Braille Codes in Australia
William Jolley
Chairperson, Australian Braille Authority
Braille Codes Forum
Victorian Branch, Australian Braille Authority
Melbourne, February 2004
Abstract
This paper surveys the options for changes to Braille codes used in Australia, ranging from adoption of the Unified English Braille Code to maintenance of the present hybrid system.
Introduction
At the end of March 2004 the General Assembly of the International Council on English Braille will consider and decide upon the Unified English Braille Code. The decisions of that meeting are likely to have an impact on Braille throughout the English-speaking world.
Australia inherited the British system of Braille as compared with the American system. This situation was maintained until the 1980s when the need for change became evident and action was taken. Whilst the changes that were made occurred for good reasons, the net result is that two decades later Australia has a hybrid system of Braille codes. With a small population of Braille readers and scarce resources to maintain the Braille-related infrastructure, we find that comprehensive code specifications and teaching manuals do not exist and that we are lagging behind with the development of software for computerised Braille production.
In 1999 the Australian Braille Authority (ABA) published Braille 2000: meeting the challenges of a new millennium. Its purpose was to give necessary background information and to inform discussion and decision-making at the ABA meeting set for April 1999. Last year I took the discussion of Braille codes in Australia one step further with my paper Braille codes at the cross roads. This present paper may be considered as a year-after revision of that one.
There are strong arguments in favour of Australia regularising its Braille codes - alignment with the United States, the United Kingdom or the UEBC. Arguments for maintaining Australia's system of hybrid Braille codes appear unsustainable.
Braille Codes in Australia
When discussing Braille codes the scope is: the literary code for non-technical materials, the code for mathematics and science, and the code for computer science. The language-independent Braille code for music is completely different, and is standardised worldwide.
For the English language there are two distinct literary codes, commonly referred to as the American and British codes. They both use the same system of Braille contractions, but they differ in the permissible use of some of them depending on the common pronunciation of certain words. This is not a major issue and does not prevent a Braille user schooled in one literary code from reading material produced in the alternative code. The main difference between these codes is their recommended use of capital letters. Although the British code now promotes the use of capital signs, their use is not expected to be commonplace for ten to fifteen years.
Australia inherited British Braille, with British literary and mathematics codes traditionally used. The first deviation came in the 1980s with the widespread adoption of capitalization. The decision was precipitated by the growing prevalence of mainstreaming of blind children into regular schools. Both teachers and Braille users endorsed the need for blind children to have a better understanding of print conventions. The next significant deviation was the adoption of Australian codes for mathematics and chemistry, based on the British codes, but with significant differences to take account of the common use of capitalisation.
The Braille Authority of the United Kingdom (BAUK) adopted capitalisation and some other changes in 1999, but these changes did not automatically patch up differences with the literary code used in Australia. At the time of writing BAUK is about to publish further changes to the British literary code. These changes will create some further divergence from the literary code used in Australia.
So this is the present situation for Australia.
- We use the British literary code, but with some modifications that mean that we cannot simply use code specifications or manuals from the United Kingdom
- We use mathematics and chemistry codes which originate from the British codes, but which have important differences
- We use the American computer code; and
- We use Australian formatting guidelines
UEBC: Progress and Prospects
The literary and technical codes are not properly integrated in either of the UK or US Braille systems. This is especially true for the American codes, where, for example, there are no special signs for the elementary binary operators of arithmetic: plus, minus, multiply and divide; nor for commonly used symbols such as equals, at, backslash, less-than and greater-than.
In 1991 the Braille Authority of North America (BANA) asked Drs Tim Cranmer and Abraham Nemeth to comment on the desirability and feasibility of developing a more unified Braille system. Their joint paper was a passionate and logical call for harmonisation between the literary and technical codes. It stimulated BANA to establish a research project to develop proposals for extension of the literary code to harmonise with technical codes.
It soon became apparent that BANA's research project had international ramifications, and in 1993 the International Council on English Braille (ICEB) formally assumed responsibility for the Unified Braille Code (UBC) Research Project. The term "unified" referred to the prospect of trans-Atlantic harmonisation of the literary and technical codes. In 1999 it became known as UEBC (Unified English Braille Code).
This is a summary of the UEBC compared with existing codes.
- The UEBC is one code, harmonising the treatment of literary, mathematics and computer science text elements
- The UEBC removes the sequencing of Grade II Braille, and the signs for 'to' 'into' and 'by' are consequentially abolished
- The signs for 'ble', 'com', 'ation', 'ally', 'ea', 'bb', 'cc', 'dd' 'ff', and 'gg' are abolished
- New signs are introduced for different kinds of brackets and for font enhancements such as bold, italics and underline; however, the UEBC does not require that font indicators always be used when font enhancements are used in print
- The 76 shortform words of Grade II Braille are retained, except for 'o'clock', but there are some restrictions on permissible shortform extensions including compound words
- Mathematics and computer science notation is an extension of the base code, not a separate code, so upper numbers are used exclusively
My impression of the UEBC is that it is not so good for the power users of Braille, it is okay for most users, and it is very good for users of lesser ability. It is convenient for teaching and transcription, which should make Braille more readily available since it is easier to teach and cheaper to produce. The UEBC is also better for reverse translation, important these days with more blind people using Braille-based note-taking and text-generation devices. I expect that the UEBC implementation of mathematics will be refined over the next few years, ending up similar to the British/Australian mathematics code. A major advantage of the UEBC is its utility for English-language Braille in many developing countries in Asia and Africa. No longer will Braille readers in these countries be subjected to the arbitrary code variations resulting from different donors providing Braille books or Braille production equipment and software.
