[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Proposal for capital and emphasis in UEB
- From: "John J. Boyer" <john.boyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:57:06 -0600
Hi Susan,
You have a very good point about being able to paste examples from a
programming manual into actual code. However, some editing may be needed
because of the rather small line length in Braille, which makes it
necessary to employ a hyphen symbol.
I am of the firm opinion that the Nemeth code is far superior to
traditional math codes used in other english-speaking countries.
Computer Braille is based on Nemeth, with the addition of 8-dot
representations for capiktals, etc. I have no trouble switching between
computer Braille andGrade two and Nemeth. Neither did I have trouble
with similar switches when I was a child. I would hate to see the U.S.
abandon Nemeth.
I'm looking forward to some samples of technical material, especially
part of a programming manual, from Christo.
John
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:14:45PM -0700, 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
--
John J. Boyer; President,
Abilitiessoft, Inc.
http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Madison, Wisconsin USA
Developing software for people with disabilities
For a description of the software, to download it and links to
project pages go to http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Other related posts:
