[UEB Maths] Some more on formatting and computability

uebmaths@nbp.org uebmaths@nbp.org
Thu, 9 Jun 2005 11:05:35 EDT


-------------------------------1118329535
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 
UEB has faced significant opposition in America because  technical readers 
such as those Joe mentioned (except for the silent Romanian  dance notation 
users) have not been shown how the code can be optimized for  their specialized 
uses. It would be to your advantage to demonstrate this  feature in a tangible 
way if you are to gain support from these  readers.
  ...
I'm reminded of what Joe said in his October 1997 article on  Braille 
Unification in the Braille Monitor:
_http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm97/bm971007.htm_ 
(http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm97/bm971007.htm) 
 
So does this mean that UBC  has reached an inherent contradiction, a dead end 
from which there is no escape?  Not at all, in my opinion, but it does mean 
that we may have to be clearer about  some of the limitations that any 
practical UBC is likely to have, as well as its  benefits--not to oversell the 
concept, in other words, lest we unconsciously  encourage expectations that are 
unlikely to be met. In particular we may need to  contemplate the possibility that 
UBC may not totally eliminate all private and  otherwise specialized Braille 
codes. Rather I believe that UBC will become the  broad-spectrum publishing 
code that everyone will be able to read and write for  just about every purpose, 
even if it is not necessarily what a professional  always uses for private 
notes and direct notational work in his own specialty.  By thus occupying more of 
the ground, so to speak, UBC will mean that other  Braille codes are likely 
to be even more specialized than they are now, but not  eliminated altogether. 
We should not be surprised,  for instance, to see a chemistry specialist's 
code evolve that takes full  advantage of the bias towards subscripts and other 
predictable attributes of  chemical formulae, in other words is optimized so 
that the balancing of a  chemical equation can be carried out without working 
around indicators that are  really there for the benefit of other disciplines 
and the wider world. No doubt  some such specialist's codes will start out 
simply as private codes, and no  doubt they will borrow much from current 
specialty codes. But also, as I hope  and expect will happen as UBC becomes 
established, specialty codes are likely to  borrow a great deal from UBC itself, that 
is, to remain as compatible with  regular UBC as is consistent with the 
specialty discipline's needs. In a sense  they may thus be regarded as variant 
extensions to UBC rather than as  contradictory codes. 
In fact the current UBC  proposal can be said to anticipate and enable such a 
trend. It is not hard to  imagine that most users will simply omit most 
grade-1 indicators from their  private notes, for instance, thereby working in an 
instantly available  shorthand. 
Warren 
observer to the committee
 


-------------------------------1118329535
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body=20
style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 14pt; COLOR: #004000; FONT-FAMILY: Comic Sans MS"=20
bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
e_document=20
face=3D"Comic Sans MS" color=3D#004000 size=3D4>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>UEB has faced significant opposition in America because=20
technical readers such as those Joe mentioned (except for the silent Romania=
n=20
dance notation users) have not been shown how the code can be&nbsp;optimized=
 for=20
their specialized uses. It would be to your advantage to demonstrate this=20
feature in a&nbsp;tangible way if you are to&nbsp;gain support from these=20
readers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;&nbsp;<FONT size=3D4>...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4>I'm reminded of what Joe said in his October 1997 articl=
e on=20
Braille Unification in the Braille Monitor:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4><A=20
href=3D"http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm97/bm971007.htm">http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm97/=
bm971007.htm</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=3D4>So does this mean t=
hat UBC=20
has reached an inherent contradiction, a dead end from which there is no esc=
ape?=20
Not at all, in my opinion, but it does mean that we may have to be clearer a=
bout=20
some of the limitations that any practical UBC is likely to have, as well as=
 its=20
benefits--not to oversell the concept, in other words, lest we unconsciously=
=20
encourage expectations that are unlikely to be met. In particular we may nee=
d to=20
contemplate the possibility that UBC may not totally eliminate all private a=
nd=20
otherwise specialized Braille codes. Rather I believe that UBC will become t=
he=20
broad-spectrum publishing code that everyone will be able to read and write=20=
for=20
just about every purpose, even if it is not necessarily what a professional=20
always uses for private notes and direct notational work in his own specialt=
y.=20
By thus occupying more of the ground, so to speak, UBC will mean that other=20
Braille codes are likely to be even more specialized than they are now, but=20=
not=20
eliminated altogether.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=3D4>We should not be su=
rprised,=20
for instance, to see a chemistry specialist's code evolve that takes full=20
advantage of the bias towards subscripts and other predictable attributes of=
=20
chemical formulae, in other words is optimized so that the balancing of a=20
chemical equation can be carried out without working around indicators that=20=
are=20
really there for the benefit of other disciplines and the wider world. No do=
ubt=20
some such specialist's codes will start out simply as private codes, and no=20
doubt they will borrow much from current specialty codes. But also, as I hop=
e=20
and expect will happen as UBC becomes established, specialty codes are likel=
y to=20
borrow a great deal from UBC itself, that is, to remain as compatible with=20
regular UBC as is consistent with the specialty discipline's needs. In a sen=
se=20
they may thus be regarded as variant extensions to UBC rather than as=20
contradictory codes.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman, Times, serif" size=3D4>In fact the current=
 UBC=20
proposal can be said to anticipate and enable such a trend. It is not hard t=
o=20
imagine that most users will simply omit most grade-1 indicators from their=20
private notes, for instance, thereby working in an instantly available=20
shorthand.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D4>Warren</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=3D4>observer to the committee</FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D4></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

-------------------------------1118329535--