[liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Proposal for capital and emphasis in UEB
- From: "Christo de Klerk" <cjdk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 17:14:35 +0200
Hello all
Whatever our personal preferences or resistances to change might be,
reality is that 7 of the 8 ICEB member countries have adopted the complete
UEB with only the US holding on to Nemeth for technical material. If
LibLouis is to be relevant in the rest of the English speaking world, it has
to be developed so that it can provide high quality UEB translation and back
translation and I am pleased that there will be such an initiative.
Whether or not you use UEB has no bearing on 8 dot braille. 8 dot braille
has its place in refreshable braille devices. I haven't seen very many hard
copy books using 8 dot braille, though; well, none, actually.
I don't think this list is the proper forum to debate the merits or demerits
of the various codes, but rather to figure out the best ways in which
LibLouis can support the codes which are recognised. The point I have been
trying to make in my earlier messages on this topic, is that the UEB is a
reality and it isn't going away. It has been adopted by many, many thousands
of braille users in many countries across the world and more are in the
process of adopting it and LibLouis should be able to accommodate this
reality.
Kind regards
Christo
-----Original Message-----
From: liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:liblouis-liblouisxml-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael
Whapples (Redacted sender "mwhapples@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
Sent: 02 February 2015 4:43 PM
To: liblouis-liblouisxml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [liblouis-liblouisxml] Re: Proposal for capital and emphasis in UEB
That possibly pushes me into my response part 2.
What I was trying to show is simply what Braille codes I use for what and
why. Yes I do use different Braille codes for different things (eg.
BAUK for standard text and mathematics, US 8-dot Braille for programming on
a Braille display, etc). I do this because some tools are better for
achieving the specific thing I need to do in a given situation. I know to
those who use Nemeth that you believe Nemeth is the superior Braille code
for mathematics, but as I noted for me I learnt BAUK first and so I have not
managed to swap to Nemeth being my primary code for one reason or another.
I can understand the desirability of wanting to only need to learn and use a
single system regardless of the situation, but that is quite a challenge to
create such a single system. There is always the risk that one will make a
system which is passable for everything, but is never outstanding for
anything. Passable meaning that it technically can be used but says nothing
to actual usability.
I don't want to get into whether UEB has fallen into that trap or not, I
have not got enough experience with it to feel qualified to comment. I hope
though that my comments have been useful for those with more knowledge of
the code to understand whether it does what I want from a Braille code in
different situations.
Michael Whapples
On 02/02/2015 13:33, Keith Creasy wrote:
> 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
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:
