Are impending braille code changes inevitable?
CTEBVI Conference
Presentation April 4, 2014
by
Inge Durre
The Limitations of EBAE - why change at all?
To those of you who have been teaching, transcribing, or reading braille in its relatively stable form for a long time, a new braille code may be daunting! Why is a code change deemed necessary? Here are some answers:
1) The current system involves multiple rather different braille codes inorder to handle literary material and technical or scientific or foreign language texts. The two most commonly used codes are English Braille American Edition (EBAE) and The Nemeth Braille Code for Mathematics and Science Notation (Nemeth Code). In addition, there is the Computer Braille Code which is used for the notation of computer programs, Internet addresses, electronic file names, to name a few purposes of that code. Yet another code pertains to the notation of chemistry. In addition, in foreign language texts, symbols and formats are used whose meanings differ from those in the other language environments.Yet another code exists for music notation, a code that is now accepted and in use all over the world - music brailled in one country can actually be read and used in every other country. This multitude of codes undoubtedly puts agreat burden on braille readers, teachers, transcribers, students, and parents of braille readerswho haveto learn multiplebraille systems which involve different meanings for braille patterns, different formats, different punctuation, and different numeric representations.
2) It has become obvious that the possibilities for creating unambiguous braille equivalents for new print symbols such as currency signs and emoticons have been exhausted.
3) When students reading a literary text encounter a short technical phrase, such as a simple fraction, a dollar amount, or a simple equation, that phrase looks different in EBAE from what it would look like in a text written in the Nemeth Code.
4) For short-notice production of quality braille from print, tools are needed that allow simple typing a text, particularly by teachers and educators of the blind, many of whom are required to create braille worksheets and other classroom materials for their blind students on a daily basis.Automatic error-free print to EBAE conversion is not possible due to the large number of braille symbols with multiple meanings.
5) The ambiguities of EBAE do not permit an accurate braille to print conversion. The same is true for the Nemeth Code. Students routinely use back-translation software built into their note-takers to convert their workfrom braille to print for their sighted teachers. Such back translation may introduce errors into the text that may be out of the student's control and may result in lower grades.
These, in a nut shell, are examples of the shortcomings of the entire system of current American English braille codes.
What are the Alternatives?
Several attempts have been made for literary and scientific notation to be covered by a single code in which all symbols are expressed uniquely and logically.
Eight-dot codes
Threecodes that make use of the eight-dot braille cell common on refreshable braille displays are COBRA,GS Braille, and Dots-Plus. By using eight dots, these codes greatly increase the number of unique one-character braille symbols. However, despite their benefits, eight dots codes have not found any real traction in the United States. For more information about these codes, visit dots.physics.orst.edu, and
respectively.
UEB
Another effort has been under way for more than two decades, led by the International Council on English Braille (ICEB) and championed by the Braille Authority of North America (BANA),to develop a unified braille code. The primary work in this area involves an attempt not only to combine the literary and scientific codes, but also to find a common ground with other English-speaking countries, primarily Canada, England, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand. This effort resulted in the adoption of the Unified English Braille Code(UEB), by BANA in the fall of 2012. In an attempt to appease those who had voiced theirstrong objections to the deficienciesespecially of the math and science portion of the UEB, BANA regrettably decided to "allow" the continued use of Nemeth Code in combination with UEB for mathematical and scientific context.The decision to use UEB in conjunction with Nemeth Code, however, violates the primary principle to create a unified code. While UEB alone may meet the goal of unambiguous transcription, in many aspects it is unintuitive to the US braille user, unwieldy, and, therefore, difficult to learn, read, and write for the US braille user.
Training materials on how to use or teach UEB are still under development for this country. Code books including rules exist in Australia and New Zealand, countries that switched to UEB several years ago. A "Canadian Code Update" exists for literary, but not for mathematical context. BANA has posted a brief"Overview of Changes from Current Literary Braille to Unified English Braille" on its website, pointing out that it is a mere excerpt, not a complete list of all changes. Interestingly, the original claim that the changes are minor, as "only 9 contractions were going to be eliminated", blurs the fact that, for the U.S. user, the majority of mathematical symbols are completely new creations, a logical consequence if one keeps in mind that there are only 63unique once-cell braille dot patterns, 64 counting the blank space.Even though the implementation of UEB is less than 2 years away, there is no complete UEB code or rules guide available that addresses all aspects of the UEB for the braille user in the United States.
A combination of UEB for literary texts with Nemeth Code for mathematical materials accomplishes very little as regards the definition of a unified code. Likely, students will be learning UEB first, and later, at a yet undefined stage in their education, have to learn a totally different system when mathematical and scientific notation are introduced. What have we gained by reverting to two codes? Furthermore, why does BANA insist on the name Unified English Braille, when it does not implement UEB as the only code? UEB is a mis-nomer if Nemeth Code is used in parallel. It is the fear of many that blind students will be shortchanged by having to learn two incompatible systems of notation. At a time when the potential of STEM fields have been recognized as a great opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those who are blind, the decision to keep 2 different braille codes no doubt appears as a major step back. If UEB wins over the combination of UEB with Nemeth, students will be put at a disadvantage from the outset, as higher mathematics
NUBS
It is interesting to note here, that the initiative to search for and create a unified braille code originated in a joint memorandum published by Drs. Tim Cranmer and Abraham Nemeth in 1991. A decade later, dissatisfied with the direction the subsequent development of the UEB was taking, Dr. Nemeth himself began to develop a new system that would meet the original goal of creating a concise, unambiguous, and intuitive code for all texts. The result of Dr. Nemeth's efforts is the Nemeth Uniform Braille System (NUBS) whichaccomplishes a complete unification of literary and mathematical notation. NUBS covers every facet from the basic alphabet through complex mathematical notation and facilitates accurate automatic translation to and from print.
