Forum Replies Created
February 19, 2020 at 1:21 pm in reply to: page separation lines and opening Nemeth indicator #35156
Hi Barb. Thank you for your question. You may have opened a small can of worms.
Item 11 on page 11 of our go-to document, Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Contexts, says “The opening Nemeth Code indicator and the Nemeth Code terminator should be placed on the same page with part of the expression to which they apply.” It doesn’t specifically say “print page”. I see no problem with switching to Nemeth Code at the end of the UEB paragraph, before the page change indicator.
Personally, if this is a worksheet for a young reader, it might be friendlier to place the opening switch on the very next line
after the page change indicator. (Another option would be to wait to switch until after the first identifier “22” which would be in UEB.)
In any case, a switch indicator does not replace a blank line. The line before item 22 will need to be blank.
Hope this helps.
This drawing poses an interesting question about the readability of what I call a “free-floating” minus sign. Without a nearby point of reference, (36) can look like (14) or (25). [Even if you were using the UEB symbols, which you should not do in a Nemeth transcription, (5, 36) is also ambiguous.] In the context of the subject matter, it will probably be clear that this is a minus sign. If you would like more clarity, the only solution I can find in our reference books is to borrow the spatial “minus sign within a circle” symbol from the Chemistry Code (3.4.2) which is used in spatial diagrams for exactly this purpose–to give clarity to the symbol. If you use this symbol (1246, 14, 36) I would also use the symbol for “plus sign within a circle” (1246, 14, 346). You can define these two symbols in a TN preceding the diagram.
I’m curious to know what you think about this idea. We are thinking outside the box!
Hi Beverly. In a Nemeth transcription, we don’t use UEB symbols for the technical material. I don’t see an attachment to your note — can you try again, and I will take a look at it? Thank you.
This is a great example. Somewhere along the way we realized/decided that there is no reason you can’t place the opening Nemeth Code indicator at the end of the line in instructions or a cell-5 or cell-7 heading. I would put it after the word “equation.” in the instructions. See the “solution” brf file, attached. **Note that you need to keep “12/36” and its switch indicators together on the same braille line. In an embedded expression, if the math and one or both switch indicators will fit on the line (within current margins), do so.
Back to your original question, a student will get used to seeing identifiers in both UEB and Nemeth Code. The transcriber’s decision regarding where to switch depends on the surrounding material. If you tried to make all the identifiers in an exercise set “look” the same (in the same code), there would be much too much switching going on.
Hope this helps. Good luck with your project!
Hi Susan. It’s hard for me to give an answer without seeing the text and also your transcription. If you could attach them, I think will be able to help.
Thank you for pointing this out. Following the method suggested earlier (10.34) and 15.11.1, it certainly makes sense to put the opening indicator in the runover position of the commentary.
Note: I see that on page C-9 of Appendix C, regarding placement of switch indicators with spatial arrangements it says that “the opening Nemeth Code indicator is placed in … cell 1 on a line by itself if it precedes <u>unitemized</u> material” although I am not seeing this option discussed in the lessons. In this case, however, Example 15.11-3 is itemized material so it does seem best to put the switch indicator in the runover position of the commentary.
Another observation: Your example shows two enclosed lists where the ELI will not be used according to the rules regarding enclosed lists.
Because we are not treating the colon as a sign of comparison in braille, the “m” and the “u” following each colon will need an ELI.
You have found a very interesting problem. Our code book and lesson book do not describe a colon being used in this manner. However, as you discovered, example (9) in §27.f does show this use of a colon. Although the colon is not the topic of 27.f, I would go ahead and follow the spacing used there. That is, when a colon means “such that” do not space it (even though it is spaced in print and even though it is described as a sign of comparison).
Regarding the use of the English-letter indicator within grouping signs, §28.a is clear. When an English letters in regular type is in direct contact with both an opening and closing sign of grouping, do not use an ELI. However when the letter is in direct contact with ONLY ONE sign of grouping (opening or closing) imagine that the sign of grouping is not there and then apply the proper rule from either §26 or §27. §26 explains when the ELI must be used; §27 explains when the ELI is not used. There are many examples in these sections which illustrate these rules.
