[Fred Van Ackeren]

Hi Kyle,

I have a similar question, a negative fraction a/b. This is what I think:

;;"-(A./B)

Thanks, Fred

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Kyle,

I agree that the spatial is the way to go. Using just braille symbols still doesn't tell the reader that the curly bracket is horizontal, just that it's below the equation, and adding additional symbols would be confusing. I've inserted the spatial in the transcription and it looks good. Thanks for you help.

Fred

 

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Me again Kyle,

Just saw an error in my example. Using the curly brackets would replace grouping signs. Here is the correct sample.

,IF X;9#B "7 #CF.5_<,HYPOTHESIS_>1

Fred

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Well, I see that when posted the ASCII turns to braille, no need for some attachments. Good to know.

Fred

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Kyle,

Thanks for the diagram, that's basically what I had in mind but later recalled that in Nemeth there was a way to do this with braille symbols. I found where it's mentioned, p.200 of the Nemeth instruction book. Using that as a guide I came up with the following using the directly under and grouping symbols (it's in ASCII, the Braille selection in the tool bar translates it thusly). The word Hypothesis is in gr.1 following the number sign in this case.

,IF X;9#B "7 #CF.5<,HYPOTHESIS_>>1

(I've saved the file as .b2k and .jpg and attached both.)

I will most likely use the diagram as you first showed, but want to have an alternative method for some proofreaders that for some reason, as I recently experienced, don't like them and I have no way of making graphics.

Thanks for your help, Fred

 

 

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Hi Kyle,

Yes that is exactly what it looks like. Sorry not to post an image but was unable to copy or scan the text.

Fred

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Kyle, the underlines didn't show under the first line of text.

Fred

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Thanks Lindy,

Good to know what's in the work ahead. Sorry for posting in wrong section,

Fred

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Good Morning,

With a fresh day and different perspective I've concluded I've interpreted part of the Provisional Chemistry code incorrectly. I got confused when reading the part where it says "retain distinctive typeform for chemical abbreviations," but in reading the Chem. Code not all single letters or combination are abbreviations, for example, states of matter and letters representing concentrations of solutions and K for constant . With this in mind I sought to answer my own questions, here is what I've determined from examining the Chem. Code, see if you agree. I've enclosed in parentheses the page number in the Chem. Code that guided me.

1. spacing of (g), (aq), etc., states of matter. (CC123) spaced only when not in parentheses. So no spaces and no typeform.
2.  K(sub). Typeform kept only when more than 1 typeface (not case) is shown. (CC111, 125, 127)
3. Concentrations, N, M, m, F. Retain typeform in text and equations. (CC111, 118)
4. (Delta)H. No typeforms. (CC110, 113, 126)

The only remaining item is the spacing between an intial K(sub) and the next compound in equations. In the text I'm transcribing this spacing is not consistent. In 1 or 2 places there is no space. I'm considering to transcribe w/o spaces.

Thank you for your patience.

Fred

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Hi Kyle,

I've cut several pages and taped parts together to give you the needed info. Areas of concern are highlighted yellow.
The transcription is UEB / Chemistry (Nemeth) format. I think I've attached all that is referenced to my questions, (or similar).

Let me know if this is sufficient.
thanks, Fred

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Hello,

Though I don't use MD much anymore it has been my experience that though you can change the window size, the text (braille dots) will remain the same and will not fill the window from side to side. This was the reply I got from their support team about 8 years ago.

Fred

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Yes, thank you, Fred

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Thanks Julie,

When the construction details are understood the symbol then makes sense.

Fred

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Hi Julie,

Thank you for your information, very helpful. After my first post I got to thinking about "grouping signs" and decided they were needed to make AB an item, so no problem there.

The entire subject of "over" (and "under) is a lot clearer now but I still have a couple of questions and suggestion which I added to an attachment in order to show the simbraille.

I have a blind friend who is also studying UEB and she prefers my construction of a right arrow over as opposed to the example on p.72. (in attachment)

Thanks, Fred

 

 

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[Fred Van Ackeren]

Hi Cindi, Hi Ed,

You say "technically" but then add "distinction." If technically correct why a distinction? Braille 2000 UEB version WILL NOT let me add the gr.1 indicator in any way I know of (unless perhaps I do a "Page Numbering Layout" for each page, which is very tedious for 70+ p-pages). It appears that Braille 2000 takes "technically" to mean that "letter signs" are not necessary and will not allow the "distinction" to  be made. This could be problematic If I submit volumes w/o the indicators and proofreaders say they are needed, I won't be able to add them and will have to stand on the argument that "technically they are not needed."

Does anyone else have this situation?

thanks,
Fred

[Author]

Posts