[UEB Maths] response to Stephens comments on Section 1

[Janet Reynolds]

I am sending this message twice, the other message has the revised
version of Section 1 attached as well, but may take longer to get
through to the group address.

1.1.1 For now I have just removed the sentence "For example in aligning
equals signs, and setting up tables". The paragraph seems to read
alright without it. (Advice about how to align equals signs might sit
better in a tutorial book rather than a rule book. In Nemeth you are
told to put the LHS in cell 3 then move the first equals sign down to
cell 5 and line the others up below that which works well.)

1.1.3 "preferable" does read better here.

1.2.1 What do other people think about the indentation of expressions
which are set apart in print? I am a bit nervous of following Stephen's
suggestion of cell 5-7 because expressions in UEB are already quite long
and it means losing another 2 cells. The 3-5 format is what is used in
Nemeth, and although technically it could be confused with a para the
context usually makes it clear. How is this currently handled in the UK
Stephen?

1.2.2 Personally I would be happy to lose the continuation indicator but
don't want to delete it yet because I think they have found it really
useful in Australia. Bruce, are you out there?

1.3 I like Stephen's rewrite of this para so have included it.

1.4.1 I have moved this to the end as Stephen suggested. Does that still
read okay to everyone?

1.4.3 I have added the phrase "without the need for grade one symbol
indicators".

1.4.4 I have added the words "where necessary".

Stephen, I do agree with you about the redundancy of some of these grade
one passage indicators, but am nervous about what would happen to the
back translation if there was a convention to omit them for expressions
which are set apart by indentation. One of the features of UEB that we
are using to sell the code in NZ is the potential for a school student
to enter Maths on a Braille computer then print it out for the teacher -
the technology is not quite there yet but with UEB there is no
ambiguity, provided the indicators are all there. The reality is that
students writing their own Maths will omit indicators all over the
place, but if they are used to seeing them used correctly in published
works there is more chance they will put them in when they know they
need to back translate. It's a good argument but I'm not sure I've
completely convinced myself yet!
Janet


-----Original Message-----
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



_______________________________________________
UEBmaths mailing list
UEBmaths@nbp.org
http://nbp.org/mailman/listinfo/uebmaths