Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 375 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Use of capital word indicator with letters and prime signs #36736
    kdejute
    Moderator

    Thank you for the question, Connie.

    8.4.2 in the Rules of UEB tells us that the effect of a capitalized word indicator is terminated by a nonalphabetic symbol. A prime sign is most certainly nonalphabetic, so a capitalized word indicator would not work for A′B′C′D′ (A-prime, B-prime, C-prime, D-prime).

    –Kyle

    in reply to: correct wording for Nemeth within UEB Contexts #36717
    kdejute
    Moderator

    BANA has voted to accept but has not yet published a terminology document. We expect the terms officially recommended in that document to be "UEB with Nemeth" and "UEB Math/Science."

    Without BANA publishing something, we have only the "word on the street."

    –Kyle

    in reply to: Spatial and linear format in same equation. #36709
    kdejute
    Moderator

    Thank you for the questions, Fred.

    To your first question, there appear to be no rules prohibiting the combination of linear and spatial representation in the transcription of various parts of an expression in UEB. So, your sample transcription (which uses  a spatial layout only for the fraction that includes cancellation) is not wrong. If you do use spatial arrangement for the part of the expression that includes cancellation, I would recommend transcribing the left side of the equation whose right side is spatial on the braille line with the equals sign that precedes that spatial material.

    But really, I would recommend transcribing this simple cancellation in linear form, as is done in the last example in GTM 4.1.6.

    I see what you're saying about numerators and denominators of a spatially arranged fraction starting in the same column as the second cell of the two-cell horizontal line mode indicator. First, I would note that GTM appears to be consistent with this treatment of spatial fractions; the fractions on page 23 of GTM are arranged in the same way. Second, I can only say that GTM does not tell us where to ... or where *not* to put numbers in relation to a horizontal line in a mathematical spatial arrangement. So, we are allowed to find our own consistency, with feedback from the braille user and/or teacher where possible.

    Again, thank you for your astute questions.

    –Kyle

    in reply to: Cross multiplication — symbol? #36543
    kdejute
    Moderator

    Thank you for the question!

    You're right that the symbol you are asking about is not given a braille symbol in the UEB Guidelines for Technical Material.

    Possibly an intuitive transcriber-defined shape symbol (e.g., @$cross) could work for this cross-multiplication symbol. If it appears frequently, assigning one of the transcriber-defined symbols may be advisable. [Our brief webinar "UEB Technical - Underlying Rules and Print Symbols," at time 12:40, touches on transcriber-defined shapes and symbols.]

    Regardless of whether you use a transcriber-defined shape (GTM 14.2) or transcriber-defined symbol (GTM 11.2), your description of the print sign is an excellent starting point. (Considering the other uses of this sign, would it be appropriate to include in its description the equals sign which appears to be printed "underneath" the cross-multiply sign we're discussing?) In a perfect world, we would even provide the student with a tactile graphic representation of the crossed arrows (in addition to an excellent description).

    –Kyle

    in reply to: Nemeth indicators and tables #36515
    kdejute
    Moderator

    For what it is worth, when I'm thinking about where to place code switch indicators with tables, I first revisit #7 under Additional Guidelines in the Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts.

    In addition, the thought process below may be helpful. It is taken from page 47 in the 2020 workshop "Nemeth and Formats and How They Work Together."

    –Kyle

    How much Nemeth Code does this table need? A thought process.
    • Does every part of the table need to be in Nemeth Code?
      Yes or No?
      If yes, then use Nemeth for the whole table. May every part of the table be in Nemeth Code?
      If no, then move to the next question.
    • Does every part of the table’s rows [not columns] need to be in Nemeth Code?
      Yes or No?
      If yes, then insert an opening switch indicator on a line by itself following the column separation lines. May every part of the table’s rows be in Nemeth Code?
      If no, then move to the next question.
    • Does every entry (not including row headings) need to be in Nemeth Code?
      Yes or No?
      If yes, then do as above and treat the row headings as technical material. May every entry be in Nemeth Code?
      If no, then consider using separate pairs of code switch indicators for the few pieces of the table that need to be in Nemeth Code.
    in reply to: Author’s notes #36399
    kdejute
    Moderator
    Susan,
    Thank you for the question and for sharing the print you are working on. (And I'm so glad you thought the workshop was wonderful!)
    The Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts (Approved April 2018) does not address authors' comments to spatial material. What we do know is that Nemeth Code must be in effect for the whole spatially arranged long division problem. So, I cannot think of a good way to transcribe the author's comments, which must be mostly in UEB, as they appear in print (i.e., next to portions of the division arrangement).
    If these sort of speech bubble comments appear throughout the book, then it might be practical to precede each such comment with a transcriber-defined shape indicator (e.g., ⠈⠫⠎⠃⠀) and then present them consistently before or after the material to which they apply in some consistent format (e.g., 7-5).
    Alternatively, using #16 under Formatting in the Guidance as inspiration, another approach might be to transcribe the comments "on the line following the required blank line in the displayed position for that text". An example of a system of equations transcribed according to this portion of the Guidance is Example 9 in this year's "Nemeth and Formats and How They Work Together" material, which is available for download in PDF and BRF formats from NBA's Conference page.
    In any format, I think it will regularly be advisable to use embedded transcriber's notes to specify what the comment refers to. For example:
    A repeating decimal has decimal expansion that repeats the same digit, or block of digits, without end. ⠈⠨⠣⠉⠕⠍⠰⠞⠬⠀⠕⠝⠀⠸⠩⠀⠼⠴⠨⠆⠶⠶⠀⠸⠱⠈⠨⠜
    Does that help?
    –Kyle
    in reply to: Tactile? #36219
    kdejute
    Moderator

    Susan,

    Thank you for the questions. I apologize for the delay in my response.

