Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Second, if we have to show a transcriber-defined symbol enclosed in a circle, I agree that the following would be the best way to do so (using “physical enclosure” as illustrated in GTM §14.3.1).
;;$=[?
That symbols-sequence is a grade 1 word indicator, the two-cell symbol for a circle (shape indicator and a full cell), the physical enclosure cell, the first transcriber-defined symbol, and then space.
You have likely already considered all angles of:
- using the transcriber-defined symbol vs. the transcriber-defined shape
- with what words you will identify whatever transcriber-defined thing you use
- where you will identify whatever transcriber-defined thing you use (i.e., on the Special Symbols Page or in a list of special symbols within the text)
I do think this would be understood by a 10th grade student. ????
????
Finally, does the termination of a shape leave the rest of the symbols-sequence in grade 2 (unless it is affected by a grade 1 word or passage indicator)? … Many agree with your assessment that according to RUEB2024 §2.5.3, it does. However, the first example in GTM §14.3.1 might indicate otherwise.
RUEB2024 §2.5.3 says, “Grade 1 mode exists only when introduced by a grade 1 indicator or by a numeric indicator.”
The first example in GTM §14.3.1 is: ;$=[“6 (circle enclosing a plus sign) where the cell dots 2-4-6 does not have any grade 1 indicator or numeric mode affect it, BUT it is treated as if it has its grade 1 meaning (physical enclosure). Maybe the argument is that what’s physically enclosed is part of the shape and so affected by the shape indicator’s limited grade 1 mode (though that would be quite a unique effect for an indicator to have).
This issue is on the list of things to be clarified by ICEB’s technical material code maintenance committee. Right now, I would follow RUEB2024 §2.5.3, as you have suggested.
????
First, if you use only a checkmark to indicate a checkmark-within-a-circle, I would likely applaud your choice to simplify where appropriate. The explanation of this checkmark usage should go on the Transcriber’s Notes Page. It would probably be appropriate to identify the checkmark itself on the Special Symbols Page, but the use of only a checkmark where print shows a checkmark inside of (or on top of) a circle, is a braille formatting choice and so belongs on the Transcriber’s Notes Page. (BF2016 §3.1.1’s second paragraph and RUEB §3.28)
–Kyle
Thank you for your question! Before we respond in full, could you please share two clarifying pieces of information?
First, what is one specific lesson manual or code book that says, “nested linked expressions are displayed material”?
Second, what is your reasoning for having blank spaces in some places but not in other places (e.g., between the word “tenths” and the symbol ÷ but not between the symbol ÷ and the underscore)?
–Kyle
Thank you for asking. We use GTM 7.9 rather than GTM 12 when §12 does not include the specific modifier we need. A right-pointing arrow is covered in §12, so we should follow the guidelines there.
–Kyle
.=^: simple right-pointing arrow over previous item
Second, using UEB for it, we would transcribe a bidirectional arrow over AB as follows:
;;<,,ab>.9\wro
You were close. We do need a grade 1 word indicator to start. We do need braille grouping indicators around AB so that the modifier applies to both letters and not just to B. And, your bidirectional arrow is good. \wro
Because UEB does not classify “bidirectional arrow over” with the common modifiers in GTM §12, we should look to GTM §7.9 and use the indicator for “expression directly above.” .=.9
Then the arrow does not need any terminator or braille grouping indicators because its start and end are clearly delineated by the arrow indicator and an arrow terminator, respectively. .=| and .=o
Phew.
Braille on!
–Kyle
First, yes, it is correct to use the two-cell capital letter indicator in front of AB rather than capital A capital B. [Chemistry has different preferences, because its capital letters each mean a totally different element.]
So, for example, “BC bar” (or “bar over BC”) would be transcribed in UEB Math/Science as follows.
;;<,,bc>:
And, “(line segment) AB = (line segment) CD” would be probably be transcribed as follows.
;;;<,,ab>: “7 <,,cd>:;’
–Kyle
P.S. The DBT codes I would use to get that transcription above are ts e bar e bar te (also in the attached screenshot).
Yes indeed, Susan! You are so right; for the line segment notation we use UEB’s bar over. Braille on! –Kyle
It is great news that tactile graphic arrows are a possibility for this transcription.
The committee believes strongly that brailled arrows are confusing in this situation. Tactile graphic arrows would much better fulfil the role of the arrows here, which is to connect a label to a specific piece of the math expression.
The attached image shows one possible way of placing/arranging the arrows, the expression’s pieces, and the labels.
That possible transcription includes a transcriber’s note that says, “The equation is shown twice in braille: once without labels and again with labels.”
Then the equation (2×_ = _) is brailled on its own line. Next comes a blank line. Then the labels (“cups each day”, “days in 2 weeks”, and “total cups”) are brailled on one line, with two blank cells between the labels. The labels are followed by two lines where the arrows are drawn, all pointing straight downward to the line where the equation is brailled again spaced out horizontally so that the arrows can point from each label to the relevant part of the equation.
Please let us know if you have follow-up questions or notes!
–Kyle and NBA’s UEB Technical Material Committee
Thank you for sharing your question, including pictures of the print and your proposed braille! The committee is now discussing it.
For now, please let me ask: Are tactile arrows a possibility in this transcription?
–Kyle
We have been discussing this as a committee, and we have come to some consensus.
First, Let’s be careful to focus on transcription and not instruction/teaching.
If we look at this as a transcription issue, then the conventional wisdom is “follow print.”
To answer the specific questions:1) BANA does not necessarily recommend transcribing the equation without the “shown work” before transcribing the fully worked-out problem. With that being said, we as a committee do not see a problem including the equation first in this situation. We should certainly use a transcriber’s note if we present the problem twice; perhaps, “The example problem is shown twice: first without any calculation text and a second time with the calculation text included.”
The suggested transcription that is attached here does give the example problem twice with a tn explaining that the problem is shown twice. The suggested transcription uses one continuous numeric passage for all of the example problem and also the rest of the exercise set. The alignment of the suggested transcription attempts to follow the mathematical logic of the problem’s layout without rearranging or breaking down the print layout.2 & 3) These questions seem to be focused on teaching a braille reader how to show their work, and that is not really the role of a transcriber. We must trust the teacher (or aid or paraprofessional or someone else directly in the instructional environment) to tailor instruction on how to show work to the specific braille user.
Are there aspects of your question that we did not address? How else can we help?
