© RNIB 2011
RNIB Braille Development Unit
Research report # 2
Evaluation of the views of a sample of RNIB magazine subscribers on an Anthology of Essays produced in UEB
Published by:
RNIB Braille Development Unit, PO Box 173, Peterborough, PE2 6WS.
Commissioned by:
Peter Osborne, Chair UKAAF (United Kingdom Association for Accessible Formats).
Author:
Mandy White
For correspondence:
Tel: 01829 261853
Email:
Date: 3rd November 2011
Sensitivity: Internal and full public access
Copyright: RNIB 2011
Citation guidance: White, M. (2011). Evaluation of the views of a sample of RNIB magazine subscribers on an Anthology of Essays produced in UEB. RNIB Braille Development Unit, Peterborough.
Acknowledgements:
Many thanks to all the braille readers who read the anthology and contributed their views on UEB to the research team
Thanks also to Sarah Home and Heather Cryer for editorial input.
3
© RNIB 2011
Evaluation of the views of a sample of RNIB magazine subscribers on an Anthology of Essays produced in UEB
RNIB Braille Development Unit
Prepared by:
Mandy White (Project Manager - Braille)
Table of Contents
A. Executive Summary 5
B. Introduction 5
C. Method 6
C.1 Design 6
C.2 Participants 6
C.3 Demographic information 6
C.5 Materials 7
C.6 Procedure 7
D. Results 7
D.1 Question 1 7
D.2 Question 2 7
D.3 Question 3 8
D.4 Question 4 8
D.5 Question 5 9
D.6 Question 6 9
D.7 Question 7 10
D.8 Question 8 10
D.9 Question 9 12
D.10 Question 10 12
D.11 Question 11 12
D.12 Question 12 13
D.13 Question 13 13
D.14 Question 14 14
E. Conclusion 15
Appendix 1 - Full list of comments in answer to question 13 17
a) The History of UEB 17
b) Issues around Increased size of documents in UEB 17
c) Training and Reference Manuals 17
d) The proposed audience for UEB 18
e) UEB/SEB or both 18
f) Consultation and timescale 18
g) Legacy Material 18
h) Rationale for the change 19
i) Changing just the technical code 19
j) Cost and availability 19
k) Capital letters 19
Appendix 2 - Full list of comments in answer to question 14 20
a) General comments about UEB implementation - positive 20
b) General comments about UEB implementation - negative 20
c) User Feedback 22
d) Reference and Training Material 22
e) Speed of Reading 22
f) Increased space taken by UEB 22
g) SEB/UEB or both 24
h) Consultation and timescales 24
i) Capital Letters 25
j) Specific Coding and layout observations 25
k) The proposed audience for UEB 26
l) General Observations on the braille code 27
m) Spelling 27
n) Affordability. 27
A. Executive Summary
This piece of research was commissioned by The UK Association of Accessible Formats (UKAAF), the independent standards organisation in the UK. They were considering the possibility of adopting the Unified English Braille code (UEB) in the UK and wanted to know more about the views of the 'silent majority' of braille users. An anthology of the winning essays from a Global braille essay competition was produced in UEB and sent to all the subscribers to an RNIB magazine. A week later the recipients were all contacted by phone and asked a number of questions about themselves, their braille use and what they thought of the UEB anthology.
The research revealed that 73% of this cross section of regular braille readers had heard of UEB. 37.9% could read it without any difficulty. A further 49.5% could read it but more slowly than usual.
12.6% could read it but found it difficult. No one said that they were unable to read it.
67% of the participants said that the braille coding didn't cause any problems or that they noticed some differences but soon got over them. Of those people who had problems with the coding the major issue was the removal of contractions followed by the changes in punctuation coding followed by the removal of sequencing (in UEB wherever there is a space between words on the printed page there must be one in braille).
Participants in the research had been given minimal information on the reasons for the proposed introduction of UEB and they also had not been given any information on the actual code changes. There were therefore two qualitative questions dealing with both the respondents specific queries on UEB and their personal views on UEB at the end of the questionnaire. There was a range of comments from people both in support of UEB and those who didn't see the need to change. The main objection to UEB was the increased space that it took.
The results of this research were included in a paper to the UKAAF board in order to assist them in making a decision on the adoption of UEB in the United Kingdom.
B. Introduction
The UK Association of Accessible Formats (UKAAF) was keen to gather representative views of braille users on the new Unified English Braille Code (UEB). In 2008 the Braille Authority of the UK (BAUK) had undertaken a consultation of braille users. The consultation pack was sent out to over 4,000 users, producers, intermediaries and stakeholders and 470 responses were received back. Of those people responding 347 did not want to see UEB adopted in the UK (76%). BAUK therefore recommended that UEB should not be introduced at that time. Shortly after the consultation BAUK merged with several other organisations to form UKAAF. UKAAF returned to the question of the introduction of UEB in 2011. RNIB had produced some research (Phillips A. and Beesley L. (2011) Braille Profiling Project) which suggested that the so called 'silent majority' would be more likely to support UEB and less likely to respond to the type of consultation undertaken by BAUK in 2008. UKKAF therefore commissioned this piece of research where a sample cross section of braille users were identified and all of them were then contacted and asked their views on UEB.
C. Method
C.1 Design
The interview questions were designed to reflect both a quantitiative and qualitative approach. The first 12 questions had a specified choice of responses and the last two questions gave participants the opportunity to discuss more fully their views on the sample documentation and UEB more generally. Whilst emerging themes are discussed in the main body of the report, Appendix one and two list the respondents views in full, to these last two questions.
