Author: Peter Duran
Copyright July 8, 1994 by the Author
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This position paper is distributed by the author
via e-mail and on disk; a copy in print or braille is available upon
request. Recipients are granted permission to distribute this documen
to any and all interested persons and organizations provided that: (1
no fee is charged and (2) the entire document is disseminated intact.
The Foundation
Sources of Funds
Publicity
Issues and Participants
Dissemination of Conclusions
Tacit Acknowledgment of Conclusions
Retraction of Conclusions
Lots of Braille
Lots of Readers
Lots of Equipment
Lots of Denial
THE STATUS QUO VERSES PROGRESS
Lots of Opinions About Braille
Lots of Braille Experts
Lots of Pseudo Myths About Braille
THE FUNDAMENTAL MYTH ABOUT BRAILLE
Pseudo Benefits of Grade 2 Braille
Competent
Research on Grade 2 Braille
The Expense of Grade 2 Braille
Word Processors and More
Print Characters and Braille characters
Unicode and Unibraille
Too Few Dots
The Music Code
Music Notation
The MIDI Standard
Computerized Music
Possible Access Enhancements
Job Access Crisis
Representation of Tactile Images
Production of Tactile Images
A Graceful Retirement for Braille
The Americans with Disabilities Act
Digital TV
Windows TV
Multimedia
Digital Telecommunications
Digital Phones
Digital Interfaces
Digital Images
Standard Generalized Markup Language
Braille from Electronic Books
HyperText Markup Language
Braille from Electronic Information
Multiple Braille Systems
The Universal Character Set
Incompetent Authority
Appeal to Amateurs
The Tactile Standards Authority
Braille Laws
The Access Coalition
Access to Copyrighted Materials
AcWednesday, September 10, 1997cess to Consumer Products
Brief Summary
Conclusions
Needed Funds
Present Endeavors
INTRODUCTION
Numerous articles have appeared throughout 1993 in various
publications like The Braille Monitor and The Braille Form that
comment on the pros and cons for a single braille code. Unfortunately
these commentaries mostly: present personal opinions instead of
salient facts about braille and its usefulness; discuss simplistic
notions embodied in the current braille system instead of fundamental
concepts that should govern its construction; and lament mundane and
petty problems that a single braille system may cause rather than
espouse its great benefits. The content of these articles gives the
impression that blind people prefer a segregated technology by which
to read and write rather than commercial technology accessible by all.
The goals of this position paper are:
1. Present the achievements of BRL, Inc. to date
2. Discuss BRL's present and future efforts
3. Describe as clearly and as simply as possible the commercial technology that is about to come to pass which shall profoundly affect all braille readers
4. Turn up the thermostat on the debate on a single braille code so things begin to cook
5. Indicate why present participants within the orthodox braille organizations are unqualified to accomplish the work at hand
6. Advocate qualified groups that can achieve comprehensive results in a timely fashion
It is time for the incompetent, inflexible, and ignorant to step aside so the work before us can commence with vigor and diligence. Dead wood inhibits new growth, and it is past time to prune the old for the betterment of all. Nothing less than the educational and vocational future of blind people is at stake.
The rest of this position paper presents cogent and irrefutable reasons to abandon the myriad braille systems and the current braille devices and replace both of them with state-of-the-art tactile systems and tactile devices. Please hold all preconceptions as well as prejudices in check and then give careful consideration to the issues presented in this position paper.
Braille Research & Literacy, Inc.
The Foundation BRL (Braille Research & Literacy, Inc.) is a nonprofit organization established on September 9, 1988. It has received 501(c)(3) tax exempt status from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. BRL's charter mandates research into a better braille system and braille production equipment and techniques.
Sources of Funds BRL solicits tax deductible donations from individuals and organizations and requests grants from foundations. These moneys are used to promote its causes.
Publicity BRL, in the initial two years of its existence, aired PSA's (Public Service Announcements) nationwide on numerous radio stations. The PSA's decried the state of braille and requested public support in the form of financial contributions and direct assistance. Responses were plentiful and gratifying. This radio exposure lead to major articles in newspapers like the New York Times and numerous radio presentations. All of this publicity lead to public awareness of the defects in the current braille systems and launched BRL's next undertaking.
