[UEB Maths] Fwd: UEB Maths message from Stephen Phippen
Joe Sullivan
uebmaths@nbp.org
Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:20:25 -0500
--=====================_49577698==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
(Some technical difficulty has been preventing Stephen Phippen from
communicating with the uebmaths list, and so he has asked me to forward the
message below, together with the follow-on note inserted at the top -- Joe)
>Since writing this reponse, I have noticed that I forgot to say that I am
>also not content with 1.2.1 where is says that an embedded expression
>should not be divided in braille if it would fit on the next line. In the
>UK, and probably other countries using the BAUK maths code (or a
>derivative of it), are used to dividing maths expressions in braille,
>using similar judgements as would be used in print, and this seems to work
>OK and avoids having too many half-filled lines which could be
>unecessarily disruptive for the reader.
>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 = 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.
>
>
>--
>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
--=====================_49577698==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
<body>
<font size=3>(Some technical difficulty has been preventing Stephen
Phippen from communicating with the uebmaths list, and so he has asked me
to forward the message below, together with the follow-on note inserted
at the top -- Joe)<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Since writing this reponse, I have
noticed that I forgot to say that I am also not content with 1.2.1 where
is says that an embedded expression should not be divided in braille if
it would fit on the next line. In the UK, and probably other countries
using the BAUK maths code (or a derivative of it), are used to dividing
maths expressions in braille, using similar judgements as would be used
in print, and this seems to work OK and avoids having too many
half-filled lines which could be unecessarily disruptive for the reader.
</blockquote><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>To: UEB Maths Committee<br>
From: Stephen Phippen<br>
Date: 3 March 2005<br><br>
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!<br><br>
On reading through the draft I have the following comments:<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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<br>
+ d + e = f, this is no more significant than where words wrap over in
print in an ordinary paragraph.<br>
<br>
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.:<br><br>
"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."<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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).<br><br>
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".<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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).<br><br>
<br>
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:<br><br>
"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."<br><br>
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.<br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
DISCLAIMER:<br><br>
NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is
<br>
confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended
<br>
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the
<br>
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the
<br>
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it
<br>
and any attachments from your system.<br><br>
RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated
by<br>
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants. However, it
<br>
cannot accept any responsibility for any such which are
transmitted.<br>
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.<br><br>
Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and
<br>
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent<br>
those of RNIB.<br><br>
RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227<br><br>
Website:
<a href="http://www.rnib.org.uk/" eudora="autourl">http://www.rnib.org.uk</a></font></blockquote></body>
</html>
--=====================_49577698==.ALT--