June 8, 2021 at 7:48 pm #37468
How are we supposed to do these while following the GSTG 2010 rules? We can't put the height label because there is no vertical line. But we need to put the height label in order for the braille student to have the same information as the print student ... which is impossible if we follow the GSTG rules (as I understand them). I would really appreciate any advice. My preference is to do this similarly to the attachment "non-orthographic drawing", but apparently that isn't allowed according to GSTG.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.June 8, 2021 at 8:46 pm #37475
Taylor, thank you for the question!
When it comes to 3D objects, BANA guidelines should be applied depending on the intended use for a drawing. Can you provide us with details on how the tactile graphic will be used by a student in class activities?June 8, 2021 at 8:52 pm #37476
In the actual example, the student is comparing the volumes of two figures (which they must calculate). On the previous page, the student is instructed to find the volume of several such figures. That is the extent of what I can officially prove.
Based on my observations of the text, I believe these problems are intended as a bridge between the "find the volume" (with blocks but no side labels), and "find the volume" of composite solid figures with only side labels (figures which cannot be shown using either of the approved orthographic methods, since they are not unit-based). This part is more of an inference, though, and as such may not count for the purpose of determining intent.
June 8, 2021 at 9:00 pm #37478
- This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Taylor Goldhardt.
That helps Taylor!
If it's not an imposition, is it possible that you could post the textbook pages that relate to this drawing and the activity of which it is a part? That would provide our experts with a bit more information to formulate a response to your question.June 8, 2021 at 9:09 pm #37480
Here are the two pages I mentioned. (Print pages 111 and 112.) I believe there are other similar pages, but you probably don't want the whole chapter lol.
We also have pages with simple rectangular prisms with side labels (not included), and then we have pages like 121. I'm attaching a snippet of how I did problem 9 from page 121 for reference.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.June 8, 2021 at 9:36 pm #37485
Thank you for your quick response to our questions! We'll be back soon.June 9, 2021 at 12:47 pm #37486
After reviewing the examples, our experts note that all of the graphic objects shown in the examples provided are 3-D shapes. This quality should be retained and they should be rendered as TGs to match what is in print. For question 9, we recommend not to include the auxiliary front view and to remove the tactile shading.
We also note that if the front view were to be included, it should be drawn as if the viewer were seeing it encountering it straight on. That is, it would not be angled.
GSTG guidelines to support this advice:
- 2.8 A print graphic may be simplified as long as the original intent is not compromised.
- 2.10 If the concept of depth is not required, a 3-dimensional view should be changed to a 2-dimensional view.
- 126.96.36.199 Shading should be used sparingly and only if required for the understanding of the concept.
With respect to GSTG 2.10, our experts note that based on additional pages of the textbook provided here, the concept of volume is being taught. With this, the 3-dimensional view should be kept.
Finally, we want to note that this advice applies to the specific images you have asked about. We cannot say that this advice should apply to all images in the textbook.
We hope this answers all of your questions! Please let us know.June 9, 2021 at 3:39 pm #37493
For context on the shading: I use the same method of shading for all the complex 3D shapes. This helps the student to know how to identify the top/right/left of the graphic with a little more ease than going based only on the shapes and angles. Also, if I remember correctly, I ran this theory by our 4 (blind) proofreaders a year or two ago and they liked the method.
So to clarify your response, I need to go in and change all of the orthographic maps/nets to 3D shapes for the whole book? Even though the rules specifically say that it is "not possible" to do these graphics clearly in 3D and that we absolutely must use orthographic nets?June 9, 2021 at 7:01 pm #37495
We want to be cautious and indicate that our response was specific to the examples we reviewed. Since we do not have the entire textbook, we can only advise on the specific graphics in question. Each instance should be reviewed and formatted according the context. Consistency throughout a transcription should always be a priority because that allows the readers to focus more on the content than the way the content is expressed.
GSTG 3.3 discusses the use of a planning sheet and recommends documenting the planning process. Listing the content, texture, symbols and labels helps track pertinent information and provide consistency in graphics presented throughout the transcription. As far as going back through the whole book, that would be up to the transcriber and tactile artist.
