Forum Replies Created
Mostly out of curiosity, do you have any insight into how this will be addressed in the new guidelines? Even if it's just a little more guidance on when it's appropriate to use mat/layering methods and when it's appropriate to use 3D cubes, that would be very helpful.
I think so. In order to help me cement my understanding of the whole conversation, can you think of the kind of print situation that might warrant using the 2 styles of orthographic maps described in GSTG? The only time I've seen the type of graphic shown above is when the print is talking about volume. (I exclusively work with material for K-12 students, primarily math textbooks. That may be why I can't think of a context.)
Mostly section 6.15, especially 6.15.2.
6.15.2 A three-dimensional cube structure should not be reproduced in tactile graphic form as shown in print.
Now that I look at the section again (after having looked up the definition of "orthographic" from another source), I think that this section might not actually apply here - even though 6.15.2 seems to be talking about the source of my original question.
Does section 6.15 refer to three-dimensional cube structures such as those shown above, or is this section referring to situations where print uses orthographic maps? That would certainly explain why I'm so confused!
I'm still confused. You told me that orthographic maps are not suitable when teaching the concept of volume. But then you said that it's important to follow GSTG - which does not allow for any option except orthographic maps, even when teaching the concept of volume. Which point is more important? Or is it a case-by-case, transcriber-discretion kind of decision?
You also said that your advice (specifically: not using an orthographic map) is specific to the examples you viewed, and that it's best to maintain consistency throughout a transcription. In this textbook, any graphic that would require an orthographic map is being used to teach the concept of volume (and how to calculate it). I know of no instances that were not reflected in the images I provided. Furthermore, using orthographic maps would by default reduce consistency in the book, as there are composite 3D shapes that are not suitable for orthographic maps.
So my interpretation is that orthographic maps are not appropriate for instances requiring volume, and that we need to find an alterative method to portray the graphic for images used to teach volume. Is this an accurate assessment?
For context on the shading: I use the same method of shading for all the complex 3D shapes. This helps the student to know how to identify the top/right/left of the graphic with a little more ease than going based only on the shapes and angles. Also, if I remember correctly, I ran this theory by our 4 (blind) proofreaders a year or two ago and they liked the method.
So to clarify your response, I need to go in and change all of the orthographic maps/nets to 3D shapes for the whole book? Even though the rules specifically say that it is "not possible" to do these graphics clearly in 3D and that we absolutely must use orthographic nets?
Here are the two pages I mentioned. (Print pages 111 and 112.) I believe there are other similar pages, but you probably don't want the whole chapter lol.
We also have pages with simple rectangular prisms with side labels (not included), and then we have pages like 121. I'm attaching a snippet of how I did problem 9 from page 121 for reference.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
In the actual example, the student is comparing the volumes of two figures (which they must calculate). On the previous page, the student is instructed to find the volume of several such figures. That is the extent of what I can officially prove.
Based on my observations of the text, I believe these problems are intended as a bridge between the "find the volume" (with blocks but no side labels), and "find the volume" of composite solid figures with only side labels (figures which cannot be shown using either of the approved orthographic methods, since they are not unit-based). This part is more of an inference, though, and as such may not count for the purpose of determining intent.
- This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by Taylor Goldhardt.
How do we handle mixed numbers, especially if we aren't using the numeric indicator? As you can see, it doesn't make sense (from a UEB perspective) to omit the numeric indicators.
So how do we handle mixed numbers?
Thanks, that's helpful. And thanks (to you and the TG Committee) for the peek at the new TG guidelines!
I guess I didn't specify clearly enough. All of these questions are in regards to number lines using UEB braille symbols - not tactile graphic number lines. That's why I put this in UEB Technical. I know that it's frequently better to use tactile graphics, but that's not always a valid option. The problem is that there's basically no information about number lines in Guidelines for Technical Materials. It does not tell us how to divide a number line between braille lines. Do we just cut it off? Do we use the line continuation indicator? Does the runover start two cells to the right (or is it based on the format of the surrounding material)? I know a number line can theoretically have a runover. But we still don't have any information on how to make the runover (among many other important things).
In other words (for anyone else who's curious), the 2010 supplement is no longer available. So unless you know someone who bought it before they pulled it from production, then you'll have to wait. In the meantime, I would suggest utilizing this forum for any questions that would otherwise be answered by checking the supplement (like how to handle coordinate grids with shading).
Huh. Apparently the formatting got messed up. Each line that talks about "formatting" is supposed to be a numbered list. The one that currently (to me) shows up as number 1 at the end is supposed to be number 4. Sorry about that; not sure what happened. It looked right when I was typing it up. And I can't edit it to make it look cleaner, either. Here is the list again, and hopefully the numbers will show up correctly this time.
- Does the number line always begin in cell 1 or is it dependent on the context/exercise material? For Example, would the number line in the attached problem begin in cell 1 or cell 3 (for the runover)?
- Can a number line be placed in numeric passage mode to reduce the length/keep on the same braille line?
- Is there a required number of horizontal line indicators between an arrow or a crossing vertical line?
- What do we do when a number line requires multiple braille lines? (Example, if we have a -40 to 40 number line where we need to be able to see every tick.) Sometimes we can get it to fit as a graphic, but I've seen a lot of number lines that are too big for a horizontal or a vertical graphic to work.
And an addition to question 1: If the number line is dependent on the runover, can we adjust the starting point to fit a slightly-too-long line on a single braille line? (So, a problem similar to the example might start in cell 1 or 2 instead of having the final item on a second line.)
Not a problem - I made the same mistake in reverse on the other thread! Thank you.
Edit: The relevant question is actually not in the same section as multiple choice, so I would expect the multi-paragraph question to be in 1-3, 5-3 (instead of 1-5, 7-5). So I'm thinking that maybe the bullet means I change it to 1-5, 3-5 format.