November 18, 2019 at 7:02 pm #34725
I’m back with more questions. Please see the attached document.
LaurieNovember 22, 2019 at 2:29 pm #34747
After much thought and discussion, I have a recommendation.
The Nemeth Code never did address computer notation, nor does the “Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Context.” Before the adoption of UEB, we used the Computer Braille Code.
I see that UEB Section 14 (“Code Switching”) shows symbols for switching into “BANA Computer Braille Code” but BANA no longer supports use of that code. The point is made in UEB 14.1.1 that “non-UEB braille codes for subjects such as … computer science … is not necessary in UEB” although it does give the transcriber permission to have a “special reason” for switching.
You have been asked to follow UEB/Nemeth for this project. I interpret this to mean that you should switch to Nemeth for any math in the book, but the computer notation does not qualify as “math” and so you should follow UEB (The Rules of Unified English Braille) and UEBGTM (Unified English Braille Guidelines for Technical Material) for the computer lingo.
I have extracted a few points from UEB about this topic.
COMPUTER MATERIAL 10.12.3 … “Use uncontracted braille for computer material, such as computer program code which is displayed on separate lines, as well as any nearby excerpts from the program.”
Section 11: Technical Material
11.1 Introduction: “Refer to Guidelines for Technical Material when dealing with works of a technical nature, such as educational material in the areas of … Computer Studies.
11.10 Computer notation: There is lots of information here.
“Guidelines for Technical Material” discusses computer notation in Section 17. Also, Hexadecimal numbers appear in 2.9.
I realize that this advice will put a screeching halt to your project as you do a complete U-turn. It is a relief, however, not to have to figure out how to present computer notation using the Nemeth Code.
LindyNovember 24, 2019 at 7:03 pm #34748
No screeching halt required. I’ve gone back and forth and back again trying to come up with a good solution so I’m really not far into the transcription. I am relieved that you confirmed (almost) everything I’ve been thinking! I also realized that either way, the computer commands would end being uncontracted.
So then, do you still stand by the use of Nemeth code for the IP addresses, subnet masks, and binary representations as discussed in the post entitled “IP addresses” in this forum?
You also pointed to the section in UEBGTM about Hexadecimal numbers so I’m not certain if you are thinking the table I asked about in the post entitled “Networking manual” in this forum should not be done differently than Kyle suggested.
I really appreciate the time you’ve taken to help me figure this out.
LaurieDecember 1, 2019 at 11:12 pm #34796
Laurie, you are smart to have put a lot of thinking into this transcription before diving in and finding out later that much needs to be redone. Regarding our previous discussion about the IP addresses, subnet masks, and binary representations, I still support the use of Nemeth code for them within the narrative because they are also being used in math context with the equals sign.
I see that my reference to GTM 2.9 is misleading. Since Nemeth Code has clear rules regarding hexadecimal numbers (although it doesn’t actually call them that), I would use Nemeth Code in this Nemeth/UEB transcription. Regarding Kyle’s response to your table in the post entitled “Networking manual” in this forum, I agree with her suggestion that all three columns should be done in Nemeth Code.
LindyDecember 2, 2019 at 12:50 am #34797
Excellent. Thank you for the helpful advice. I should be able to make good progress this week. No doubt I will have a couple more questions along the way. 🙂
LaurieDecember 5, 2019 at 3:18 pm #34824
I’ve attached two transcription efforts of a table from this manual that I hope you can critique for me. I have many, many of these so I want to get it right.
LaurieDecember 6, 2019 at 7:25 pm #34834
Please see my comments in the attached file.
LindyDecember 6, 2019 at 8:32 pm #34839
Excellent! Thank you Lindy.
I was wondering about the equals sign the way it’s being used in this sample. I assume then, I can divide wherever the line naturally falls rather than bringing the equals sign to the next line if it doesn’t all fit on one line, correct?
Do you think at some point the powers that be might consider letting us use UEB symbols for those nonmathematical instances? Sure seems like it would be simpler for the reader (and the transcriber).
Thank you again. I really appreciate the help!
LaurieDecember 6, 2019 at 10:39 pm #34841
Yes, I would say that when = is simply replacing the word “equals” in narrative, it doesn’t matter where the line wraps, as long as the switch indicators are on the same line with the symbol.
Regarding use of two different symbols for “=” in the same transcription, we need to follow current guidelines. Changing that rule would open up a rather large bag of worms.
LindyDecember 7, 2019 at 12:30 am #34842
- This topic has 9 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 6 days, 21 hours ago by .
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)