Search Results for 'commentary'

[kdejute]

Tiffanie,

Thank you for your question!

You are quite right that a good place to start is "Guideline 10: Expendable (Consumable) Material" of the BANA Guidelines for the Transcription of Early Educational Materials from Print to Braille.

As you know, 10.1.1.h of those guidelines says,

Omit lines, dashes, circles, boxes, etc., indicating a required answer, before or after questions. (Braille Formats 2016, Section 10.5.1)

Notably, 10.1.1.f says,

Leave enough blank space, or lines, for the insertion of the answer with braille writer or slate and stylus. It takes skill to line up a braille writer to insert an answer. Extra blank space is needed.

I suspect that in the examples you shared, the student will not be expected to write in any answers on page 69 but *will* be expected to write in answers on page 63 (which includes larger text and boxes indicating missing material and also says, "Find the number that makes each equation true.").

Hmmm.

One more place to look for guidance is the Math Examples at the end of the BANA Guidelines for the Transcription of Early Educational Materials from Print to Braille. On print page 52 of those guidelines, the commentary to the UEB Math/Science Math Example 3 says,

The visible space symbol (+) representing a space to be filled in is used in textbooks. (UEB Guidelines for Technical Material, 2014, 3.6) However, for worksheets or homework sheets intended for a specific student it may be beneficial to draw squares to identify the missing number as shown on the following page.

[Mary Mosley]

Braille Formats_To Mention or not to Mention on the SSP

In the NBA Winter Bulletin 2024 article “Rules of Unified English Braille, Section 3” by Julie Sumwalt, on page 43, it says (The quotation marks around mention and use are important, though the author is unsure of the reason.) In the example on page 44 the word “mention” is included in the SSP description.

Going back to the Fall 2017 Bulletin, the Braille example on page 30 shows only “Dot locator; precedes symbols in a list” and the commentary to the example states, “Note the lack of terms like “dot locator for ‘mention’” and “simple” arrows. That is transcriber lingo, best avoided when introducing symbols and indicators.”

With exceptions in the Fall 2015, Winter 2015-2016 and Spring 2018 Bulletins, every Braille example in the Bulletins, as well as in the special symbols example in BF on page 2-52, the word mention is not used. Also, in the .brf editions of the Bulletin going back to 2022 the word mention in not used on the SSPs either.

Which is the conventional standard; should the words “mention” and “use” be included in the symbols description for the dot locators or should they not?

[Lindy Walton]

Thank you for following up on this topic. Here is my long answer.

It is not a requirement for the reference symbol to be in the same code as its reference point. Depending on how you format this table, Nemeth may not be continuing after the referenced material. (That is how I was imagining it when I looked at the print.) I do agree with you, though, that it would be rather bulky to switch out of Nemeth, enter a UEB symbol, and switch back into Nemeth simply to avoid devising a symbol for the reference marker. However, in this case, you will not need to devise a symbol. Nemeth symbols already exist for the two in question (the section sign and the double bar).

The point being made in Rule 9 about UEB reference symbols not being used means UEB symbols cannot be used inside the switches. This applies to any braille construction, not just reference symbols. (A noted exception is icons.) There are other scenarios when one must terminate Nemeth in order to braille a UEB symbol, then switch back into Nemeth to continue; so this practice is allowed if that is your preference.

You will notice that the four reference symbols listed in Rule 9 of the Nemeth code (asterisk, single dagger, double dagger, and star) are the same exact constructions as their operation sign counterparts in Rule 20. These are not new symbols, they are just listed as possible reference signs. There is no reason you cannot go ahead and use the Nemeth section symbol and the Nemeth double bar symbol as reference symbols even though they are not listed as such in Rule 9.* Use (1256, 1256) for the double bar. (Dots 4, 6 do not hold special meaning.) Follow the spacing rules for symbols of reference which are stated in NC 9.3.

Since the section symbol and double bar symbol are existing Nemeth symbols, there is no need to explain their usage in a transcriber's note unless you feel it would be helpful for the reader to be prepared that they do not hold mathematical meaning in this case.

As you noted in the last paragraph of NC 9.1, if you are using the Nemeth symbol in the text, you must also use the Nemeth symbol in the note itself. This may require the addition of code switch indicators depending on what precedes and follows the reference symbol in the note.

