[kdejute]

Tabitha,

I know what I want to say, but I am checking with other brains in order to confirm. Thank you for the astute question and for your patience.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Tabitha,

I'm afraid that your WORD file did not upload, because it exceeds the allowed file size for this forum.

In addition, could you please let me know if you are transcribing the worksheet using only UEB, or are you using Nemeth within UEB?

Thank you.
–Kyle

 

 

[kdejute]

Susie,

Thank you for your question; thank you especially for including the print example (mathematically incorrect though it may be).

There is no particular meaning to the fact that question 2's three steps are arranged horizontally across the page, so you do not need to retain that arrangement or describe the print for the braille reader.

I would suggest treating each step number as a heading and ignoring the print box lines entirely.

–Kyle

 

[kdejute]

Julia,

Thank you for your questions.

Please allow me to answer your second question first: Chemical symbols, whether comprised of a single letter or of multiple letters, should be enclosed in Nemeth Code switch indicators wherever doing so would PREVENT CONFUSION. However, there is currently no requirement beyond this that chemical symbols outside of an equation or other mathematical expression be enclosed in Nemeth Code switch indicators.

My answer to your first question (whether "names like 'Copper(I), Iron(III), Cobalt(II), etc.' need to be enclosed in Nemeth Code indicators) is no, they do not. In narrative text, I would transcribe these names of compounds that contain no superscripts, symbols or operation or comparison, or other "technical material" in UEB, without Nemeth Code switch indicators.

Again, thank you for  your questions, and thank you for your time.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Thank you for the question.

In most or all circumstances in which <i>E</i>. coli appears in a text transcribed using Nemeth Code with EBAE,

.,e4 coli

is the correct braille transcription. An image of this simbraille is attached.

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[kdejute]

Trumbull,

Thank you for the good question.

For the second of your two examples, I am confident that you would be correct in beginning Nemeth Code before the box that contains all technical material and terminating Nemeth Code after the technical material that follows the box.

For the first of your examples, in order to follow #6 under <b>Additional Guidelines</b>, I would use one set of code switch indicators for the table and another set for material that follows the table.

As always, please do let me know if you have any follow-up questions or concerns.

-Kyle

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[kdejute]

Joe,

Your thinking is logical and clearly explained. However, it is not quite in line with the Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts. This is because #5 under Additional Guidelines in the Guidance applies to standard units of measure, namely those from the US customary units system, the metric system, and the International System of Units.

So,  the braille you provided in your Example 2 is correct.

Thank you for your question and your time.

–Kyle

 

[kdejute]

Good day, Tung.

Since the dark blue lines indicate where the content for light blue lines is coming from, I believe you should include all of the lines (You could probably use braille omission dashes for the light blue lines that indicate blanks to be filled and tactile lines for the dark blue lines). Similarly, I believe you should follow print as closely as is practical for alignment in order to help make clear the relationship between omission dashes on one line and omission dashes on the next line.

Thank  you sincerely for your question. Please do post again if you have follow-up concerns or queries.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Good day, Susan!

The attachment "Nemeth omission fields" is too big for our website to upload. Still, I think I can see from the UEB attachment what you're asking about.

I agree that there is not a code rule that addresses this issue specifically. So, we'll have to just talk about practical solutions that do not violate any codes.

One way you might indicate, in UEB and in Nemeth Code, blanks in which the student is to braille their answer directly is with a tactile line (or any tactile shape, since tactile shapes are not part of any code). Or perhaps you could "draw" a box with braille cells (I've heard this referred to as a "P-box").

⠏⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠹

⠇              ⠸

⠧⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠤⠼

Alternatively, *perhaps* you could insert a heading, enclosed in TN indicators, before the space left empty for an answer. That transcriber-inserted heading --or maybe a regular 7-5 TN-- would always be in UEB and could always say the same thing (e.g., write your answer below).

I hope some part of the above helps. If you have time, please post here a description of what you decide to do.

Cheers!

--Kyle

[kdejute]

Good day, Tung. Thank you for the question.

Section 58 of the Nemeth Code says:

In work arranged spatially for computation, only the general omission symbol may be used in braille regardless of how the omission is denoted in ink print. In addition, the number of general omission symbols to be used must be the same as the number of omission signs which occur in ink print.