    Regarding the illustrations, yes, using a tactile graphic for the arrows that show a movement from one value to another and also using a tactile graphic to show how many "hops" an animal makes, would most nearly capture the print's visual/spatial explanation of math concepts.

     

    For the cross"word" puzzle, I agree with your reasoning that you should give the number of spaces that print provides for the answer.

    I understood from your question that print provides a space in the crossword grid for a comma; so, "1,234" would have five spaces. If that is the case, then this should be explained in a transcriber's note (for example, "If an answer includes a comma, the number of spaces provided for that answer includes a space for the comma").

    Braille on!
    –Kyle

    in reply to: signs of omission in a table #36213
    kdejute
    Moderator
    Thank you for the question. Please accept our million apologies that we missed it at first.
    Yes, using the transcriber-defined shapes ⠈⠫⠗⠉ and ⠈⠫⠃⠉ for the red chips and black chips pictured in print seems reader-friendly and practical, because we can use a transcriber-defined shape in both UEB and Nemeth Code contexts, according to #5 under Basic Guidance on When to Switch in the Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts (Approved April 2018).
    For the table example you so beautifully shared, there is one question: Might it not be more clear to use a listed table format and repeat the column headings, especially where there are multiple things to be filled in within a single row?
    Regardless, it is alright to use in the table a UEB shape for the gray squares that indicate blanks to be filled and to use in the math expressions that follow the table a Nemeth shape for the gray squares that indicate blanks to be filled. This is because there is no meaning to the squares other than "something needs to go here." In other words, the student is not expected to take answers from the table and use them to complete the items after the table, so the gray squares do not need to have the same braille representation in both places.
    Braille on!
    –Kyle
    in reply to: Shapes in Spacial equations #36147
    kdejute
    Moderator

    Good news 🙂

    ⠠⠃⠗⠇⠀⠕⠝⠖

    in reply to: Shapes in Spacial equations #36143
    kdejute
    Moderator

    Thank you for the question! I agree that it is challenging to determine which is the best transcription of a shape in a spatial calculation.

    First, you are right that the numeric indicator that is part of the square shape is not the same as numeric indicators for numbers; so it does not need to be aligned with them. Second, within a numeric passage, the shape indicator does not require a grade 1 symbol indicator, because numeric mode sets grade 1 mode.

    I think the examples in the attached image (and repeated in the attached BRF) show viable options for transcribing this spatial calculation.

    --------

    I cannot say anything about placement of the multiplication symbol, because that relies on what the print looks like and/or what the customer (e.g., a teacher) has requested. So, I have assumed that a) the print has the multiplication symbol to the left of the second multiplier and above the separation line.

    As for alignment, no single cell of the square symbol needs to be aligned with any place value of the numbers, so I've simply started the shape in the first cell after the operation symbol and transcribed its components all unspaced.

    Either individual numeric indicators or a numeric passage could be used for this calculation; it is up to you which works better within the larger transcription.

    What do you think? Does this make sense, and will it work for you?

    –Kyle

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    in reply to: Spatial with CarryOvers #35791
    kdejute
    Moderator

    I see. There ARE numerous cancellations in that spatial problem. The whole first addend is cancelled out with four separate printed lines through its four separate digits.

    Although it is tempting to use one "big" cancellation for that addend, we should do as print does (and as is mathematically logical) and cancel each number separately (using separate "line through previous item" symbols .=@:). In other words, we should use your "Example 1."

    Thank you for asking!
    –Kyle

    in reply to: empty box in number bond #35744
    kdejute
    Moderator

    The committee gives a resounding "yes" to a tactile, empty box in your number bond example. This is particularly appropriate for a 2nd grade student, for whom additional braille symbols are likely to make things harder rather than easier.

    Thank you for your question!
    –Kyle

    in reply to: empty box in number bond #35739
    kdejute
    Moderator

    Susan,

    I would be inclined to leave the tactile box simply empty (in the number bond of item 4 in your example). Let me confer with the other UEB thinkers in the NBA committee and give you a more thorough answer as soon as I can.

    –Kyle

    in reply to: Arrows show in orbitals (boxes) #35706
    kdejute
    Moderator

    LaVerne,

    Thank you for the question and the kind words. All is well here .. And all is well with transcribing the arrows in your example using braille cells and not tactile graphics.

    Yes, I would use the enclosure indicator following a square shape before the arrows (or lack of arrows) in each entry.

    Thank you for sharing  your question and good thoughts!
    –Kyle

    in reply to: Equal sign with dot above, not below #35664
    kdejute
    Moderator

    Thank you for your question, Christine!

    I agree that the equal sign with a dot over it should be brailled just like the description says, using "dot over previous item." So, your equal sign with a dot over it (in your book meaning "approximately equal to") should be transcribed as you describe (also shown below).

    "7^4

    If you can, will you please share in what UEB resource you found a transcription of the equal with a dot above and below and what that transcription was?

    Thank you!
    –Kyle

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 375 total)