[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, 6 months ago by kdejute. Reason: Updated response
• This reply was modified 7 years, 6 months ago by kdejute.
• This reply was modified 7 years, 6 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

[kdejute]

Thank you, Teresa!

[kdejute]

Good day, Mary!

You're right that at the least each "E" standing alone in your example needs a grade 1 symbol indicator.

I like this suggestion you've made of enclosing your table in a grade 1 passage. If you do so, be sure to insert the "dot locator for use" (Rules of UEB section 3.14)  along with your grade 1 passage indicator and grade 1 terminator when they each appear on a line by themselves.

A .BRF is attached with a transcription of the snippet you provided.

Cheers!
–Kyle

P.S. You may post your UEB questions, even about technical material, in the UEB thread of this forum.

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[kdejute]

How sneaky this print set-up is! Good find. Good question.

Nice transcription. I can hardly make any suggestions. Only double-check that all of your switch indicators are formed correctly and paired.

Again, nicely brailled, and thank you!

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Thank you for your question.

In an EBAE-Nemeth environment, the correct transcription of "Connected3" is ⠠⠒⠝⠑⠉⠞⠫⠼⠒

It is tempting to think that Nemeth Code §77 (about non-use of a subscript indicator when a numeric subscript follows a letter) applies to this example. However, since the word "Connected" is not "an abbreviated function name or a letter which has a separate identity",  NC§77 does not apply.

Again, thank you for your question; it certainly struck sparks in my brain!

–Kyle

 

 

[Author]

Posts