So, in item 1 of your example print, five general omission symbols will be used.
⠼⠂⠸⠲⠀⠀ ⠀⠿⠿
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠒⠴⠔
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠤⠀⠢⠶
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒
⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠿⠿⠿

In response to your next question, the blank spatial form gives the student space to use the opposite operation (addition instead of subtraction) to check their answer, so it should be retained in braille. I would transcribe the blank spatial forms using tactile lines for the vertical lines (because using all general omission symbols gives the inaccurate impression that all the blank areas defined by the lines will be filled).

Last but not least, for items 9 and 10 in your example print, the square and the triangle do represent different values, so we need to keep that distinction in braille. Thank goodness these problems have the vertical lines to designate place value, so I would say you can retain these vertical lines and use the Nemeth Code's square and triangle shapes where they appear.

As always, please do let me know if you have follow-up questions.
Cheers!
–Kyle

[kdejute]

Tung,

The numbers being separated by semicolons does not change the fact that they are simple and freestanding with only interior commas, so they do not need to be inside a Nemeth switch.

Thank you for clarifying.

--Kyle

 

[kdejute]

I see no reason to use Nemeth Code for a Roman Numeral that is freestanding and unmodified.

Well spotted, Teresa!

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Good day, Tung:

When a specific geometric construction is named (e.g., "Triangle ABC", "Line Segment AB", "Plane Z", etc.), this should be transcribed in Nemeth Code. For example:

Measure line segment AB or AB <with line over> to the nearest inch.

⠀⠀⠠⠍⠂⠎⠥⠗⠑⠀⠸⠩⠀⠇⠊⠝⠑⠀⠎⠑⠛⠍⠑⠝⠞⠀⠠⠁⠠ ⠃⠀⠠⠄⠕⠗
⠐⠠⠁⠠⠃⠣⠱⠻⠀⠸⠱⠀⠞⠕⠀⠮⠀⠝⠑⠜⠑⠌⠀⠔⠡⠲

Thank you for your time and attention. Please do let me know if you have follow-up questions or comments.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Tung,

Thank you for your questions. My replies are below.

1. The numbers in the table should not be aligned as illustrated in the braille simulation (Thank you for including that). The table should be laid out as usual, with entries aligned left under their respective column headings and guide dots where there is room for a space and two or more guide dots. (The text's reference to aligning "from the right" is talking about aligning ones values, then tens values, then hundreds values, etc. and is not talking about alignment within a place value column.)
2. The numbers in the table do not need to be in Nemeth Code.
3. In questions 1 and 2 under Practice, the series of numbers do not need to be in Nemeth Code. They are simple numbers with interior commas, so it is good to keep them in UEB.
4. The answer choices to question 14, which consist of mathematical expressions that include signs of operation or comparison, should be transcribed altogether in one set of Nemeth switch indicators. The number in the stem of question 14 (3,709) should not be in Nemeth Code.

Cheers!

-Kyle

[kdejute]

Julia,

My responses to your questions are below. The attached document contains these responses as well as additional notes.

1. I agree that when you have a series of numbers some of which are paired with a sign of operation (e.g., "5, 8, 2, -3, 6, and -5"), it is preferable to enclose the whole series of numbers in one set of Nemeth switch indicators. However, if only two numbers appear, one of which is paired with a sign of operation, then I would enlose in Nemeth switch indicators only the modified number.
2. Author's notes within spatial problems ... should likely be handled as you describe, keying each author's note (using a numbered key) and listing the notes before the equation. As for the begin Nemeth Code indicator before spatial material when a non-embedded transcriber's note precedes the spatial material, I would not place the indicator on the line with the end of the TN, because the Guidance only technically allows for the indicator to be placed after preceding text. I think the likelihood that the reader would miss the opening Nemeth Code indicator is too great if it is placed following a TN.
3. For a multi-word author's note that appears with a fraction with cancellations (which must be represented spatially), I would do as you have suggested and use the keying technique described in item #2 above.
4. Could author's comments be left uncontracted even though they are not technically part of the Nemeth equation? No; that would be unclear and inconsistent. Author's non-mathematical comments should be in UEB.

Thank you for your questions and for your attention.

–Kyle

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Author]

Posts