Intellectual endeavors, outside of the braille community, were brough t together in order to bring fresh insights into the discussion of long-standing problems that plague the various braille systems and braille production. The speakers presented basic concerns about and goals for a coherent braille system. They refrained from the typical bickering that usually occurs at braille conferences-- my contraction is better than yours, my favorite print symbol is more important than yours, and so forth. Speakers and participants formed a consensus on the major issues that surround the current braille codes and drew up a list of conclusions about a single braille system.
Dissemination of Conclusions BRL employed a novel strategy to distribute its conclusions and to make them the main principles used by braille researchers in the United States. The conference proceedings were up loaded to numerous computer BBS's (Bulletin Board Systems) for public scrutiny. Meanwhile, BRL kept a low profile so that the message, rather than the messenger, received the appropriate attention. BRL expected that the clarity and obviousness of its results would persuade the braille community, and eventually the orthodox braille organizations would tacitly adopt them.
Tacit Acknowledgment of Conclusions The APH (American Printing House for the Blind) seemingly founded The BRC (Braille Research Committee) to deal with the issues made highly public by The Braille Conference. Its manifesto of goals for the so-called UBC (Unified Braille Code) is tantamount to the up loaded list of conclusions of The Braille Conference. The drafted recommendations about the UBC were, unfortunately, disseminated in a cryptic form. Even BRL members, who initially isolated most of the principles contained within the recommendations, found the proposed braille construction rules unfamiliar and unintelligible.
This preliminary dissemination of the UBC recommendations confused and hence frightened most braille readers and transcribers. They, out of ignorance and fear, raised numerous unfounded objections to the UBC and brought political pressure to bear. So much for the haphazard efforts of BRC!
Retraction of Conclusions The botched presentation of the UBC recommendations caused a storm of protest. So, in a spirit of political correctness instead of intellectual honesty, individuals from the NLS (National Library Service) and BRC published (August 18, 1993) the "Myths Paper" that let them back-peddle from any responsibility for the main goals of the UBC. Ten so-called "myths" are discussed in this paper; in reality, there is only a single myth: the orthodox braille establishment is able to clean up its act and provide braille readers with a simple and viable tactile system by which they can read material of all kinds, now and in the future, with ease and at minimal cost to them and other tax payers.
Lots of Braille It is claimed that there is so much braille available written in current codes that it is unthinkable to discard all of it. Utter nonsense! Check it out! Here's how:
1. Go down to the local book store. Pick out at random a few books: a novel, a biography, and a textbook in some subject. Then, call up the NLS and the APH, and anywhere else; ask if any of the selected books are available in any format: audio, large print, on computer disk, and, of course, in braille. It is no surprise that probably none of the books are available in any accessible format.
2. Quantify the investigation. Call NLS, the largest contractor of braille publications; ask how many books they contracted for reproduction in braille in a particular year. Call up Books In Print; ask how many books were printed in that year. Divide the number of brailled books by the number of printed books; multiply by 100 to arrive at the percentage of books brailled. In short: Fewer than 1 percent of the books published are ever brailled! So much for the abundance of brailled books!
3. Call the nearest regional library that lends brailled materials; ask what percentage of books older than five years are ever borrowed -- not many. So much for the preservation of warehoused brailled materials!
4. The availability of brailled educational materials is even starker. Brailled textbooks at the high school level and on the college level are virtually nonexistent. Check it out! Call any disabled student services at any college; ask whether students can obtain textbooks and class handouts in braille. Almost never!
5. Vocational materials are more obtainable because individuals can purchase braille embossers, braille translators, and scanners. No thanks to the braille establishment! NLS is unable, even after twenty years, to establish standards for braille translation via a computer.
Lots of Readers It is claimed that there are so many users of the current braille systems that it is impossible to abandon them. Utter nonsense! Check it out! Here's how:
1. Call the NLS; ask for the list of volunteers that do braille. Call up a few of them; ask them if they know all the arcane rules in the Grade 2, Textbook, Computer, and Nemeth codes. It should come as no surprise that most braille transcribers know next to nothing about the latter three braille codes. Knowledge of Grade 2 braille is by rote rather than by clarity of thought and shaky at best. Ask the braille transcribers a few pop-quiz questions: Explain why Grade 2 braille goes out of its way to mislead readers; for example, it places the percent sign in the wrong place. Explain why the period in print has multiple representations in braille; for example, an ellipsis (three print periods) is rendered as three braille apostrophes.
2. Pick out a 6th grade math book. Try to find a transcriber that is ready, willing, and able to braille it. Then, try to find a 6th grader that is able to read it. Good luck!