___

* I thought it would be funny to include a footnote to my commentary. The paragraph sign and the section signs as reference markers were removed from the updated code book because it was thought that this usage was obsolete. It looks like you have found an exception! I'm wondering what the copyright date is on this material?

 

 

 

[kdejute]

Thank you for your question!

First, any format we choose should accomplish two goals:

1. be something we can do consistently for all similar instances
2. allow the braille user to easily navigate the steps, choosing to read or skip the explanations as they choose

How can we do this? We might use nested indentation, based on principles from Braille Formats 2016. So, each step of a math problem could be formatted in 1-5, and each commentary could be formatted in 3-5. This differentiates the calculation content from the commentary about it (including runovers of both calculation and commentary).

Alternatively, we might go rogue and take inspiration from §26.4.5 of The Nemeth Braille Code for Mathematics and Science Notation, 2022 and follow the format described there: "Comments within math problems are placed on the line following the expression, blocked four cells to the right of the runover position of the expression."

However, our guidelines for formatting a UEB Math/Science transcription are Rules of UEB and Braille Formats 2016, so we should use tools from those sources and use a nested list format.

Please let us know if you have any follow-up questions or examples!

–Kyle

• This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by kdejute. Reason: tidied up text formatting

[braillebud]

Hi,

Throughout this book, I have been placing comments on the line following the related expression, blocked 4 cells to the right of the runover position. In the attached, you can see that Step 2 has an example of where I would use this format. My question is about Step 1, which has a problem that is a spatial arrangement in braille. I believe I need to stay in Nemeth Code and place these comments to the right of the expression, uncontracted. I'm having trouble finding confirmation in the reference materials I've been looking through. Can you verify this for me please and point me to a reference?

Thanks!

Laurie

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[braillebud]

A couple questions.

1. The first block below is from AN INTRODUCTION TO BRAILLE MATHEMATICS USING UEB WITH NEMETH (Lesson 16). Can you tell me where the references inside the square brackets can be found?
2.  The second block is from Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts, Revised April 2018, page 18. It states the preferred method is for the comments to be treated as part of the line of the equation. The Nemeth Course only appears to mention the blocked 4 cell runover position for commentary. Also, although the text in the Nemeth Course mentions commentary appearing "alternated" with math problems, the rest of the text and the example shows the comments following on the same line, rather than alternated. Can you give some clarification? I understand that whatever I choose to do, I should be consistent, but I would like to format in a way that is preferred. When commentary appears to the side of equations, is the blocked 4 cell runover now preferred?

~Laurie

**************************

INSTRUCTIONAL COMMENTARY
[NC 4.8.9 and 26.4.5]
16.11 Format for Instructional Commentary
When instructional commentary appears alternated with math problems, place the comment on the line following the related expression, blocked 4 cells to the right of the runover position for the expression. Explain this format in a transcriber's note.

****************************

6. It is preferred that authors’ comments following mathematical equations be treated as part of the line of the equation, with runovers in the appropriate location for the expression. Alternatively, authors’ comments may be blocked four cells to the right of the runover of the expression. The comments should be formatted in a consistent manner within a transcription.

***************************

[kdejute]

Melissa,

Thank you for the question and for sharing some images of your print.

We (the NBA UEB Technical Material Committee) recommend creating a key for the quote bubbles so that their full text is given before the problems and the little key symbols for each quote bubble are placed where appropriate in relation to the spatial problems. This cuts down on the amount of text crowded into the spatial problems, which are challenging to navigate even without commentary.

Similarly, for the blue text, *if* you have to keep the blue, then we would explain its use in a transcriber's note before the problems. Spatial math is difficult enough, and adding a three cell symbol (the transcriber-defined typeform) to the math will make it much more difficult.

The wording for a transcriber's note about blue text might say something like, "In the following problem, blue text is used to highlight 73 in 573, the second 2 and the 8 in 228, and 800. This highlighting is not reproduced in braille."

Braille on!
–Kyle and the UEB Tech Team at NBA

[Mandy Kay]

See attachments

Regarding Line 19

The Grade 1 Indicator is not repeated after the 3 spaces, I don't understand why or what rule this has been taken from?

