I have been given a packet of worksheets to transcribe. I will be using UEB with Nemeth, as called for by the text. The student is in high school but is functioning about a 3rd grade level. The student is supposed to put her answers directly on the braille page itself, which presents a dilemma for me. I know there might not be a answer that is found within our code books and guidelines, but looking at the two attachments (one would have an answer in UEB, and the other would have an answer in Nemeth code--and please ignore the inkprint answers--just pretend they are blank), what might you suggest to allow me to provide sufficient answer space for the student and also to have some measure of consistency between the two codes? Thank you so much for any kind of suggestion you might have!
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.
Wow! I really like the beautifully simple tactile line idea! Thank you so much! One really nice thing is that I can make it the length needed, and it does not take much time to make the tactile line. I'm going to go with that one.