBC will mean that other
Braille codes are likely to be even more specialized than they are now, but
not eliminated altogether.
We should not be surprised,
for instance, to see a chemistry specialist's code evolve that takes full advantage
of the bias towards subscripts and other predictable attributes of chemical
formulae, in other words is optimized so that the balancing of a chemical equation
can be carried out without working around indicators that are really there for
the benefit of other disciplines and the wider world. No doubt some such specialist's
codes will start out simply as private codes, and no doubt they will borrow
much from current specialty codes. But also, as I hope and expect will happen
as UBC becomes established, specialty codes are likely to borrow a great deal
from UBC itself, that is, to remain as compatible with regular UBC as is consistent
with the specialty discipline's needs. In a sense they may thus be regarded
as variant extensions to UBC rather than as contradictory codes.
In fact the current UBC
proposal can be said to anticipate and enable such a trend. It is not hard to
imagine that most users will simply omit most grade-1 indicators from their
private notes, for instance, thereby working in an instantly available shorthand.
Furthermore, one aspect of the current proposal, called the Alignment Mode,
may even be regarded as the first of the compatible specialty codes--designed
as it is to permit efficiency when manually carrying out aligned arithmetic
operations on hexadecimal numbers (something that computer programmers may occasionally
do, though not very commonly in my experience). When you think of it, even grade-2
can be considered a kind of specialty code--optimized only for nontechnical
prose - -but where the specialty notation is so often of interest to so many
people that UBC already provides for it.
It may seem shocking to
be expecting, even planning for, the continued existence of specialty codes
while at the same time working towards a unified code. But it need not surprise
us at all, if we consider what happens in practically all walks of life for
users of print as well as users of Braille. When writing notes that are only
for one's own later reference, how much do any of us pay any attention to the
rules of capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and grammar that normally apply
to published writing? Very little, if my own notes in preparation for this paper
are as typical as I believe them to be. Ad-hoc shortcuts of all kinds abound,
flowing naturally from the writer's own familiarity with the subject matter.
While such private codes usually remain informal and peculiar to the individual,
there are similar though more formalized codes that tend to evolve for the use
of larger groups.
Examples would be the shorthand
notations for chess moves and knitting instructions that are used by and for
people who are already knowledgeable in those subjects. The tendency to create
such shorthands is a natural one and need not be feared or forbidden or controlled.
It arises from the desire to be very efficient, one may even say focused, when
working exclusively in a relatively narrow and well-known subject. In such cases
the strongly constrained context allows efficiencies that are simply impossible
to match in a broader notation system, so a specialty code is born. This tendency
is the same for Braille, although the break-points where specialty codes arise
are not necessarily the same, for the simple reason that the mechanics--the
size of the basic characters, and their more limited number--are different.
In any case, any additional learning or other complexities associated with a
specialty code will be experienced mainly by persons already skilled and actively
working in that specialty, and common sense suggests that those are the very
people who are the most able as well as the most motivated to deal with those
complexities.
This is by no means a forecast
that specialty codes will become so numerous or extensively used that the situation
will be worse than at present. On the contrary, the broad expressiveness of
UBC is bound to reduce their use to cases where the need for special efficiency
is strongly felt, and those are not likely to be common. And the initial estimates
on the efficiency of UBC itself are surprisingly encouraging--for sufficiently
large samples, it should not be very different from that of today's Braille
codes.
In summary, UBC itself
is not an absolute, any more than any of its individual goals. It will not solve
all problems or cause all specialty codes to disappear. But it will still bring
about enormous improvements in the production and use of Braille, and that is
well worth doing.
References:
[Cranmer & Nemeth 1991]
Drs. T. V. Cranmer and Abraham Nemeth, "A
Uniform Braille Code," memo to the members of the BANA Board dated January
15, 1991; archived on the World Wide Web at either of the URLs:
http://world.std.com/~duxbury/cranem.html
[ICEB 95] International
Council on English Braille, Unified Braille Code Research Project, Objective
II: Extension of the Base Code Report by the Objective II Committee; March 1995;archived
on the World Wide Web at URL:
Share a Comment