kdejute
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thank you for asking. We use GTM 7.9 rather than GTM 12 when §12 does not include the specific modifier we need. A right-pointing arrow is covered in §12, so we should follow the guidelines there.
–Kyle
.=^: simple right-pointing arrow over previous item
Second, using UEB for it, we would transcribe a bidirectional arrow over AB as follows:
;;<,,ab>.9\wro
You were close. We do need a grade 1 word indicator to start. We do need braille grouping indicators around AB so that the modifier applies to both letters and not just to B. And, your bidirectional arrow is good. \wro
Because UEB does not classify "bidirectional arrow over" with the common modifiers in GTM §12, we should look to GTM §7.9 and use the indicator for "expression directly above." .=.9
Then the arrow does not need any terminator or braille grouping indicators because its start and end are clearly delineated by the arrow indicator and an arrow terminator, respectively. .=| and .=o
Phew.
Braille on!
–Kyle
First, yes, it is correct to use the two-cell capital letter indicator in front of AB rather than capital A capital B. [Chemistry has different preferences, because its capital letters each mean a totally different element.]
So, for example, "BC bar" (or "bar over BC") would be transcribed in UEB Math/Science as follows.
;;<,,bc>:
And, "(line segment) AB = (line segment) CD" would be probably be transcribed as follows.
;;;<,,ab>: "7 <,,cd>:;'
–Kyle
P.S. The DBT codes I would use to get that transcription above are ts e bar e bar te (also in the attached screenshot).
Yes indeed, Susan! You are so right; for the line segment notation we use UEB's bar over. Braille on! –Kyle
It is great news that tactile graphic arrows are a possibility for this transcription.
The committee believes strongly that brailled arrows are confusing in this situation. Tactile graphic arrows would much better fulfil the role of the arrows here, which is to connect a label to a specific piece of the math expression.
The attached image shows one possible way of placing/arranging the arrows, the expression's pieces, and the labels.
That possible transcription includes a transcriber's note that says, "The equation is shown twice in braille: once without labels and again with labels."
Then the equation (2×_ = _) is brailled on its own line. Next comes a blank line. Then the labels ("cups each day", "days in 2 weeks", and "total cups") are brailled on one line, with two blank cells between the labels. The labels are followed by two lines where the arrows are drawn, all pointing straight downward to the line where the equation is brailled again spaced out horizontally so that the arrows can point from each label to the relevant part of the equation.
Please let us know if you have follow-up questions or notes!
–Kyle and NBA's UEB Technical Material Committee
Thank you for sharing your question, including pictures of the print and your proposed braille! The committee is now discussing it.
For now, please let me ask: Are tactile arrows a possibility in this transcription?
–Kyle
We have been discussing this as a committee, and we have come to some consensus.
First, Let's be careful to focus on transcription and not instruction/teaching.
If we look at this as a transcription issue, then the conventional wisdom is "follow print."
To answer the specific questions:1) BANA does not necessarily recommend transcribing the equation without the "shown work" before transcribing the fully worked-out problem. With that being said, we as a committee do not see a problem including the equation first in this situation. We should certainly use a transcriber's note if we present the problem twice; perhaps, "The example problem is shown twice: first without any calculation text and a second time with the calculation text included."
The suggested transcription that is attached here does give the example problem twice with a tn explaining that the problem is shown twice. The suggested transcription uses one continuous numeric passage for all of the example problem and also the rest of the exercise set. The alignment of the suggested transcription attempts to follow the mathematical logic of the problem's layout without rearranging or breaking down the print layout.2 & 3) These questions seem to be focused on teaching a braille reader how to show their work, and that is not really the role of a transcriber. We must trust the teacher (or aid or paraprofessional or someone else directly in the instructional environment) to tailor instruction on how to show work to the specific braille user.
Are there aspects of your question that we did not address? How else can we help?
Susan,
Thank you for your question! I appreciate your citing a section of Rules of UEB 💖🧠💖
I see that the directions in the example you shared say, "Write the decimal point in each product so that the equation is correct."
Thus, I am comfortable saying the spaces in the situation you shared are, as part of RUEB §6.6 says, "a separator in a single number."
And so it would make great sense to use the numeric space.
Consequently, item b from your example might look as follows:
braille: #j4ec"8#e "7 #b"f"e
print: b. 0.53×5 = 2 6 5
Braille on!
–Kyle(cont.)
Even though Braille Formats 2016 §10.8.4 says, "Format exercise examples in the same manner as the following questions/answers. ..." we think that transcribing the spatial example problem more than once would be more confusing than helpful. Again, we are convinced that even though the example problem includes all of its carrying and borrowing and so will look different than the exercise problems that follow it, the example problem should be transcribed one time.
We are working on a suggested transcription for the print you shared.
–Kyle
Thank you for the questions! I'll start answering these now; though, it will likely take some time and discussion to address them all.
You asked first, "Does BANA ever recommend including the math text without annotations before introducing the annotated text?"
The example you shared implies that what you mean by "annotations" is things like carried numbers, omissions, etc.
I cannot point to any place where BANA or ICEB addresses the possibility of brailling a math expression twice (once without certain aspects and then a second time with all printed aspects included). So, we do not have official guidance right now.
Personally, I would NOT recommend transcribing the math without its full work/calculation. If you wanted to clarify for the reader what is the core expression, you might include a short transcriber's note to say so. (e.g., The worked example shown below is 42×36.)
–Kyle
P.S. I am still working on your other questions.
What follows is a brief summary of conversation outside of this forum.
I have found these non-Arabic numeration systems described in the document Addendum 1 to the Nemeth Code for Mathematics and Science Notation, 1972 Revision: Ancient Numeration Systems. What if we used the keys described in that [e.g., "e", "p", and "r" for the "eye," "pebble," and "rod" that make up the Mayan numeration system, with a subscript indicator used to show the placement of the rod(s) and "e", "p", and "r" for the "eye," "pebble," and "rod" that make up the Mayan numeration system,]?
Others had the same idea, though they could not find their copy of that Addendum.
I agree that utilizing the information about ancient numeration systems in the Addendum 1 to the Nemeth Braille Code is inspired.
🧠✨
The only thing I might do differently is use the "directly under" UEB indicator instead of the subscript indicator, but I think the meaning becomes clear to the braille user either way.
–KyleP.S. One more note: This is not the only way to tackle this situation. And, of course, any solution would require a thorough transcriber's note.