3. Most people who think that they read Grade 2 braille well are middle aged, on braille committees, produce it, or only read "Dick loves Jane" types of material. Few people are able to read a science or chess column transcribed from the local paper with ease and pleasure. Take the braille challenge! Explain why the abbreviations for weights and measures in Grade 2 braille are different from those in a dictionary. Explain why blind people need four braille systems when sighted people manage quite well with just a single system. Explain why there is still a plethora of technical problems with Grade 2 braille when the knowledge to fix it has been around for a half century.
4. Most braille users know the alphabet and digits well and keep personal records via "personal" contractions and abbreviations. Trick Quiz: Explain the purpose for contractions and estimate the amount of space they save. Justify the outrageous cost to accomplish this minimal shrinkage.
5. Consult the 124th Annual Report of the APH, which covers July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. Here are a few forceful statistics from that report. There are, nationwide, only 50,080 legally blind students registered with the APH to receive accessible educational materials. Just 5,485 of these students (about 11 percent) are listed as braille readers; 14,185 students (about 28 percent) are listed as visual readers; 5,570 students (about 11 percent) are listed as auditory readers; 9,934 students (about 20 percent) are listed as pre-readers; and 13,904 students (about 28 percent) are listed as nonreaders. State departments of education registered 41,644 students (about 83 percent). Residential schools for the blind, rehabilitation programs, and programs that serve the multi-handicapped registered the rest.
The APH statistics say it all: Most (four out of 5) legally blind students attend public school. This is a good thing in this author's opinion! A statistically insignificant number (5,485) public students nationwide use braille. This is to be expected in this author's opinion, for braille is par with conversational Latin as a viable read/write system.
6. The readership of NLS braille material only totals 26,600 readers in fiscal year 1992, a very small number indeed. NLS contracted 334 books for production in braille in that year. (Call the NLS Reference Librarian, Ruth Nusbaum, at (202) 707-5100 for additional details.) People that read the Computer and Nemeth codes can fit, no doubt, in a single large room. So much for access to technical materials via braille!
Lots of Equipment It is claimed that traditional braille techniques and equipment still serve the blind well. Unfortunately no! Here are a few examples.
1. The braille slate is, believe it or not, still taught to newly blinded persons. This crude device requires the user to punch characters dot by dot as well as backward. Those who teach and/or use this neanderthal device proclaim its supposed virtues -- portability; no power required; -- with righteousness. But, the absurdity of this justification is obvious to all who comprehend the demands of the modern classroom and the current workplace.
2. The Perkins Brailler is somewhat better; it lets the user punch an entire dot pattern for a character. But, it still is slow and weighs a "ton" even though lightweight plastics as strong as steel exist. Note that vintage laptop computers weigh less and cost about the same but do a lot more for the user.
3. The braille system still represents an indeterminate set of characters even though national as well as international sets of standard characters exist and are used universally by the sighted community. The Computer Braille Code represents only ASCII even though IBM and Apple long ago extended it. Most modern word processors let sighted users print hundreds of useful characters.
But, most of these characters (like bullets) are unknown to most blind readers because they have no representation in any braille system.
Lots of Denial It is claimed, by the ignorant as well as experts, that all is well in the Kingdom of the Dots. They hope that minor fixes here and there along with a large dose of denial can remedy any problems in the Kingdom and forestall a revolt among its citizens. But, the King has no clothes. Consider these questions and please offer some cogent answers:
1. A blind writer can devote an entire room to a braille dictionary and a few reference works or place a computer on a small desktop. The latter choice gives the blind writer the same tools as sighted peers. Which choice is more efficient and cost effective?
2. A blind writer is able to type much faster and longer on a typewriter keyboard than on a Perkins-style keyboard. Should the 6-key "clunkers" for the blind go on the same junk heap along with uppercase-only teletypes for the sighted?
3. It takes a lot of money, time, and energy to ship boxes and boxes of braille from here to there; it takes a lot less, in all respects, to send computer disks from here to there. Do the finances of the situation doom braille presses in the near future?
4. Most stuff put into braille is equally readable in audio -- novels, love letters, and the like. Stuff of consequence, like high school and college texts, is virtually never brailled or brailled in codes unknown to most readers. So, why bother? Why spend the money?
5. The Braille Form and the Braille Monitor, published by the two largest organizations of the blind, are distributed in alternative formats. What percentage of readers prefer braille? Is this percentage increasing or decreasing?