As such, NUBS represents an elegant alternative to UEB alone, or UEB + Nemeth Code, as it is a complete single code andis ready to be used immediately. Suitable training materials have already been written and can be accessed for self-study at today. In addition, efforts are already well under way to provide mechanisms for converting materials into NUBS from UEB and Nemeth Code texts.
Conveniently, NUBS makes minimal changes in the current system of contracted braille and borrows heavily from the Nemeth Code. Therefore, the transition from Nemeth to NUBS should be relatively straightforward. Existing textbooks brailled in the Nemeth Code could be read by NUBS readers and, therefore, would not become obsolete. Moreover, no intensive retraining for readers and transcribers would be necessary.
NUBS versus UEB
The greatest difference between UEB and NUBS lies in the mathematical and scientific context, as the braille reader will already be familiar with the Nemeth Code. Braille users will notice that NUBS retains much of the Nemeth Code rules, with relatively minor adaptations where the goal of code unification required them. In contrast, UEB is comprised of many artificially constructed symbols whose only value seems to lie in their unambiguous translatability, compromising their readability, conciseness, and teachability.
In a comparison of the benefits of NUBS and UEB, NUBS, therefore, is the clear and undeniable winner.Let me quote from an informational flyer of an organization supporting the use of NUBS: "The only unified code that maintains the tried and proven technical roots in the Nemeth Code is NUBS." UEB "claims to provide for literary and technical reading needs, but cannot match NUBS in form or function. The eloquent integration found within NUBS allows for fluent narrative and everyday reading, coupled with concise notations in tight proximity to each other for clarity in representing digits, variables, formulas, and mathematical equations." In NUBS, literary reading "appears as it has and technical reading does not appear spread out and disordered. This cohesion is needed by braille readers and those who transcribe and educate others in the use of braille."
It may be of interest to mention here that NUBS had been completed before BANA made the decision to switch to UEB. Implored to conduct research on the usefulness and efficacy of NUBS versus UEB, one superficial research project was commissioned that compared nothing but the popularity and reading rates of non-mathematical EBAE and NUBS sample texts among braille readers. The unsurprising result of this "research study" was that some subjects' answers indicated reduced familiarity with, and, therefore, a certain dislike of, NUBS. However, no difference in reading rates was determined, even though the readers were obviously less familiar with NUBS than with EBAE. What many experts would have expected from BANA was a true comparison between the readability of NUBS and UEB, in both literary and mathematical context. BANA's rationale to reject NUBS on the basis of this irrelevant study is difficult to understand. For unclear reasons, it favored UEB and opted in UEB's favor to become the new, though not unified, code. True research studies comparing NUBS and UEB are still outstanding.
A relevant comparison between UEB, Nemeth Code, and NUBS of a different kind was done by a group of math teachers, lead-authored by Maylene Bird from the Texas School for the Blind. That code comparison exemplifies some of the issues with UEB, such as the length of some symbols extending to 3 and even 4 cells, clearly a problem when it comes to reading, as the reader must hold back with the determination what he or she has already decoded until the end of the expression, when the final meaning can be determined. That document is available on the Internet in accessible formats for everyone to explore.
Other documents that clearly portrait the benefits of NUBS over UEB have been put together by Joyce Hull, who is currently the most knowledgeable NUBS expert. Joyce was working closely with Dr. Nemeth for some 13 years on documenting the NUBS code and writing the NUBS transcriber's manual. Clearly more extensive side-by-side comparisons are needed to further document the differences between UEB and NUBS.
UEB is not inevitable
Even though a change to the U.S. system of braille is highly desirable, it does not have to come in the form of the UEB. NUBS is a more functional system and truly integrates literary and technical notation in a way that is meaningful and in most parts familiar to the U.S. braille user. Since BANA has no legal authority, the future of braille in the U.S. lies in the hands of the consumers.
As the history of braille in this country has shown, there have been differing opinions before on the question of which code is best for readers of a tactual system. It was the Missouri School for the Blind in 1860that first decided to implement braille, as opposed to any of the conglomerate of other codes in use at the time. Eventually, other schools and organizations would follow many years later.
In hopes of the truth to the saying that history repeats itself, several individuals who are convinced of the superiority of NUBS over UEB have formed a new organization named Alliance for Braille Literacy (ABL). Perhaps not coincidentally, the headquarters of the Alliance is located in St. Louis, Missouri. In its endeavor to spread the knowledge of and about NUBS, ABLis currently building a website as a resource for everyone, with the goal to provide sample texts in NUBS, so that braille readers and transcribers can gain a true understanding of NUBS and make their own comparisons. ABL at times teaches a free webinar introducing NUBS. In addition, anyone interested can contact Joyce Hull through the ABL website at to sign up for the transcriber's course.
Conclusion
In conclusion, whether you are an educator, a parent, a transcriber, or a special education administrator, the power is yours to see to it that blind and visually impaired students around you are taught a braille code that facilitates their education in all subject areas.
Teachers and administrators can use their professional authority to act in the best interest of their students by making sure that students under their tutelage are taught the braille system that they deem best for their students' educational development and employment prospects. Parents can demand outright that their children be taught in the most advanced braille system there is.Transcribers can become proficient in the use of NUBS by taking the online training course offered through the Alliance for Braille Literacy. And last not least, braille readers can decide for themselves which code they prefer, and advocate for themselves. If braille readers prefer not to use UEB, and instead either want to use NUBS, or continue to use EBAE, they need to speak up and fend for what they believe is best for them, instead of leaving the decision up to the administrators of BANA.
Ashort NUBS sampler that includes a list of the symbols used in each text can be requested by emailing Inge Durre at .