C.2 Participants
RNIB distribute a number of monthly magazines and the subscribers of one particular magazine were identified as being likely to be interested in the sample material that had been sourced in UEB. The distribution list of over 200 was reduced to 165 by excluding
· Those with no telephone number
· Organisations
· People living abroad
· People who had expressed a desire not to be contacted
C.3 Demographic information
The demographic range of the group is as follows
· Under 19 0%
· 19 - 39 4.9%
· 40 - 64 44.7%
· 65 + 49.5%
· Not disclosed 1%
C.5 Materials
A sample of UEB was sent to all participants. The material was a collection of essays written by braille users on how braille had changed their lives. The essays were written by the winners of a Global competition which is run annually. The essays were all written or had been translated into English however the names of the authors did occasionally cause some confusion.
C.6 Procedure
165 people were sent a copy of the Anthology of Essays. Just over a week later the RNIB telemarketing team started to contact the participants by phone. All possible interviews and call backs were completed within 10 days. By this time, the team had managed to secure the views of 107 participants
D. Results
In the results section, the answers to the first 12 questions are given in the form of a table showing both the number of people choosing a particular answer and the percentage of the respondents choosing a particular answer. The results section for questions 13 and 14 summarise the themes covered by the respondents and the actual recorded responses are listed in Appendix 1 and 2.
D.1 Question 1
Before receiving this anthology, had you heard of the Unified English Braille code?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response CountYes / 72.9% / 78
No / 27.1% / 29
107 respondents answered this question
D.2 Question 2
Did you read the introduction to the anthology in Standard English Braille?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response CountYes / 93.5% / 100
No / 6.5% / 7
107 respondents answered this question
D.3 Question 3
Did you read any of the essays in the anthology?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response CountI didn't read any of the document / 2.8% / 3
I read the introduction but didn't read the essays / 2.8% / 3
I read part of an essay or part of a few essays / 12.0% / 13
I read one essay or a few essays / 32.4% / 35
I read most of the essays / 22.2% / 23
I read all of the essays / 27.8% / 30
107 respondents answered this question
D.4 Question 4
Why did you only read the introduction?
Respondents were only asked this question if they responded to Question 3 by answering “I read the introduction but didn't read the essays”.
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response CountI didn't have time to read the essays / 0.0% / 0
I wasn't interested in the subject matter / 0.0% / 0
I wasn't interested in trying UEB / 33.3% / 1
I was put off by the idea of capital letters / 0.0% / 0
I was put off by the idea of reading a different Braille code / 0.0% / 0
Other (please specify) / 66.7% / 2
3 respondents answered this question
104 respondents skipped this question
“Other” answers were:
I didn't really understand what it was about.
It's like music and it doesn't say what it is.
D.5 Question 5
Why did you only read part of an essay?
Respondents were only asked this question if they responded to Question 3 by answering “I read part of an essay or part of a few essays”.
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response CountI didn't have time to read any more / 42.9% / 6
I wasn't interested in the subject matter / 21.4% / 3
I wasn't interested in trying UEB / 21.4% / 3
I was put off by the capital letters / 0.0% / 0
I was put off by differences in the Braille code / 28.6% / 4
I found the Braille difficult to read / 7.1% / 1
Other (please specify) / 21.4% / 3
“Other” answers were:
I am a transcriber
I'm not a huge Braille reader anyway.
I was put off by the bulkiness of it.
14 respondents answered this question
93 respondents skipped this question
D.6 Question 6
Could you read the Braille in which the essays were presented? (Please choose the option which is closest to your experience)
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response CountYes, I could read it without any difficulty / 37.9% / 39
Yes, I could read it but more slowly than usual / 49.5% / 51
Yes, I could read it but I found it difficult / 12.6% / 13
No, I couldn't read it / 0.0% / 0
103 respondents answered this question
4 respondents skipped this question
D.7 Question 7
Did you encounter any problems with the Braille coding when reading the essays? (Please choose the option closest to your experience)
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response CountThe Braille coding didn't cause me any problems / 14.6% / 15
I noticed some differences to the Braille coding I'm used to, but I got over them / 52.4% / 54
I didn't understand some of the coding, but I could understand the gist of the text / 21.4% / 22
Some of the differences in Braille coding confused me / 10.7% / 11
The differences in Braille coding made it impossible to understand the text / 1.0% / 1
103 respondents answered this question
4 respondents skipped this question
D.8 Question 8
If you encountered problems with the Braille coding, were any of the following aspects of the coding difficult for you?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response CountIntroduction of capital letters / 25.0% / 17
Removal of sequencing (where small words such as and/for used to follow without spacing in between) / 42.6% / 29
Removal of contractions / 58.8% / 40
Changes in punctuation coding / 48.5% / 33
Other (please specify) / 26.5% / 18
“Other” answers were:
Comments on Specific Coding Issues
· I did not like the ellipsis
· Don't like the Brackets (x3)
· Three full stops at the end of a line, I didn't understand what they were
· I could not understand a 3 lower d sign at the beginning of a line
· At the beginning and the end there were a dot 5 and then a gh sign which I didn't understand
· The titles, where brackets are used, looked like pause signs in music.
· More space and brackets codes caused problems
· I could not work out the name of the first contributor (Jönsson)
· Extra dots get in the way
· The first essay has a sign that I noticed "In the Borderlands" during part of it at the end of one of the paragraphs the paragraph ends "I now have the words in my fingers". Between the two paragraphs there are 3 full stops taking in a new line and starting a paragraph. Why is this?