Drawing from the substantial experience with TGs and transcription on this Skills Group committee, we can elaborate on this to say that when it comes to tactile graphics, 3D shapes have always been one of the most challenging types of figures to render.
There have been many different innovations for rendering different kinds of images in tactile forms.
Among these innovations, a few stand out:
- Using a texture to identify a particular side in isometric and oblique drawing of 3D shapes. This first started being used about 15-20 years ago, and was typically used to identify the top, not front, of an object.
- Use of engraving lines for edges that are going inward or receding in a figure, and use the embossed lines for edges that are going outward or "coming out of" the page.
However, these are only attempts to use tactile features to communicate the shape of an object. None has proven to be universally helpful for all tactile readers. That said, we could expect that a reader who has been taught to understand these methods would benefit when receiving materials using the same tactile techniques consistently in the future. However, the opinions and feedback of proofreaders may not always provide the best benefit for all (and especially new) tactile readers.
Our best service to tactile readers is to consistently apply guidelines as shown in GSTG and related references. That way, we can be assured to provide content in a form that will likely be encountered in the future, even if materials are produced by someone else.June 9, 2021 at 7:28 pm #37496
I'm still confused. You told me that orthographic maps are not suitable when teaching the concept of volume. But then you said that it's important to follow GSTG - which does not allow for any option except orthographic maps, even when teaching the concept of volume. Which point is more important? Or is it a case-by-case, transcriber-discretion kind of decision?
You also said that your advice (specifically: not using an orthographic map) is specific to the examples you viewed, and that it's best to maintain consistency throughout a transcription. In this textbook, any graphic that would require an orthographic map is being used to teach the concept of volume (and how to calculate it). I know of no instances that were not reflected in the images I provided. Furthermore, using orthographic maps would by default reduce consistency in the book, as there are composite 3D shapes that are not suitable for orthographic maps.
So my interpretation is that orthographic maps are not appropriate for instances requiring volume, and that we need to find an alterative method to portray the graphic for images used to teach volume. Is this an accurate assessment?June 9, 2021 at 8:02 pm #37498
Taylor, please tell us what parts of GSTG you are referencing.June 9, 2021 at 8:14 pm #37499
Mostly section 6.15, especially 6.15.2.
6.15.2 A three-dimensional cube structure should not be reproduced in tactile graphic form as shown in print.
Now that I look at the section again (after having looked up the definition of "orthographic" from another source), I think that this section might not actually apply here - even though 6.15.2 seems to be talking about the source of my original question.
Does section 6.15 refer to three-dimensional cube structures such as those shown above, or is this section referring to situations where print uses orthographic maps? That would certainly explain why I'm so confused!June 9, 2021 at 8:41 pm #37500
I think we're homing in on some important details!
Section 6.15 of GSTG focuses on orthographic drawings (the common multi-part drawing including separate front, side, and top views of an object), rather than pictorial drawings. Here is an example of a pictorial/3D drawing and an orthographic drawing of the same object: https://civilseek.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/orthographic-projection-drawing.jpg
The advice provided in our earlier responses is based on our determination that the instruction and exercises in pages you provided for us, focus on teaching and helping learners to use the concept of depth. As implied in GSTG 2.10, if the concept of depth is necessary, then a 3D view is desirable.
Are we closer now to answering all of your design questions? 🙂June 9, 2021 at 9:04 pm #37501
I think so. In order to help me cement my understanding of the whole conversation, can you think of the kind of print situation that might warrant using the 2 styles of orthographic maps described in GSTG? The only time I've seen the type of graphic shown above is when the print is talking about volume. (I exclusively work with material for K-12 students, primarily math textbooks. That may be why I can't think of a context.)June 9, 2021 at 9:38 pm #37502
The "mat plan" and "layering method" described in GSTG 6.15 and 6.16 are used to help learners work up to the concept of volume by counting blocks inscribed on a flat surface. Once students understand that they can slice an object into layers and determine area by counting those blocks, they have made a step toward understanding volume.
And -- jumping many years ahead -- the same idea of slicing an object into pieces, determining the approximate area of each slice, and then adding all those slices together, will come in handy when students encounter integral calculus!
- This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by Donald Winiecki.
- This topic has 17 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 5 months ago by .
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)