Lots of Opinions About Braille Opinions about the adequacy of braille fall into two main groups:
Brailled materials are better than recorded materials; braille does a fine job as it is. These convictions lack, unfortunately, depth of analysis. Consider a few examples.
Group 1 1. Claim: Recorded materials fail to present word spelling, punctuation usage, print format, and emphasis. This deficiency in print fidelity leads to illiteracy among blind youngsters. Response: Grade 2 braille corrupts word spelling via contractions. Numerous punctuation rules in Grade 2 braille violate or distort print punctuation standards. As examples: Symbols (like the percent sign) are placed in the wrong place; symbols (like the ellipsis) are replaced. Print format is changed -- columns become paragraphs. Print attributes (bold, underline, and italic) are merged; hence, section level indication is blurred. In short, both recorded and brailled presentations lack fidelity with the printed material.
2. Claim: It is difficult to find a particular item in a recorded book. Braille lets the user flip pages quickly and find the item of interest. Response: To wind and rewind tapes to find single or double beeps (index markers) is certainly troublesome. To flip pages in a braille volume is a lot easier. But, to find the right braille volume to flip through, say in a brailled encyclopedia, may require the afternoon and a step ladder. In short, both recorded and brailled presentations have severe ease-of-access limitations.
Group 2 1. Claim: Grade 2 braille is sufficient for most blind people. The other braille codes serve a small minority who wish to specialize in an esoteric subject; consequently, unification is quite unnecessary! Response: These kinds of sentiments are, no doubt, sincere. Nevertheless, they are based upon ignorance of what is expected of youngsters (blind and sighted) in the typical classroom. Consider, for example, a 6th grade mathematics or science book. This is just the kind of stuff that is best read in braille. This kind of elementary book, which is used in every decent junior high school throughout the United States, often requires all but the music code for its transcription. Members of the NBA (National Braille Association), in fact, often divide up this kind of book among several volunteers, each expert in a particular code. Most readers of this paper are, very likely, quite unable to read the brailled version of this kind of book. A braille system that is unable to render a junior high school book of any kind into a form readable by blind students is unworthy of further consideration.
2. Claim: There is no need or reason to go from braille back into print. So, Grade 2 braille can keep its little idiosyncrasies that make reverse translation flawed. Response: The proponents of this assertion fail to understand the concept embodied in this requirement. Blind persons, in pursuit of educational and vocational goals, need to know that the brailled material "matches" the printed material. A technique which indicates a bona fide match is "bi-translation" -- print into braille, braille back into print. The two print versions should agree. Also, many blind students and professionals use computer devices that let them type Grade 2 braille as input. They often need to make a print copy of this typed material; reverse translation is necessary in this process.
Lots of Braille Experts Experts on the braille system fall into two main groups: individuals who use or transcribe braille and organizations which claim authority on braille. These "experts" often lack, unfortunately, any depth of analysis, a modicum of research capability, and awareness of present trends in information technology. Consider a few examples.
Group 1 1. Most braille readers are unqualified to comment on any proposed unification or substitute for the current braille system just as most sighted readers are unqualified to comment on the use of or implementation of innovative print techniques -- bar codes at the supermarket checkout counter; fonts for laser printers. A flurry of claims and counter claims about the present braille system blur the task to be accomplished and turn a technical discussion into a political debate. The ongoing braille debate is heated and, for the most part, silly. Take the expert's quiz! Compute the number of braille characters that can be formed from the six dots in the standard braille cell. Compute the number of characters that can be formed out of pairs of 6-dot cells. Lots of contractions (like that for Mother and Upon) in Grade 2 braille are 2-cell combinations. Consult various reference works on braille codes to determine the number of print characters (letters, digits, and symbols) that are really represented in all of braille. Then, look up the number of characters that are used in print. Finally, determine the number of dots needed to represent all those print characters that you just looked up.
2. Most braille transcribers are unqualified to comment on the construction of the braille system just as most users are unqualified to comment on the engineering design of the word processors they use. Neither transcribers nor users should care about the inner workings of the systems; they should just work. Fire the builders and junk the systems if they fail to perform as desired! (This criterion suggests that voluntary retirement of the current braille system "builders" seems in order.)
