[kdejute]

Shelley,

For better and worse, you are correct that a full expression should be within Nemeth Code switch indicators, including expressions that are inconveniently made up of a lot of words.

So, yes, something like:

P(likes avocados ∩ doesn't like Avocados)

should all be within Nemeth Code, which means no contractions and unspaced symbols of operation.

Braille on!
–Kyle

• This reply was modified 1 year, 1 month ago by kdejute. Reason: I meant UNspaced symbols of OPERATION not comparison 😬

[kdejute]

Good day, Mary.

Thank you for your question.

In short, no.

The vectors in your example are the lowercase, bold letters. A vector is a single quantity–often denoted by one letter–having direction as well as magnitude.

The pairs of capital letters with a single-barb right-pointing arrow are line segments. And I believe your Nemeth Code notation for those with the arrows is spot on (for example: _% ",p,q<$33@o] _:)

Please let us know if you need anything more or different.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Ack! How did I miss this question for a few days?! I apologize.

Thank you for sharing your question, Laurie.

Your transcription is correct. It matches the print you shared exactly (i.e., A equals P open parenthesis one plus the fraction "r over n" close parenthesis superscript "nt").

You are very right that no grade 1 indicators are necessary for this expression.

The plus sign terminates the numeric mode initiated by the 1's numeric indicator. The grade 1 mode initiated by that same numeric indicator is in effect until the space after the closing braille grouping indicator. (third paragraph of GTM §1.2.2)

Braille on!
–Kyle

[kdejute]

Laurie,

I see that you have the expression "'60.00 over 540.00' × 1". The fraction in that expression is a "simple numeric fraction" (even including its decimals!). So, the transcription

#FJ4JJ/EDJ4JJ"8#A

is correct.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Thank you for your question.

In the example you describe, I would break before the baseline symbol of comparison and also before the fraction line.

Your desire to keep the fraction unbroken is considerate, and I understand why you would want to do that. One of the reasons we follow a hierarchy for dividing a long mathematical expression is to keep logical units of the expression together/unbroken for ease of reading.

HOWEVER, another of the reasons we follow a hierarchy for dividing a long mathematical expression is to make revisiting the expression intuitive, and we do that by always dividing at the highest priority/hierarchy level first (i.e., a baseline symbol of comparison). That way, wherever possible, an expression that spans multiple braille lines will have at least one line that begins with a baseline symbol of comparison.

Please let me know if that helps or not.

Braille on!
–Kyle

P.S. For what it is worth, I understand the statement that "Usually the best place to break is before a comparison sign" to mean that a comparison sign is not a good place to break when it is part of something other than the baseline/main expression (e.g., an equals sign in Sigma notation, like that shown in GTM §7.9).

[kdejute]

Susan,

Thank you for your question!

I would not use the numeric indicator for the whole numbers or for the fractions that are below the number line. This follows the intent of the  2010 Guidelines and Standards for Tactile Graphics. [Pssst! Not using numeric indicators at the beginnings of labels below a number line also follows what the 2022 GSTG will say. Though not yet published, the text of the 2022 GSTG has been approved by the BANA Board and is now being carefully prepared for general distribution.]

–Kyle

P.S. If I had a mixed number below a number line, then I would use a numeric indicator before that mixed number's fractional part. Your example does not have that; I just want to be wildly thorough. A related thread here on Ask an Expert is Time on number lines.

[kdejute]

Julie,

It has taken me a few days to get back to you about this, and I apologize.

I know I worked on the CNIB course practices May through August of 2020. I *think* I worked on those practices about five hours each week. Then I took some time away before preparing the Pretest. Preparing the Pretest – including a sort of "one-woman team proofreading" where I recorded myself reading the braille out loud and then played back that recording as I looked at the print – took me at least two weeks of maybe two hours each day. I heard back from CNIB in a week about my Pretest results but had to take some time to focus on other work stuff before completing the final test, which I think took as long as the Pretest to prepare.

So, I would *estimate* I took a thirteen-month span with a total of 60 hours worked to complete the CNIB course. That is a rough and probably ambitious estimate. I would not be surprised if it took someone 100 hours or more to do the practices, pretest, and final test.

I was helped by moving through the practices with a colleague. We exchanged error reports after proofreading each others' practices and discussed sticky issues as we encountered them.