The Commentary mentions why the grade 1 indicator is needed but not why we don't repeat it after the 3 spaces. " The grade 1 word indicator is used on the spelled out words so the letters are not read as contractions. It does not need to be repeated when a word is split between two print lines."

• This topic was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by Chris Clemens.
• This topic was modified 3 years, 9 months ago by Chris Clemens.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Lindy Walton]

Hi Veeah.

The use of boldface in this example is for visual connection between math items. To use boldface indicators in the transcription is messy. I would not use them here. The student can be informed in a TN, formatted as commentary. See the attached brf file for suggested treatment.

Lindy

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Lindy Walton]

Hi. I see your png file, but no question. If you are wondering about where to place the commentary, I am guessing that the math will be displayed, starting each displayed line with a "d". Follow Nemeth rules for displayed margins--there is no need to align the equals signs in the braille transcription. Place each author's remark to the right, leaving one blank cell between the math and the comment.

Attached is a brf file showing what the longest line will look like. I'm starting in cell 3 and running over in cell 5, but depending on your layout you may be indenting further.

If I have not answered your question adequately, please let me know.

Lindy

• This reply was modified 4 years, 6 months ago by Lindy Walton.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Lindy Walton]

Thank you for pointing this out. Following the method suggested earlier (10.34) and 15.11.1, it certainly makes sense to put the opening indicator in the runover position of the commentary.

Note: I see that on page C-9 of Appendix C, regarding placement of switch indicators with spatial arrangements it says that "the opening Nemeth Code indicator is placed in … cell 1 on a line by itself if it precedes <u>unitemized</u> material" although I am not seeing this option discussed in the lessons. In this case, however,  Example 15.11-3 is itemized material so it does seem best to put the switch indicator in the runover position of the commentary.

Lindy

[kdejute]

Yes, that attachment helps a lot. You are correct that your print is using the "double struck" or "blackboard bold" typeface for letters that refer to sets of numbers (e.g. ℝ for real numbers, ℤ for integers, ℕ for natural numbers).

In a transcription using Nemeth within UEB, in instances like you describe, it is considered best practice to switch into Nemeth Code for double struck letters wherever they appear and to use the Nemeth Code script typeface for such double struck typeface (with the typeface substitution explained in a transcriber's note).

Please let me direct you to Lesson 7 of the Provisional Revised Nemeth Course Manual, posted by NFB [especially 7.10 and Example 7.5-1, including the commentary before it] for more discussion and examples.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Thank you for the questions. I understand those to be:

1. Using only UEB, in a spatial calculation that includes lowercase letters, how should grade 1 be indicated for those letters?
2. Using only UEB, does any kind of grade 1 indicator need to be used for the visible space in a spatial calculation?

In short, my answers would be:

1. In your example, which includes only two lowercase letters, which are located in the top row of the spatial calculation, I would use a grade 1 symbol indicator immediately preceding each individual letter. And I would reference Rules of UEB section 6.9.3 ("... any lowercase letter a-j [in a numeric passage] is preceded by a grade 1 indicator.")
2. No.

Please see the attachments for braille, images of the print, and some additional commentary.

If you have any follow-up questions or points of discussion, please do share them here. Goodness knows there can be more than one correct way to do it.

–Kyle

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[kdejute]

Hmmm ... I do not see the significance of the lines you describe. Perhaps the publisher’s website includes an “About the Book” section or other commentary that might shed light on this design.

If the lines aren’t mentioned, and you don’t find a pattern of which tables have which lines, I would be tempted to ignore them.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Shelley,

Thank you for tapping this Ask an Expert resource to ask about your training materials. Overall, your examples are correct. I have attached a DOCX file that includes slightly different  highlighting than yours as well as commentary (accessed under the Review tab in WORD).

You may consider including an example item (let's call it item #99) that is all Nemeth material and occurs following an item that ends in UEB and another item that begins with Nemeth material. In such an example item, the opening Nemeth Code indicator would best be placed following the item identifier (99.), and Nemeth mode would be left in effect through the end of item #99 and through item identifier 100. This could serve to reinforce your well-stated point that in linear math, nothing gets between an item identifier and its margin.

Thank you again for sharing your process.

–Kyle

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.