[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Proposal for capital and emphasis in UEB
- From: Keith Creasy <kcreasy@xxxxxxx>
- To: "liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 13:33:23 +0000
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
Other related posts:
