[duxuser] Re: request for opinions
- From: "Flor Lynch" <florlync@xxxxxx>
- To: <duxuser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:49:34 -0000
In the interests of enlightenment: Such arguments can also be extended
'backwards'. I think it's time that we have less, not more, barriers to
understanding and less (where possible) demarcations between print and
braille. Until recent times, the
capital sign was deliberately omitted from British braille. One reason: It
took up extra space - especially when a word or phrase was fully
capitalized. . Result? Many braille readers complained (and are still
complaining)
quite loudly about the introduction of this sign. Would you also consider
eliminating it from braille transcriptions of print, given that it makes
little or no difference
to the braille reader, and can even be regarded (as it is by some) as an
encumbrance to fluid reading? . If the full with had to be printed in a
menu, for which we normally have to braille the ) contraction, it would be.
w/ does have a natural resemblance to with, and this ought to be respected,
inferred and understood by a braillist cognizant with conventions. W/o for
without. [You are also subtly changing the meaning of the text (even though
you would not mean to) by using with instead of w/: and the transcription is
(I would hope) being paid for by the caterer rather than the braille user.]
You would have
to regard it as not being as egregious as some of the shortforms
appearing in SMS text messages - 5 for s being one example - that are
creeping towards being represented in today's written works. Even there,
where reasonable, I believe
we should not (unless we have to) change/distort the meaning and syntax of
the print: where the braille copy
follows it and was not the original.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Dresser" <s.dresser@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <duxuser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:15 PM
Subject: [duxuser] Re: request for opinions
Bruce,
The concept of language is irrelevant. We're talking about contractions,
very few of which have anything to do with what a sighted person sees on the
printed page. For example, "td", "tm", and "tgr" have nothing to do with
the words "today", "tomorrow", and "together", but we use them anyway. I'll
grant you that those contractions and others like them have caused some
confusion for braille readers, but if we didn't use contractions braille
would be far more bulky than it already is. My problem with "w/" is that it
takes up more space for no particularly good reason. I guess if I were
working for the Library of Congress and was told not to change that word,
I'd leave it alone, but I'm under no such constraints, so it will be changed
in any menu I produce. As I said, this debate has been around as long as
we've had braille contractions, and I don't think we'll end it here.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bruce Toews" <Bruce@xxxxxxxx>
To: <duxuser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 15:02
Subject: [duxuser] Re: request for opinions
>
>
> If braille were a language and dots 23456 represented the word with I
> might agree with you. However, braille is not a language, and dots23456
> represent the letters w, i, t, h.
> If we start writing our own rules on how to braille things based on our
> personal preferences, then a blind person sitting in a restaurant is not
> able to confidently go from restaurant to restaurant with braille menus
> and know what to expect. A father goes into a restaurant with his child.
> The child says "What does the w with the line after it mean?" But the
> braillist has taken it upon him- or herself to interpret the menu beyond
> what is written, so Daddy doesn't see any w with a line after it, and
> is thus clueless.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:52:35 -0500, "Steve Dresser"
> <s.dresser@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>>
>>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> Without getting into the merits of the BANA rules, "w/" does, in my
>> opinion,
>> detract in that its use is less efficient than the contraction we already
>> have. Although I know what it means now, it certainly wasn't obvious to
>> me
>> when I first saw it. I suspect we could argue about this until the end
>> of
>> time without resolving anything.
>>
> --
> Bruce Toews
> dogriver@xxxxxxxx
>
> * * *
> * This message is via list duxuser at freelists.org.
> * To unsubscribe, send a blank message with
> * unsubscribe
> * as the subject to <duxuser-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>. You may also
> * subscribe, unsubscribe, and set vacation mode and other subscription
> * options by visiting //www.freelists.org. The list archive
> * is also located there.
> * Duxbury Systems' web site is http://www.duxburysystems.com
> * * *
>
* * *
* This message is via list duxuser at freelists.org.
* To unsubscribe, send a blank message with
* unsubscribe
* as the subject to <duxuser-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>. You may also
* subscribe, unsubscribe, and set vacation mode and other subscription
* options by visiting //www.freelists.org. The list archive
* is also located there.
* Duxbury Systems' web site is http://www.duxburysystems.com
* * *
* * *
* This message is via list duxuser at freelists.org.
* To unsubscribe, send a blank message with
* unsubscribe
* as the subject to <duxuser-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>. You may also
* subscribe, unsubscribe, and set vacation mode and other subscription
* options by visiting //www.freelists.org. The list archive
* is also located there.
* Duxbury Systems' web site is http://www.duxburysystems.com
* * *
Other related posts:
