[Blindmath] BANA still considering abolishing the Nemeth braille code

[Steve Jacobson]

Since Susan's note was forwarded to several other NFBNET lists and generated some discussion, I want to post a 
response here similar to those I have posted elsewhere.  My intent is not to take a specific position on a code but to 
try to shed some additional light on this topic.

Some twenty years ago or more, Dr. Nemeth and Dr. Tim Cranmer of Kentucky expressed opinions that something 
needed to be done with the braille code to prepare for the future.  As things evolved, Dr. Cranmer favored what was 
then called the Unified English Braille Code, (UEBC).  Dr. Nemeth opposed that code for a number of reasons.  Both of 
them played a significant role in the various science and research arms of the National Federation of the blind and 
both were respected greatly by our members.  As a result of his opposition, Dr. Nemeth began work on what he called 
the Nemeth Unified Braille System or NUBS.  His work on that code ended several years ago, and BANA has done 
some research into how braille readers react to NUBS as they did some time back for UEBC.  Many NFB members and 
other persons participated in that study.  There are several links to information on this near the bottom of BANAs home 
page at 

http://www.brailleauthority.org/

It seems clear to me now that we need to find a way for braille to be able to accommodate the mixture of literary and 
technical material in a way that computerized translation can be accurately performed.  I didn't believe this twenty 
years ago.  I am sure I said something like the braille code is for braille readers, not for computers.  Things have 
changed, though.  We now have more paperless displays even if they are still too expensive, and we're seeing 
students reading textbooks directly from computer files with little or no place to insert a braille transcriber.  If in the long 
run we can't get braille to work in these environments, blind persons will use speech and lose the advantages of 
braille.  

As consumers, we need to think about how this can best be achieved and we need to learn some about the various 
codes as they are proposed.  We also need to learn how print has evolved over the past few decades and how using 
computers has added many options to how information can be presented, even when it is presented on paper.  What 
does this mean for the Nemeth Code as we know it.  At this point, it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that it will 
disappear.  

The NFB representative to BANA is Jennifer Dunnam who also is the president of the NFB of Minnesota.  Since I am 
the vice-president of that affiliate, we worked together on issues and she asked me to post the following:

"Since I am the NFB's representative on BANA, Steve Jacobson has shared with
me some of the discussion that has occurred on lists regarding BANA and the
Nemeth Code.  In addition to the excellent points that he has made, I would
strongly urge everyone to please read the three-part article that is being
distributed by BANA, the first part of which appeared in the May Braille
Monitor, and the second part of which will appear in Octobers (to be
followed shortly by the third).  The article is intended to lay out the
issues confronting all of us at braille users and what BANA is considering.
Please know that BANA is engaged in a thoughtful process and will not be
making snap decisions.  We have asked for and will continue to seek input
from all concerned, and we want people to be informed as well."

The article that Jennifer mentioned is also available on the BANA web site and is good reading.  I think that it is worth 
pointing out that many of the issues go well beyond math.  It is right for us to be concerned about how math will be 
represented in braille, but we need to educate ourselves on what is being proposed and influence events as is in our 
best interest.  Change should not be made for the sake of change.  However, neither should change be opposed 
simply because it represents something new.  Whatever happens with braille, it needs to happen because we 
educated ourselves about the options, and learned the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson

On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 16:10:37 -0600, Susan Jolly wrote:

>I have just recieved my copy of the Summer 2011 Bulletin of the National 
>Braille Association (NBA) which is the professional organization providing 
>continuing education to both paid and volunteer braille transcribers here in 
>the United States. The President's Message states, "At some point in the 
>near future, the braille powers-that-be will make a decision about a unified 
>braille code for the English-speaking worlds--a code that will combine 
>literary and technical transcriptions under one set of rules and 
>constructions."

>Elsewhere in this issue of the Bulletin, the NBA representive to the Braille 
>Authority of North America (BANA) writes that the BANA "Education and 
>Outreach committee is still reviewing the possibility of a universal code." 
>Note that the next meeting of BANA will be held November 3-6, 2011 and will 
>be hosted in the Baltimore area by the NFB.

>If you believe as I do that the BAUK-like representation of maths in the 
>current proposals for a unified code are significantly inferior to the 
>Nemeth code's representation of mathematics, you might want to take action 
>now.

>Wouldn't it be ironic if the US were to abolish the use of the Nemeth code 
>just as it is being widely adopted in countries such as India and Indonesia 
>which have larger populations of braille users?

>Sincerely,
>SusanJ 


>_______________________________________________
>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/steve.jacobson%40visi.com