Wow, excellent points from both. Also, just in general, the mix of languages and the way
variables, classes, and the like are written in computer code make trying to use braille,
especially contracted braille, unwieldy. Computer code is not purely mathematical and it
is certainly not literary. It is computer program code and the best braille code for it
is eight-dot "computer" braille.
Keith
-----Original Message-----
From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Whapples
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:27 AM
To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Proposal for capital and emphasis in UEB
Hello,
I am not sure I want to get into the discussion of whether UEB is better or
worse than any other Braille system, Susan does make some good points and I
would like to give some detail of how I work as a Braille user.
Firstly a quick background. I am based in the UK, so I was initially taught
BAUK and this probably is still my primary Braille code. I have seen a little
Nemeth, however either through habbit or something else I have never managed to
swap to it as my primary Braille code for mathematical content.
My work is mostly computer programming, and for that I do use a Braille
display,. For that I use the simple US 8-dot computer Braille mapping (in
BrlTTY what is termed NABCC). My main reason for this is that the simple
one-to-one mapping of what I read to what is on the screen has a simplicity
which allows me to just get on with the actual coding. Also if the source code,
or other text files, have some tabular layout then the one-to-one mapping of
cells and characters means I can appreciate the formatting and meaning of the
code in the same way someone sighted probably does. This last point is really
so when using a unix console.
Now to a point Susan made regarding input. I do type using a standard keyboard.
I am not fully sure on my reasons why, but Braille input has always seemed
awkward, particularly when dealing with a computer. May be its I learnt to
touch type first and so that is my natural language when writing, or may be
something else. May be its a feeling of issues with back translation, which may
be leads me to another of Susan's points.
Back translation being reliable with human produced Braille. There are a number
of errors in my writing of Braille which may occur for me: I simply forget a
particular contraction so may write out something in grade one, I make a typo
or I fall into what I term relaxed or slack Braille (simply I know that a human
reader has common sense in most cases so may drop certain strict rules where
the meaning is obvious to a human, .profile might be such an example as in a
unix book disprofile would not make any sense to a unix user).
May be some of these errors should not occur (particularly me relaxing certain
rules), but I doubt all these errors can be prevented (typos in particular). So
yes could back translation ever be resistant against these errors, or at least
detect errors?
On a slightly separate note, I personally feel back translation is a wrong
approach, if someone can only work in Braille then they are setting themself up
for a life of reliance. The reliance may be on software or it may be on a human
transcriber, but still relying on something else performing correctly. Being
able to type my own stuff I feel it gives me greater independence in producing
something as and when I want it.
Michael Whapples
On 28/01/2015 19:14, Susan Jolly wrote:
As most of you know, I have long opposed UEB for use in the United
States and, not surprisingly, I still do so. Just to be complete, I
am a sighted retired computational scientist who became interested in
braille software development back in 2000. Because of this interest I
was lucky enough to meet John Boyer back then. I would estimate that
I have spent the equivalent of at least two working years on UEB
issues: studying UEB in great detail, trying to help various
organizations who were opposing it, and carefully documenting my
objections on my website. I realize that the current situation is
unlikely to change but I would like to respond to a few of the
comments in this thread.
As a programmer for more than 40 years I find it essential when I read
technical material that includes software fragments that these
fragments are identical to what would appear in working software that
incorporates those fragments. That is, I should whenever I wish, be
able to copy and paste these software fragments directly into actual
computer code. I find it impossible to comprehend why braille-using
programmers wouldn't prefer to learn, read, or write computer code
using the same characters that sighted people do. I've seen programs
written by persons whose native language is French or another
non-English language which uses a similar alphabet to English (ASCII)
and while the comments are often in their native language, they do not
translate the keywords of the programming language to their native
language.
(It's possible that there are cases I'm unaware of where there are
forms of programming languages that use other alphabets where
compiling requires
backtranslation.)
On a similar note it is my impression that many braille-using adults
prefer to directly enter print or computer code using either a
standard keyboard or the default 8-dot computer braille table built
into their braille display and have no trouble switching back and
forth from computer braille to six-dot contracted braille.
Since the deficiencies of UEB math have been well-domented elsewhere I
have just this one statement. As a computational mathematician I have
been continually impressed with how Nemeth math represents the true
nature of mathematics in a way that I've not seen any other braille
system come close to.
Next I'd like to make two technical comments about translating and
back-translating. First, both of these processes are technically
speaking examples of parsing. Those of you with an advanced computer
science background are likely aware that the standard techniques long
used for lexical analysis and parsing are quite different from the way
these processes are handled in table-based braille software. I
understand that the use of tables is intended to make it possible for
the same engine to translate according to numerous braille systems and
I've observed that the popularity of this feature is a primary reason
for the widespread adoption of liblouis. However, I wouldn't be
surprised if some of the advances in parsing lead to new approaches to
braille software in the future.
The second comment is specific to backtranslating UEB. My
understanding is that there is a "mathematical" proof that the
prefix-root nature of UEB makes it possible to automate fully correct
backtranslation of UEB.
(It may
be that the use of shortform contractions violates this; I'm not sure.
If so, one would need to scan for shortforms first.)
However, my concern is not whether correct UEB can be automatically
backtranslated, my concern is whether human-produced UEB, which is
likely to contain various errors, can be automatically backtranslated.
It is important to realize that it is the presence of extra rules more
than the elimination of a few problematic contractions that makes
accurate UEB backtranslation potentially automatable. For example, as
was pointed out in an earlier post on this thread, UEB allows a
leading period (full
stop) if
the item is preceded by a Grade 1 indicator. In other words, the real
question is whether a UEB backtranslator can localize braille errors
just as a compiler can generally find all the mistakes in a piece of
code without crashing.
Finally, congratulations and best wishes to everyone who has been
and/or still is working so hard to make liblouis a success. This is
truly an impressive project of worldwide importance!
Sincerely,
Susan Jolly
www.dotlessbraille.org
For a description of the software, to download it and links to project
pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
For a description of the software, to download it and links to project pages go
to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