I hope that helps. Please let me know if you could use something different or more.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

The consensus from the committee is in!

Braille Formats 2016 is our source for this formatting issue. In an exercise format of 1-5, 3-5, we should format displayed math expressions in 7-9 with space before and after, per BF2016 §10.7.

Our understanding is that a format of 7-9 allows the braille user to most easily pinpoint the beginning of the expression (or beginning of each expression if there were more than one).

🤓 Further citation: The second paragraph under 3. General format (GTM 1.4.1) in BANA's Provisional Guidance on Transcribing Mathematics in UEB says,

Follow Braille Formats: Principles of Print-to-Braille Transcription, 2016 for the format of displayed literary text except for paragraph format, which is never blocked. For displayed mathematical expressions, use blank lines preceding and following; and indent 2 cells from the runover position of the material to which they apply.

Please let us know if you need something more or different!

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Well, first, please let me give you the annoyingly diplomatic answer: If you are consistent, either format is likely to work for the student.

I personally format that kind of thing as displayed material. But let me confer with our NBA colleagues and get back to you with a more supported answer.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Cynthia,

Your message came through without any attachment! Can you try again?

[kdejute]

Thank you for the question, Josh.

The preferred method for transcribing a number with a bar over it is to use the symbol for "bar over previous item" given in Guidelines for Technical Material section 12 and to use braille grouping indicators where necessary to designate the "item" to which that bar over applies.

I would transcribe the print you shared ["one-point-nine, division sign, two-point-four, equals, zero-point-seven-nine-one-six with a bar over the six"] as shown below:

#a4i"/#b4d "7 #j4gia<#f>:

More information and explanation of transcribing this kind of recurring decimal notation is included in our short webinar "Decimals, Including Repeating Decimals," which is in the archive of UEB Technical Material webinars.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

For fun, attached are pictures of the print and braille we're talking about as well as a BRF of the braille.

–Kyle

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

[kdejute]

Susan,

Thank you for sharing your questions.

I compliment you on finding in NBA's archive of webinars an answer to your continuation indicator question. I trust you found a reference to the third paragraph under #4 in BANA's Provisional Guidance on Transcribing Mathematics in UEB, which says,

If you make reasonable divisions following the above guidance, the dot 5 continuation indicator mentioned in GTM 1.4 will not often be needed; the meaning or format should make it clear enough that the expression on the new line is a continuation of that on the previous line, e.g. it will typically start with a comparison or operation sign.

As for your superscript question, the y that follows a superscript 2 is not in the superscript position because the "2" is the "item" that the superscript indicator affects. In other words, according to #8 in GTM 7.1, the effect of the superscript indicator expires after the number.

Please let us know if you need anything more or different.

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Thank you for the question.

Guidelines for Technical Material does not give us firm instruction about where to place signs of operation in a spatial arrangement.

Consistency is key to setting the braille user up for success.

For what it is worth, members of this committee tend to place operation symbols one cell to the left of the leftmost number *in the calculation that the operation sign is part of.*

–Kyle

[kdejute]

Thank you for the question, Cynthia.

In short, yes.

If you're wondering whether the capital passage is a tool available for use in a UEB Math/Science transcription, then please consider that UEB technical is an extension of UEB in general (rather than being a separate code). This means all UEB indicators may be used in technical material rendered in UEB.

To underscore this, use of the capitals indicator is mentioned and demonstrated in the chemistry portion of the current UEB technical document (Guidelines for Technical Material 16.2).

If you're wondering whether the braille would be accurate with the capital passage used, then the answer is also "yes." That is, the print you have is "'the edges of this polygon are segments' AB-with-bar-over, BC-with-bar-over, CD-with-bar-over, DE-with-bar-over, and EA-with-bar-over." and it would be accurate to braille this as (disregard line breaks):

! $ges ( ? polygon >e seg;ts ;;;,,,<ab>:1 <bc>:1 <cd>:1 <de>:1,';' & ;;<,,ea>:4

However, I suspect that the following transcription would be more intuitive to a lot of braille users. (disregard line breaks)

! $ges ( ? polygon >e seg;ts ;;;<,,ab>:1 <,,bc>:1 <,,cd>:1 <,,de>:1;' & ;;<,,ea>:4

What do you think? Does this help?
–Kyle

[Author]

Posts