[duxuser] Re: Braille Bills
- From: "Steve Dresser" <s.dresser@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <duxuser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:21:42 -0400
Michael,
In a perfect world, you're right. I suspect that in many cases, the brailling
is done "down and dirty", i.e. run it through some translation software and
hope for the best. Keep in mind that it takes time to produce quality braille,
and things like bills and bank statements are time critical.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: mfreholm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: duxuser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 19:15
Subject: [duxuser] Re: Braille Bills
I have proofread documents that have simply been run through Duxbury or other
software and embossed as is. No proofreading, no formatting, nothing. As BANA
states in a position paper concerning this very subject, "While the use of
braille production software has greatly assisted in the transcription of print
and electronic materials into braille, there are considerations and limitations
that producers of braille must recognize. All braille materials should be
proofread to ensure braille format and accuracy. Braille materials produced by
persons who are not certified by either the Library of Congress or the Canadian
Braille Authority should be proofread by a knowledgeable person to ensure
braille format and accuracy."
The producers of the braille may have their program set to the wrong
translation table. Obviously, there was no proofreading by a knowledgable
person.
I'm curious about what the errors are. If they are significant, I would call
the company that produces the bill. I think braille should not be done by
hacks and those who do should be called to account. Oh Lord, this has turned
into a sermon. Let's just say, we have an important responsibility and our
work should not be taken lightly.
Michael K. Freholm
Other related posts:
