[Blindmath] UEB again (was Braille code urgency)

[Michael Whapples]

Hello,
OK< I follow your arguments when it relates to computer Braille, as I said I have actively chosen to use the American computer Braille when using my computer. However I do follow your arguments for dot-6 numbers as well, but let's blame the French (I have to being British) for making the mess around the zero just because they have no W.

However I am still unconvinced regarding the need for maths, I think its because the need for a one for one mapping disappears. Question, by having a number sign (like you say for grade 2) would that help in making a simpler maths code (due to maths having more symbols than computer code typically does)? A slightly different wording, is there benefit to having number sign for grade 2 and maths, grade 1 and computer code does not.

Coming back to UEB, the one thing which was done in BAUK with letters for numbers was to have certain cases where you could use lowered letters for a shorter notation (eg. 1/2 could be written as #a2, x subscript 2 could be written as x2 ), but from what I have been told UEB does not make such a use of lowered numbers and so a dot-6 scheme would not have caused an issue there.

Michael Whapples
On 4 Dec 2011, at 23:39, John Gardner wrote:

> Hi Steve.  I do not intend to get into an argument, particularly with people
> like Sina and Michael, who are good friends.  I do not pretend to have a
> direct line to God, so I am just stating my own opinions.  We certainly are
> not gonna agree on everything.  If we did there wouldn't be a lot of point
> to a discussion!  You asked me some questions, and I am happy to answer them
> interlined below.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindmath-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindmath-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of Steve Jacobson
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 1:34 PM
> To: Blind Math list for those interested in mathematics
> Subject: Re: [Blindmath] UEB again (was Braille code urgency)
> <snip>
> John, I am curious to get your perspective on a couple of things.  Let me
> say clearly that I have looked at both UEB 
> and NUBS samples and I can't say that I see a clear winner.  You said that
> people would not accept dropped 
> numbers because punctuation occurs more often.  I think that there is some
> truth to this, but I find that position to be 
> inconsistent with the dot 6 numbers that would have to replace many signs.
> What am I missing?  
> JAG: Good question Steve.  The Unified Braille Code committee was instructed
> by BANA to make minimal changes to Grade 2 braille and to expand the
> noncontracted code to its heart's content.  The symbols used for dot-6
> numbers are unused in noncontracted braille.  Dropped letters are
> punctuation marks in non-contracted braille.  So noncontracted braille would
> need to have its numbers changed whether one adopts dot-6 or dropped
> numbers, but the latter would cause punctuation to be changed as well.  If
> one adopts dot-6 numbers, one way to change grade 2 would be that the
> symbols following the number sign would not be a b c but would be those
> letters with an additional dot-six.  Basically the number sign would be a
> "switch to grade 1 for this string" indicator.  Of course it is also
> possible to keep grade 2 as it is and just have a number non-uniformity
> between grade 1 and grade 2.  In my opinion this is a pretty minimal
> non-uniformity and one I'd be happy to accept.  Adopting dropped numbers
> would either result in a major change to grade 2 braille or a major
> non-uniformity.  Maybe you now understand why the vote against dropped
> numbers was 7-1.  I would have voted that way myself.
> 
> Please understand 
> I'm not saying that dot 6 numbers are necessarily a bad idea, only that it
> is an example of why I don't see a clear path 
> forward.  You mentioned 95 ASCII symbols, but Unicode raises that number,
> too.  
> JAG: Of course there are many more than the 95 printable ASCII symbols, but
> computer software is almost universally written using only those 95
> characters.  The computer braille code is supposed to be a 1-1
> representation of computer braille.  We may argue about whether math braille
> code numbers need to be unique, but there is no argument when you are
> talking about computer braille.  UBC was supposed to be a uniform code for
> literary, math, and computer braille.  The latter goes right out the window
> if there are no number symbols.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Blindmath mailing list
> Blindmath at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindmath_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Blindmath:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindmath_nfbnet.org/mwhapples%40aim.com