[UEB Maths] Using a continuation sign

[Phippen, Stephen]

To: UEB Maths Committee
From: Stephen Phippen
Date: 8 December 2005

I have been doing some examples for a UEB samples booklet to be
circulated by BAUK in the UK, including some maths samples. Doing this
has brought to mind the issue we mentioned earlier, and I don't remember
our settling, i.e. the question of whether we should have a sign
indicating that a mathematical expression continues on a new braille
line. Traditionally we use dot 5 for this in the BAUK code.

The situation is illustrated in an example like

(a+b+c+d+e)(f+g+h+i+j) = (1+2+3+4+5)(6+7+8+9+10) = 600

In UEB we have said that we would normally have the + signs unspaced,
but the = signs spaced. In the BAUK code, we would use a dot 5 at the
end of the braille line if we divided such an expression, wherever that
split occurred, and this applies whether the expression is continuous
with a normal paragraph, or set out on separate lines.

For UEB I am quite relaxed about not using such a "continuation" sign at
the ends of lines (as we have it at the moment), especially where the
division is made at an operation or relation sign. But if a split is
made between the last two pairs of brackets in my example, the reader
might think that there were two separate expressions:

(a+b+c+d+e)(f+g+h+i+j) = (1+2+3+4+5)

and

(6+7+8+9+10) = 600

If we were fairly disciplined about the format to be used for set out
equations, e.g. cell 5-7 (that is traditional for BAUK), then the reader
could still see that the runover was a continuation of the expression on
the previous line without a continuation sign. But this would not apply
in the case where the expression was embedded in the text of a
paragraph.

My instinct is that the BAUK procedure of using a continuation sign in
all cases would not be appropriate for UEB because it would be a subject
specific procedure and could be regarded as a technical complication,
whereas UEB is meant to be a unified (non subject specific) code. I
wonder if it would be acceptable instead to allow a discretionary use of
a continuation sign in UEB? We could give guidelines that it should be
used when a mathematical expression continued on a new braille line
where the break was not at an operation or relation sign. I know this is
again subject specific (which I was trying to avoid), but its
application would be limited, and so would not impinge too much upon the
general appearance of maths expressions within normal text.

As we said earlier, to use dot 5 for this purpose (the BAUK traditional
sign), would be a different use from that already assigned to this UEB
sign (it is a print line continuation sign), but as long as we specified
this as an alternative or variant use for the sign I think we could
probably use it. It would certainly be convenient.

So far I have not used any continuation signs in my UEB samples, but if
others on this committee agree with the above suggestions, I will go
ahead and use the dot 5 if there are cases where I think it would be
appropriate according to these ideas.

 

-----Original Message-----
From: uebmaths-admin@nbp.org [mailto:uebmaths-admin@nbp.org] On Behalf
Of Janet Reynolds
Sent: 23 October 2005 21:36
To: uebmaths@nbp.org
Subject: RE: [UEB Maths] Word indicators and spacing

I'm comfortable with Stephen's suggestion. I think it would be pretty
straightforward to rewrite Section 9 because the same logic is being
applied to the start and finish of the word fragment. However I'm
interested to hear from Bruce, Helen and Joe. I know my email server has
lost a few international messages since our teleconference so if you
have responded since Stephen sent his samples do let me know.
Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: uebmaths-admin@nbp.org [mailto:uebmaths-admin@nbp.org] On Behalf
Of Phippen, Stephen
Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2005 2:25 a.m.
To: uebmaths@nbp.org
Subject: RE: [UEB Maths] Word indicators and spacing

To: UEB Maths Committee
From: Stephen Phippen
Date: 14th October 2005

Responding to Janet's message, and looking at the samples again, I think
I am coming to the conclusion that although the word indicator method
for word fragments is technically superior, at least in mathematical
contexts, it would be more in keeping with UEB if we used the spacing
method. So for UEB I think I would support the latter.

That the word indicator is technically superior in maths is, I think,
fairly obvious from the remarks made and the samples themselves; i.e. it
is unambiguous, the expressions are more balanced and compact, and it
allows more accurate translation back into print.

But it is adding an extra layer of complexity to a code which is meant
to be fairly simple in structure. Also, it would require a measure of
judgement from the transcriber to decide when and when not to use it,
which I guess we want to avoid in UEB which is meant to be unified
across subject areas. Another thing is that I suspect the indicator sign
we have been using and is perhaps the best we can have now, dots 16,
could be tactually difficult embedded within maths - it is not as
distinctive as the corresponding sign, dots 1246, used in the BAUK code.

If we use the spacing method, I think we will have to say that such word
fragments must be spaced from adjacent letters of the same font and
letter case, whether preceding or following the word fragment. (We would
also require a space between a preceding capital letter and a lower case
word fragment, to avoid it being misread as an initial capital to that
fragment.) A separating space is not so necessary in other cases (e.g.
before or after numbers, mathematical signs, Greek letters, etc.) and
can (should?) be omitted. This might cause some imbalance in expressions
(as shown in the previous samples), but I think would be preferable to
allowing it up to transcriber discretion as to whether or not to space
such expressions, as it would lead to ambiguity. (Well, there already is
ambiguity, but here it would be worse because the reader wouldn't know
what to expect.)

So, according to this, as regards spacing we would write:

2cos x
sin(A+B) = sinA cosB+cosA sinB
X log y
X Log y (capital L)
xLog y (capital L)

-- 
DISCLAIMER:

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended 
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the 
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the 
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it 
and any attachments from your system.

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted.
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and 
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk