kdejute
Forum Replies Created

AuthorPosts

February 26, 2021 at 10:10 pm in reply to: Use of capital word indicator with letters and prime signs #36736kdejuteModerator
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′ (Aprime, Bprime, Cprime, Dprime).
–Kyle
kdejuteModeratorBANA 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
kdejuteModeratorThank 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 twocell 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
kdejuteModeratorThank 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 transcriberdefined shape symbol (e.g., @$cross) could work for this crossmultiplication symbol. If it appears frequently, assigning one of the transcriberdefined symbols may be advisable. [Our brief webinar "UEB Technical  Underlying Rules and Print Symbols," at time 12:40, touches on transcriberdefined shapes and symbols.]
Regardless of whether you use a transcriberdefined shape (GTM 14.2) or transcriberdefined 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 crossmultiply 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
kdejuteModeratorFor 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.
kdejuteModeratorSusan,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 transcriberdefined shape indicator (e.g., ⠈⠫⠎⠃⠀) and then present them consistently before or after the material to which they apply in some consistent format (e.g., 75).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?–KylekdejuteModeratorSusan,
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!
–KylekdejuteModeratorThank you for the question. Please accept our million apologies that we missed it at first.Yes, using the transcriberdefined shapes ⠈⠫⠗⠉ and ⠈⠫⠃⠉ for the red chips and black chips pictured in print seems readerfriendly and practical, because we can use a transcriberdefined 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!
–KylekdejuteModeratorGood news 🙂
⠠⠃⠗⠇⠀⠕⠝⠖
kdejuteModeratorThank 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.kdejuteModeratorI 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!
–KylekdejuteModeratorThe 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!
–KylekdejuteModeratorSusan,
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
kdejuteModeratorLaVerne,
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!
–KylekdejuteModeratorThank 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  Does every part of the table need to be in Nemeth Code?

AuthorPosts