Thank you for your questions.
Hi, Laurie. Thank you for your question. Your first transcription is the correct one. NC Sec.195.e is our guide for making decisions when a mathematical expression is too long to fit on one braille line (within current margin restrictions). Saving room is not our priority.
I noted some errors in your transcription — please see the attached file, and check the RED numerals.
Yes, I would say that when = is simply replacing the word “equals” in narrative, it doesn’t matter where the line wraps, as long as the switch indicators are on the same line with the symbol.
Regarding use of two different symbols for “=” in the same transcription, we need to follow current guidelines. Changing that rule would open up a rather large bag of worms.
Hi Fred. I found your post in this forum (UEB Technical), but I think you are following Nemeth/Chemistry Code for your project. The Chemistry Code is an adjunct to the Nemeth Code — therefore, you follow Nemeth Code rules regarding typeform *unless* the Chemistry Code gives further or different directions.You did interpret this correctly in your list of conclusions–the main points being that typeform for states of matter is ignored in the braille transcription, and that typeform for concentrations is significant (has special meaning) and so is retained.
I wanted to let you know that your frustration deciphering the Chemistry Code is shared by many, and to assure you that an enthusiastic team of experts is currently working hard to produce an updated (UEB) version of the Chemistry Code as well as an updated (UEB) version of the Nemeth Code. This is a long process. In the meantime, a more thorough version of the “Provisional Guidance for Chemistry” is also in the works. Don’t hesitate to keep asking questions as your project unfolds. In the future, please post them to the Nemeth section of this forum.
Hi. I answered in the other post.
Please see my comments in the attached file.
Laurie, you are smart to have put a lot of thinking into this transcription before diving in and finding out later that much needs to be redone. Regarding our previous discussion about the IP addresses, subnet masks, and binary representations, I still support the use of Nemeth code for them within the narrative because they are also being used in math context with the equals sign.
I see that my reference to GTM 2.9 is misleading. Since Nemeth Code has clear rules regarding hexadecimal numbers (although it doesn’t actually call them that), I would use Nemeth Code in this Nemeth/UEB transcription. Regarding Kyle’s response to your table in the post entitled “Networking manual” in this forum, I agree with her suggestion that all three columns should be done in Nemeth Code.
After much thought and discussion, I have a recommendation.
The Nemeth Code never did address computer notation, nor does the “Guidance for Transcription Using the Nemeth Code within UEB Context.” Before the adoption of UEB, we used the Computer Braille Code.
I see that UEB Section 14 (“Code Switching”) shows symbols for switching into “BANA Computer Braille Code” but BANA no longer supports use of that code. The point is made in UEB 14.1.1 that “non-UEB braille codes for subjects such as … computer science … is not necessary in UEB” although it does give the transcriber permission to have a “special reason” for switching.
You have been asked to follow UEB/Nemeth for this project. I interpret this to mean that you should switch to Nemeth for any math in the book, but the computer notation does not qualify as “math” and so you should follow UEB (The Rules of Unified English Braille) and UEBGTM (Unified English Braille Guidelines for Technical Material) for the computer lingo.
I have extracted a few points from UEB about this topic.
COMPUTER MATERIAL 10.12.3 … “Use uncontracted braille for computer material, such as computer program code which is displayed on separate lines, as well as any nearby excerpts from the program.”
Section 11: Technical Material
11.1 Introduction: “Refer to Guidelines for Technical Material when dealing with works of a technical nature, such as educational material in the areas of … Computer Studies.
11.10 Computer notation: There is lots of information here.
“Guidelines for Technical Material” discusses computer notation in Section 17. Also, Hexadecimal numbers appear in 2.9.
I realize that this advice will put a screeching halt to your project as you do a complete U-turn. It is a relief, however, not to have to figure out how to present computer notation using the Nemeth Code.