The UEBC was the main topic of discussion at the Second General Assembly of the ICEB held in 1999, where its status was changed from a research to a developmental project. The General Assembly:
- Endorsed the principle of a Unified English Braille Code as a matter of urgency for adoption and use in many countries; and
- Resolved that a Unified English Braille Code should be agreed and endorsed by ICEB at its Third General Assembly in 2003, and be recommended for ratification by the national standards setting bodies
Prospects are not good for adoption in the short-term by BANA of the UEBC in North America. The main bone of contention in the United States is the use of upper or lower numbers. Similarly, the position adopted by BAUK in the United Kingdom appears to be that UEBC has some good features and may be approved as a recognised Braille code; however, it seems unlikely that in the short-term UEBC would be adopted as the primary code for use in the UK ahead of the existing suite of literary and technical codes. Already, however, some UEBC features have been introduced into British Braille.
I believe that broadly speaking the Third ICEB General Assembly, meeting in March 2004, will have to choose between four options concerning UEBC. Following that meeting Australia and other countries will need to make national decisions with greater or lesser urgency depending on their local situations.
- Option 1: Agree and endorse a UEBC and recommend its adoption by member countries
- Option 2: Agree and endorse a UEBC as the international standard for English-language Braille, encouraging countries to adopt the UEBC as their national Braille code but without obliging them to do so
- Option 3: Confirm agreement to the objective of a UEBC, and approve a work program for its continued development; or
- Option 4: Abandon the UEBC project
Based on my understanding of the current thinking in the US and the UK, I believe that Option 1 is unlikely. I also think that Option 4 is unlikely. I understand that Canada, New Zealand and South Africa are keen to adopt the UEBC, which may constitute a sufficiently critical mass for eventual worldwide adoption. I believe that Australia should support Option 2, for UEBC to be accredited by the ICEB as the international standard for English-language Braille. If the community of interest then favours adoption of UEBC for use in Australia, one approach might be to work towards a memorandum of understanding with like-minded countries towards national adoption of UEBC as soon as practicable.
During 1994-96 in Australia there was a national program of UEBC workshops conducted by the ABA, with funding of $49,500 from the Commonwealth Government. Their purpose was to provide information and obtain feedback from all stakeholders. These workshops confirmed strong support for the UEBC from teachers, transcribers and Braille readers; although there were some expressions of concern from Braille users relating particularly to the deletion of some contractions such as sequencing.
Options for Australia
Following the Third ICEB General Assembly, scheduled for March 2004, we in Australia will be faced with choices regarding Braille codes. Among the options which I shall list below, the desirability and feasibility of some will be affected by the specifics of the ICEB decisions. These are the broad options which I believe we should consider and decide upon over the next year.
- Option 1: Implement the UEBC endorsement of the ICEB as the international standard for English-language Braille, by an alliance with like-minded countries to adopt the UEBC as their national Braille code
- Option 2: Adopt American codes and formatting
- Option 3: Adopt British codes and formatting
- Option 4: Adopt hybrid British/American codes and formatting, without Australian flavours; or
- Option 5: Retain hybrid British/American codes and formatting with Australian derivatives/amendments
Consultation and Conclusion
The ABA Executive wishes to consult widely, subject to the constraints of its meagre resources, with the Braille-using community in Australia: readers, teachers, transcribers, proofreaders and trainers.
One thing is certain! In Australia we cannot afford to do nothing. Each year of delay in changing from the present hybrid system of Braille codes is a year of lost opportunity and wasted resources. Each of the options for Australia, ranging from UEBC adoption to maintenance of the status quo, has major ramifications: implementation cost, transitional inconvenience, availability of reference/teaching materials, availability of software applications, transnational interchangeability of Braille materials, etc. Therefore, careful consideration and comparison of the various options is required.
Voting for UEBC endorsement as an international standard for English-language Braille at the ICEB General Assembly leaves Australia's options open, so that's what I propose to do.
As ABA leaders it is not our right to tinker with the Braille codes used in Australia; but it is our responsibility to guide the development of Braille codes, as: written language conventions change, study materials become more diverse and visual, and scientific notations evolve. English is a living worldwide language, and Braille is its tactile representation, so Braille's utility and relevance depend on its dynamism and flexibility. Let us not be like boiled frogs, unaware of our changing environment, meeting our demise painlessly but inevitably. Let us maximise the utility of Braille for all blind people who learn it and want to use it. Let our legacy be adoption and implementation in Australia of Braille which is tactually asthetic and intellectually nutritious.
References
ABA 1999, Braille 2000: Meeting the challenges of a new millennium, published by the Australian Braille Authority.
Cranmer T. and Nemeth A. 1991, A Uniform Braille Code, in Braille Monitor published by National Federation of the Blind, July-August 1991.
Jolley W. (2003), Braille codes at the cross roads, National Conference of the Round Table on Accessible Information for People with Print Disabilities Inc., Melbourne.