[BlindMath] UEB Math History/Methodology

[David Andrews]

One point of clarification, when you say 
"schools" you mean K-12 schools, not colleges and 
universities.  For higher ed, I think it would be 
between you and your institution of higher 
learning what code was used, or if they are 
getting the book -- what they can find.

Dave

At 02:12 PM 7/8/2017, you wrote:
>Apologies for a diversion from the original 
>question. However, the following may help to 
>characterize more aspects of the issues involved 
>in braille maths codes. In the USA, each state 
>has the ability to set the math code to be used 
>in schools in that state. Schools are then 
>required to acquire transcriptions in that code. 
>Many, but not all, states have officially 
>adopted UEB maths. Other states have not 
>officially declared UEB maths, which effectively 
>means Nemeth is treated as the standard in those 
>states. The latter is the case in Idaho (where I 
>live). The state school for blind and visually 
>impaired requires that transcribers (literary 
>and maths) have earned certification in the 
>required code. Students in Idaho are taught to 
>use UEB for literary material, and Nemeth for 
>maths. However, as an example, Massachusetts has 
>adopted UEB for both literary and maths. This 
>means that students moving between states may 
>have to learn a different maths code to continue 
>their studies — students who attended Idahoo 
>public schools will have to learn UEB maths if 
>they attend school in Massachusetts, and vice 
>versa. This also adds complexity and cost to 
>materials prepared by commercial producers of 
>braille because they have to hire certified 
>transcribers for each code, and produce two 
>different versions for every title used in 
>multiple states. Few other countries use Nemeth, 
>and in fact nearly every spoken language with a 
>parallel braille code has its own variant 
>braille code for some elements of maths. This 
>leads to the very unfortunate fact that `the 
>universal language` of maths is not universal 
>for braille readers. Most national organizations 
>in the US have recommended staying with Nemeth 
>for maths, but have no strong means to ensure 
>uniformity. Regarding empirical research to 
>inform a decision for UEB maths or Nemeth, I 
>know of only anecdotal arguments and no set of 
>studies that affords conclusive, peer reviewed 
>data. We live in interesting times! _don > On 
>Jul 8, 2017, at 12:23 PM, Neal K via BlindMath 
><blindmath at nfbnet.org> wrote: > > And just to 
>make even more interesting: > UEB was an 
>international undertaking in order to have a 
>single English > braille code. > In the past the 
>UK and North America had separate literary 
>braille codes and > very different math braille 
>codes. > > To read more go to the source so to 
>speak: > http://Iceb.org/ueb.html > > For some 
>of the UEBC Research Project Information go 
>to: > http://www.iceb.org/ubc.html > > 
>Sincerely, Neal > > -----Original Message----- > 
>From: BlindMath 
>[mailto:blindmath-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf 
>Of Steve > Jacobson via BlindMath > Sent: 
>Saturday, July 8, 2017 11:41 AM > To: 
>sarah.jevnikar at gmail.com; 'Blind Math list for 
>those interested in > mathematics' > Cc: Steve 
>Jacobson > Subject: Re: [BlindMath] UEB Math 
>History/Methodology > > Sarah, > > There isn't a 
>real simple answer to your question.  UEB math 
>is an attempt > to make literary braille and 
>mathematical braille fit together better.  The > 
>period and the decimal point use the same symbol 
>in braille as they are in > print, to pick a 
>very simple example.  We see more math in 
>literary braille > now, so it also means that 
>other symbols that you might see in a novel or 
>in > a magazine article are the same in UEB math 
>such as the plus sign.  It also > means that 
>internet addresses can be written using the same 
>symbols with > less of a need to use a separate 
>computer braille code.  I think it is fair > to 
>say that there were mathematicians involved in 
>the development of UEB > math. > > However, UEB 
>math is very different than the Nemeth Code 
>which has been used > for math in the United 
>States for many years.  It is, in my opinion, 
>much > more difficult to move from Nemeth Code 
>to UEB math than it is to switch to > reading 
>UEB for text.  Therefore, Nemeth Code is still 
>in use here in the > United States.  Having 
>transcribers already familiar with Nemeth Code 
>also > plays a role.  There has been a good deal 
>written showing that Nemeth Code > is more 
>compact than UEB math, but there are legitimate 
>questions about some > of the extreme 
>comparisons.  This has been an emotional 
>discussion here in > the United States. > > I am 
>a Nemeth Code user but have tried to portray the 
>two codes in as > unbiased way as I can.  What 
>probably determines which code you should 
>learn > is where you hope to get most of your 
>braille texts.  It is going to be > worth 
>learning Nemeth Code if you will be getting math 
>texts from the United > States.  If you will be 
>getting texts from Canada, then learning UEB 
>math is > probably what makes sense. > > 
>Finally, I think learning either code is 
>sometimes made to sound harder than > it needs 
>to be.  There are a lot of math symbols that 
>sighted people don't > learn at the outset.  If 
>one learns what one needs to perform the math at 
>a > given level, the job isn't that tough.  One 
>can then build upon what one > learns as one 
>gets into more complex math.  It is, for 
>example, hard to > remember the integral sign if 
>one does not know what an integral is. > > 
>Perhaps others who have used UEB math more than 
>I will correct anything here > that is wrong.  I 
>hope, though, that we can avoid a long 
>discussion of which > is best.  I personally 
>believe using the Nemeth Code in the United 
>States > makes sense for us, but I do not 
>believe that means that UEB math is not a > 
>valid and useful code. > > Best regards, > > 
>Steve Jacobson > > -----Original Message----- > 
>From: BlindMath 
>[mailto:blindmath-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf 
>Of Sarah > Jevnikar via BlindMath > Sent: 
>Friday, July 07, 2017 12:39 PM > To: 'Blind Math 
>list for those interested in mathematics' > 
><blindmath at nfbnet.org> > Cc: Sarah Jevnikar 
><sarah.jevnikar at gmail.com> > Subject: 
>[BlindMath] UEB Math History/Methodology > > Hi 
>all, > I'd like to better understand the 
>thinking behind UEB math. While Nemeth > isn't 
>perfect, UEB math seems more cumbersome and 
>convoluted. Please correct > me if I'm out of 
>line here. > > Canada has done a full change to 
>UEB, including mathematics. Therefore I'll > 
>have to work with it at some point. I'm 
>concerned though that it's a step > backwards 
>towards the inclusion of blind students and 
>professionals in STEM. > Again, I am willing to 
>be wrong here. > > My question is this: what are 
>the benefits of UEB math? Who created it? Were > 
>they mathematicians/familiar with math? Is the 
>move away from Nemeth > something to be 
>celebrated? Where does it leave 
>Braille-to-print > translation, which was 
>imperfect for Nemeth as it was, but at least 
>it > existed? Does such Braille-to-print and 
>print-to-Braille translation have a > 
>technological solution for UEB math? I know that 
>LaTeX is really the only > universally usable 
>option for blind creators of STEM stuff, but 
>having a > Braille option would also be 
>ideal. > > Thank you very much for your insight. 
>All the best to everyone attending > Convention 
>this year. I was hoping this would be my first, 
>but summer school > got in the way... > > Thanks 
>again, > Sarah > > > I hope this makes > > > > > 
>_______________________________________________ > 
>  BlindMath mailing list > BlindMath at nfbnet.org >