[guide.chat] Important noticed here
- From: "Carol O'Connor" <missbossyboots33@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "guide Chat List" <guide.chat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:09:41 -0000
Hi all a friend of mine called Peter wilkinsons asked me to pass this long
letter on to all Braille raeders here it is now
I
would be really grateful, if you could send the email below to as
many Braille users as possible whose email addresses you have, if
this is at all possible. I am also sending this to Colin Howard.
Apologies again.
Thanks,
Linda
Hello everyone,
Below is a copy of my email to Kevin Carey who is chairman of the
RNIB board. On the 24th of November, they will vote on whether
to introduce UEB. There are a group of people like myself who
really urge as many people as possible who oppose UEB to contact
Kevin, as soon as possible before the 24th, in the hope that if
enough people voice their opposition, UEB will be rejected. If
you don't have time to go into detail about why you don't want
UEB, please even just email him to say you are opposed to it.
His address is:
kevin.carey@xxxxxxxxxxx
Anyone can use, or copy, any, or all, of my arguments, if they
want to.
Regards,
Linda
Dear Kevin,
I am writing to urge, most strongly, that you, and the board, do
not adopt UEB without widespread consultation, as this most
certainly has not taken place. If you do so without this, it
will make a complete mockery of RNIB's claim to represent
visually impaired people's views. This would make a very good
newspaper article. RNIB would, however, receive very bad
publicity by being portrayed as an uncaring organisation
determined to ride roughshod over the views of those it is
supposed to represent. This could also lead to a loss in
charitable giving. For the following reasons, it is absolutely
imperative that UEB is not introduced without the majority of
ordinary blind people, and those who work with them, being in
favour of it.
UEB was rejected in 2008, so the issue should not even have been
raised again. It has not been sufficiently publicised. Very few
of my blind friends, or sighted colleagues working in a secondary
school VI unit, knew anything about it. The article opposing it
I sent to two RNIB magazines was not even acknowledged. All
literature regarding UEB overwhelmingly emphasises its benefits,
while almost entirely glossing over its many disadvantages. This
presents a very biased, misleading picture. RNIB has over thirty
magazines available in Braille, yet the latest sample document
was only sent to readers of just one and was far too long. Of
the few people who received it, many gave up after the first
couple of pages, discouraged by their slower UEB reading speed.
A much shorter document should have been sent to all Braille
readers RNIB has on its records. They should then have been
asked if they wanted UEB. Those who were contacted were not
actually asked this and were only questioned about any
difficulties they had encountered. This would have been costly,
but would have been a great deal less so than introducing UEB, if
ordinary Braille readers do not want it.
It will be very expensive and will be a long time, if ever,
before all existing SEB materials are transcribed into UEB. This
means that those only knowing UEB wishing to access these must
learn SEB. At present, it does not cause most Braille users too
much difficulty to read materials from other English-speaking
countries without the costly change to UEB. What is more,
America, from which a vast range of books is available, has not
adopted it. We only have access to a tiny percentage of print
materials. Therefore, an organisation like RNIB which claims to
promote accessible formats, should use valuable resources to
produce more in SEB, not to reproduce existing stock in UEB,
without our consent. Disseminating the complete UEB code and a
quick reference guide will be very costly. There is also the
danger that some people will be missed. Print changes without
people being consulted. This, however, does not generally
significantly slow reading speed, require more space or mean
existing materials must be reprinted. The small number which do
cost far less to produce than those which must be re-brailled
with UEB's introduction.
The recent revisions to SEB have removed most ambiguities. If
any still exist, something called "context" resolves them. There
are currently accurate programs which convert Braille to print
and vice versa. Braille experts I have consulted have looked
into the differences between UEB and SEB in great detail and
disagree that the changes are minimal. They say some of its
rules are obscure with confusing terminology. UEB will involve a
massive amount of costly retraining for teachers and
transcribers. I know several people working for RNIB opposed to
UEB who agree with this, but whose views have either not been
asked for or, where they have, these have been ignored. Small
producers with whom I have been in contact, many of them visually
impaired, say the cost of retraining and of acquiring new
software to cope with UEB will put them out of business. My
sighted colleagues found it very hard learning Braille and some
have just passed their exam with great difficulty. They are
horrified by the prospect of teaching UEB to youngsters who are
just mastering SEB. These young people are already at a
significant disadvantage accessing the curriculum designed for
sighted pupils in mainstream schools. UEB would be an extra,
unfair and unnecessary burden for them. In addition, it requires
more space. Braille's bulk discourages people from using it.
UEB, therefore, would make this worse. Most Braille readers are
less fluent than print ones. UEB is even slower, as fingers take
longer to move over it, since it requires more cells. Lack of
fluency and difficulty improving this also discourages learners.
UEB would worsen this and many have said it would make them
abandon Braille completely for audio. Braillists can generally
write faster than print users. This advantage will be
considerably lessened with UEB, given its extra characters. RNIB
claims to promote employment for blind people. It cannot,
therefore, be a good or sensible idea to introduce UEB, as it
will put those who are in, or seeking to enter, the job market at
an even bigger disadvantage than they are already. For anyone
whose job involves French, the situation is much worse, as French
in UEB is even slower and more confusing than English.
I am not opposed to change where this is beneficial. Indeed, I
favoured that to capitalisation. At that time, however, the dual
standard came into operation, meaning people had the choice
whether to accept capitals. With UEB, there will be no choice,
which is extremely unfair, as this is a far more disruptive
change than capitalisation. Braille is an indispensable part of
my life and is my main means of communication. UEB will be a
very serious handicap, making it even harder than it already is
for me to carry out my daily activities. As a member of both
RNIB and UKAAF, I am appalled that a small number of people, some
of them not even knowing Braille, can make such a crucial
decision affecting the lives of blind people. For the above
reasons, therefore, I again urge you, and the board, most
strongly not to take such a radical step without widespread
consultation and not to risk the extremely adverse publicity
adopting UEB, without the consent of the majority of those it
will affect, could generate for RNIB.
Linda Arnot
Other related posts:
- » [guide.chat] Important noticed here - Carol O'Connor
