consistency with omissions

[two-three-six]

Hello,

I have some questions about the attached math problem, which is going to be done in Nemeth in a UEB context.

1. Preliminary question, in general, should the unit "units" be included within Nemeth code indicators, as per #5 on page 7 of the Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts? For example, if I had a sentence that started, "If a box is more than .25 units above or below..." I would put the opening Nemeth indicator before .25 and the closing after units, right?
2. When there is an omission sign followed by a unit, should those both be included within Nemeth Code Indicators, or does that depend on the context?
3. In the same worksheet, would it be ok to use  some UEB square symbols and some Nemeth square symbols for boxes of omission? Is it ok to use both types of squares within the same problem?
4. What would you recommend including in Nemeth indicators in the attached problem? In the first simbraille, I did not include the omissions and units in the Nemeth indicators, except for the last equation. In the second simbraille, I did include them when they were followed by "units."
5. If I put a transcriber's note at the beginning of the worksheet about the use of the dots 2-5 line to show separation as on the standard print worksheet, is that an acceptable thing to do? The student doesn't need to fill in any information above the line.

Thanks for any help! I'm not as familiar with Nemeth as I should be to be tackling this, but I'm trying to fill in for someone.

Greta

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[kdejute]

Greta,

Thank you for your questions. I shall respond in the order you posed them.

1. Since "units" is not a member of the standard, metric, or other codified measurement system, it should not be within Nemeth Code indicators (unless it is involved in an equation or other computation).
2. When there is an omission sign followed by a unit, I would use UEB code for both in most cases.
3. In the same worksheet, it is alright, and almost inevitable, to use some UEB [square] symbols and some Nemeth [square] symbols for boxes of omission.
4. I would suggest you try to avoid it if you can do so without bending over backwards, but it is also ok to use both types of squares within the same problem.
5. The first simbraille in your attached document is almost exactly how I would transcribe that problem. I only wonder about the symbols you used for a square in UEB. Should it not be ⠰⠫⠼⠙ , where the first cell is a grade 1  indicator? (section 11.7 of the Rules of UEB)
6. I believe your suggestion about using dots 2-5 would work for the reader.

You may not be as well-versed in the Nemeth Code as would be ideal. But your questions indicate that you are doing a fiiiine job of transcribing this work.

Cheers!
–Kyle

[two-three-six]

Hi Kyle,

Thank you very much for the answers, and the encouragement!

I did have the symbols of the UEB square incorrect--thanks for pointing that out.

Greta

[togilby]

Hi Kyle,

I notice that in your answer to two-three-six's #1 above, you did not reference the change to the rule about units of measure which, in an 8/3 post, you refer to as  "the as-yet-unpublished updates to the our Guidance (which Dorothy Worthington talked about in her recent NBA webinar, “Update to the Guidance for Transcription Using Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts. What Has Changed?“)."

I realize that the change would not apply to this particular example, but it made me wonder …  has the update been published? if not, when, and is it wrong to be applying it in advance? I have been following the updated rule since listening to that webinar; premature, perhaps, but it since it so neatly clears up the question of what and what not to include in the switches, I couldn't resist 😉

[kdejute]

Trumbull,

The updated Guidance that we are discussing has not yet been published, on BANA's website or elsewhere.

Confession: I, too, have been following the updates covered in the webinar we are discussing.

Disclaimer: If your note on the Transcriber's Notes page says, "This volume has been transcribed according to The Nemeth Braille Code for Mathematics and Science Notation, 1972 Revision, 2007-2015 updates and the Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts .", then that does not include the batch of changes/updates that includes the note to only include abbreviated units of measure in switch indicators with a modified number or other technical expression.
If you are applying that batch of changes, then perhaps a more thorough note is called for.
Technically, the only official BANA guidance we have is what is published.

I'm afraid that is all the input I have at this point.

–Kyle

 

[Author]

Posts