[UEB Maths] FW: UEB maths message

[Janet Reynolds]

-----Original Message-----
From: Phippen, Stephen [mailto:Stephen.Phippen@rnib.org.uk]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 2:54 AM
To: Janet Reynolds
Subject: UEB maths message


Hello Janet

Thanks for sending me the missing messages. I have just sent the =
following to the UEB maths list in reply. If it doesn't get through =
perhaps you can forward it to the list on my behalf.

Thanks,
Stephen

To: UEB Maths Committee
From: Stephen Phippen
Date: 3 March 2005

Apologies for this late response to the recent messages on the draft of =
section 1. As Janet said, I did not receive any of these messages until =
today. I thought it had been a bit quiet!

On reading through the draft I have the following comments:

1.1.1: It isn't really practical to try to align equal signs in some =
common cases. You often get set out maths with an expression on the LHS =
then an equals sign and another expression on the RHS. Then there are a =
series of further lines of manipulation each starting on a new line with =
an equals sign aligned with the equals sign on the top line. The first =
expression on the LHS could go halfway across or take up a whole line or =
more in braille, so there wouldn't be room to the right of the equals =
signs, if aligned, for the RHS expressions.

1.1.3: Given the tone of 1.1.2, I would say that "preferable" would be =
better than "permissible" in the first sentence of 1.1.3.

1.2.1: I'm not keen on set out mathematical expressions starting two =
cells in from the current left margin, as this is the same as a =
paragraph start. I prefer cell 5-7 format, as this is distinct.

1.2.2: I don't think that a print line break of a maths expression as =
such, is relevant much of the time in braille, and therefore should not =
be specially marked with a continuation indicator. 3.17 in the Committee =
2 report (talking about the continuation indicator) deals with cases =
such as a computer programming line where you need to be clear if an =
expression is or is not part of the line, and whether or not a space is =
present at that point. But when a maths expression just happens to wrap =
over lines in print, as in a + b + c
+ d + e =3D f, this is no more significant than where words wrap over in =
print in an ordinary paragraph.

1.3: In the first sentence I would delete "numerals": it is usually only =
algebraic letters that are italicised. I suggest that this para needs to =
generalised, e.g.:

"In mathematics texts algebraic letters are frequently italicised as a =
distinction from ordinary text: it is generally not necessary to =
indicate this in braille. However, when bold or other typeface is used =
to distinguish different types of mathematical letters or signs from =
ordinary algebraic letters, e.g. for vectors or matrices, this =
distinction should be retained in braille by using the appropriate =
typeform indicator."

1.4.1. I think this para should be moved to near the end of this =
section, e.g. after 1.4.6. The rules then build up more logically, from =
simple to complex.

1.4.3: I would express the second sentence as: "This will ensure that =
signs such as superscript, subscript, fractions, radicals, arrows and =
shapes are well defined without the need for grade one symbol =
indicators." The added last phrase makes it clearer that we are =
expressing a preference to use passage mode (even though symbol or word =
indicators would work).

A separate point: Would it be feasible for publishers to adopt a =
convention whereby clearly set out maths expressions (as above, I =
suggest cell 5-7) can be deemed to be in grade 1, so grade 1 passage =
mode indicators are not needed? In practice, use of grade 1 passage =
indicators in such cases would be pretty much redundant for the reader, =
and omitting them would make the braille more "peaceful".

1.4.4: I suggest adding "where necessary" after "used", so it reads: =
"Grade 1 word or symbol indicators should normally be used where =
necessary for an unspaced mathematical expression either set apart or =
embedded in narrative text." (I'm not sure about the word "narrative" -  =
I prefer "ordinary".)  An example could be (x+y), where no grade 1 =
indicators are needed, nor should be used.

I am not yet sure about the general guidance on spacing and the use of =
grade one indicators: I really want to see how it works in practice, and =
fancy trying out the rules on some actual pieces of text to see how =
natural or otherwise it turns out to be. But if we need to press on I =
suppose I am reasonably happy for now to go along with the general =
approach being expressed (with my amendements).


As regards the issue of the number or "words" needed for passage mode, I =
have to admit that as a member of the UEB Committee which voted on this, =
I was not entirly convinced that the matter was thoroughly considered or =
framed. Here is an excerpt where I was expressing concern about passage =
mode for capitals:

"I prefer that in normal texts we use passage mode for three words =
rather than two, so thus far the motion is fine. But I am less happy =
that by saying a passage HAS to have at least three symbols sequences we =
could be excluding many useful cases. E.g. you can have long strings of =
letters and subscript numbers in organic chemistry which would be much =
easier using passage mode than using lots of individual capital =
indicators (or word indicators). The same could be true in other =
technical areas such as computing, web addresses, maths, etc."

On the other hand I also expressed concern about having to use passage =
mode for cases like A B C, where individual capital indicators could be =
thought of as being more natural.

--=20
DISCLAIMER:

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is=20
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended=20
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the=20
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the=20
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it=20
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=20
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=20
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