[kdejute]

Yes, I would do as you describe.

_% (ft^2") _:

–Kyle

• This reply was modified 7 years, 2 months ago by kdejute.

[kdejute]

Greta,

Thank you for your questions.

#1: Yes, for a table that consists of nothing but words and unmodified numbers, it's UEB all the way.

#2: A table that has one entry that must be in Nemeth Code is not required to have all its rows in Nemeth Code. In the example you provided (where a row heading and an entry both include material that must be in Nemeth Code and there are no column headings) I think I would suggest transcribing the body of the table all in one Nemeth bubble, with the opening Nemeth Code indicator in cell 1 on a line by itself right before the first row and the Nemeth Code terminator in cell 1 on a line by itself after the last row of the table. But I do not believe it would be wrong to enclose the fraction in the row heading in one set of Nemeth Code switch indicators and the fraction in the second column in another set of Nemeth Code switch indicators.

#3: Our Guidance does not require that (x) in "Number of Sheets (x)" be transcribed in Nemeth Code. So, there is no technical material in the column headings of the third example table you shared. You're quite right that the decimals that make up the second column's entries must be in Nemeth Code. So, you should enclose the row headings and table entries in one Nemeth bubble, with the opening Nemeth Code indicator in cell 1 on a line by itself following the column separation lines and the Nemeth Code terminator in cell 1 on a line by itself after the last row of the table.

Thank you for your questions! Please let me know if you have any follow-up concerns.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Good day, Susan!

Yes, an opening Nemeth Code indicator must always have a corresponding Nemeth Code terminator.

Cheers!

–Kyle

[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

 

[kdejute]

Greta,

Thank you for the question; it is a common point of perplexity.

You've done it so right!

The only note I have is: In line one of your simbraille, please check the construction of your Nemeth Code terminator.

You've placed the minus symbols beautifully in this example material; you've accurately reflected print (and its intentional confusion/obfuscation).

–Kyle

[kdejute]

I apologize for the delay in my response.

Since the line-25 repetition of the label for a sequentially numbered table is in no way part of the content of the table, I would suggest transcribing the line-25 repetition of the table label in UEB with a transcriber's note explaining this set-up.

Thank you for the astute and well-researched question.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Tung,

Thank you for the question.

Although it is inconvenient, "Adjacent angles", "Vertical angles", "Alternate interior angles", "Supplementary angles", and "Corresponding angles" are all nontechnical phrases/labels/headings.

[These phrases would be technical if they were involved in computation. In the example you included (Thank you for doing so!), the phrases/labels are not involved in computation and so are not technical. It would be rare for any of those phrases/labels to be involved in computation.]

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Tung,

If in Nemeth Code you have a long dash followed by a variable, then a space should follow the long dash. (See §42 of the Nemeth Code.)

So, for

y = __x + __

the appropriate transcription would be

⠽⠀⠨⠅⠀⠤⠤⠤⠤⠀⠭⠬⠀⠤⠤⠤⠤

Thank you for you question.

Sincerely,
Kyle

[kdejute]

Trumbull,

Thank you for the question. It, unsurprisingly, has made me scratch my head. And, I have to amend my original answer.

Considering the updated example (4) in section 11.b of the Nemeth Code, numeric indicators should not be used in work arranged in columns for addition (even when the work includes equal signs). The updated example is below and is from page 5 of the 2007 Update to the Nemeth Code.

⠀⠰⠭⠤⠀⠽⠤⠀⠢⠵⠬⠀⠔⠀⠨⠅⠀⠴
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠶⠽⠤⠀⠢⠵⠬⠆⠦⠀⠨⠅⠀⠴
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠢⠽⠤⠂⠂⠵⠤⠲⠒⠀⠨⠅⠀⠴
⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒

Thus, the appropriate transcription of your example would be:

⠀⠀⠀⠒⠭⠤⠆⠽⠀⠨⠅⠀⠂⠴
⠀⠬⠀⠶⠭⠬⠆⠽⠀⠨⠅⠀⠒⠴
⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒

 

–Kyle

• This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by kdejute. Reason: Updated response
• This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by kdejute.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 3 months ago by kdejute.

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

[kdejute]

Well researched! Thank you for the follow-up.

[kdejute]

Katrina,

I would transcribe the print you shared just as you have transcribed it. You're right that the level must be specified for a fraction line or fraction indicator that is preceded by material on a different level.

⠐⠮⠩⠤⠠⠿⠣⠭⠻⠑⠘⠤⠹⠨⠭⠘⠘⠆⠘⠌⠆⠨⠎⠘⠰⠂⠘⠘⠆⠘⠼⠐⠙⠨⠭

"modified integral with below it negative infinity and above it x. Then e superscript negative fraction xi squared over two sigma-one squared [end (superscripted) fraction]; base-line d xi."

Thank you for the question!

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Thank you for your question!

First, radio buttons: I see your reasoning in using the UEB circle shape symbol or a Nemeth circle shape for print's radio buttons depending upon which code you're in a the time. Might I suggest that you create a UEB transcriber-defined shape (Rules of UEB section 1.7.2), identify it as a "Radio button" on your Special Symbols Page, and use that for a radio button everywhere it appears? This would give your braille reader the same symbol every time a radio button is used in print.

Second, your indention for the "(1)" (and for the answer choices that follow it) is spot on. It's really your only option to indent it in 3-5 as a sub-item to item #5, since you must follow Nemeth formatting rules (and the answer choices are sub-sub items to #5 and also indented in 3-5.).

Lastly, the "(1)". I do not see why this has to be in Nemeth. It is not an enclosed list, because it only contains/consists of one item, and it is otherwise a simple number that can easily be read in either UEB or Nemeth Code. So, I would say you could leave UEB in effect in item #5 from "in words is" through the end your item #5. For item #17, I think your current Nemeth code "bubble" is appropriate.

Again, thank you for your question (and for the beautiful document). Please let me know if anything here is incomplete or unclear.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Trumbull,

My official recommendation is to follow BRAILLE FORMATS 2016 for note indicators.

Although the Nemeth Code does provide specific rules for note indicators, they are not mathematical/technical, and the Nemeth rules on notes do not serve a practical purpose in a UEB environment, so let's follow the Formats rules, barring unforeseen circumstances.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Trumbull,

That is an excellent question. I am inclined to follow Nemeth Code closely for the construction of the note indicator, since the Nemeth Code does provide specific direction for formation and placement of a note indicator. However, I am not certain that is what we should do. Please let me check with others and get back to you.

–Kyle

[Author]

Posts