3. Braille users and transcribers resist the change to an easier braille system just as sighted students and teachers resist the introduction of an easier measurement system, the metric system used throughout the rest of the civilized world. The consequences are just the same: longer to learn; less efficient; and more expensive. Most important of all: The blind can't compete "on a level playing field" with sighted peers in significant educational and vocational endeavors just as our nation can't compete efficiently in the global marketplace. Group 2 1. The orthodox braille groups are like political parties: secretive and incestuous. The same people that brought us the braille codes in dispute are the chief architects of the proposed UBC.
2. The discussion process is closed: Make the decisions and then ask for outside commentary. This is akin to picking the candidates and then allowing the people to vote for them.
3. Avoid outside scrutiny, for they may find fault or even do a better job. This author just recently received a call from a prominent educator of blind children that participated in The Braille Conference. She lamented that the purported "braille research groups" have no clue about what constitutes real research -- peer review; data analysis; and the like. Her criticism is amply supported by the analysis of the "Myths Paper" next presented.
Lots of Pseudo Myths About Braille The Myths Paper authors (John Jackson at NLS, Darlene Bogart at CNIB and Dr. Hilda Caton at APH/BRC) back peddle as quickly as possible from any responsibility for the UBC. Political acumen is evident but so is the lack of any research savvy. Consider a few of their alleged Myths and some of the underlying assumptions implied by them:
1. Myth 2: "The proposed UBC will change Grade 2 braille (the most commonly read code) so radically that for most readers, braille will be slower and more difficult to read." No research here! Unstated assumptions: Grade 2 braille is viable with a few alterations; Grade 2 braille can be extended in a consistent useful way; unification is the prime goal.
It is, in fact, impossible to extend an inconsistent system to a consistent system, therefore, Grade 2 braille requires alterations to whatever degree dictated by rational analysis. In common parlance, add to a mess and you just get a bigger mess, therefore, clean up the mess.
The authors implicitly assume that the other codes are trouble free. Clearly false, ask any transcriber to list a few pet contradictions and confusions. Little of this makes any "research" sense unless the prime goal is to unite several messes into a single muddle.
2. Myth 4: "The proposed UBC is being designed by a small group of intellectuals ..." No reality here! Unstated assumptions: The appropriate disciplines and the respective professional organizations are represented; the best experts are involved; and the right questions are under consideration. Lots of wishful thinking here.
The prime goal is to represent print, but no print standards group is involved. The ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and the ISO (International Standards Organization), both located in New York City, establish standards for print character sets for worldwide use. It only makes sense to utilize an accepted print character set as the foundation of a worldwide braille system -- now, the braille "experts" make up lists of print characters as the whim strikes them.
Another goal is to develop a single, but simple and consistent, braille code, but no "code" experts are involved. Every decent university, in its mathematics or engineering department, offers "code theory" courses at the sophomore/junior level. Nevertheless, this discipline is ignored by braille system builders -- perhaps, they prefer to muddle along forever.
The orthodox braille experts implicitly assume that any braille system is linked to current braille production technology; hence, no basic research questions are raised. As examples: Use two sizes of dots to distinguish upper and lower-case letters. Vary dot and cell size to accommodate youngsters with small hands and adults with larger hands. Use thin lines to represent underlines and borders. This type of research is funded and ongoing. More about these ideas in the section entitled
3. MYTH 9: "UBC committee members are monetarily reimbursed for their work on the project. ... Most UBC committee members serve without monetary reward." What an absurd situation. Competent personnel in "real" research projects should and do receive considerable remuneration for services rendered. It is often said that you get what you pay for. The chaos within the various braille systems and the perpetual confusion among the proponents of the status quo seem to validate this truism.
It is implied that money to carry on research is unavailable so investigators must volunteer time and expertise. False! Federal money is readily available to competent researchers who wish to investigate braille technology and its impact on literacy. This author, as previously mentioned, invited scientists and educators of the blind to participate in The Braille Conference. Dr. Gardner, a physicist and materials scientist, attended The Braille Conference, and, thereafter, decided to conduct research on truly useful and viable braille systems and on flexible production devices. The NSF (National Science Foundation) funded a 3-year project (called Dots Plus) under Dr. Gardner's direction. This innovative research project is in its 2nd year. Its main goals and potential results are discussed in the section entitled TACTICS FOR TACTILE SYSTEMS. Dr. Mangold, a well-known educator of the blind, attended The Braille Conference, and, thereafter, applied for and received federal funds to promote braille literacy. Also, small businesses can apply for funds under the SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) program conducted by the Department of Education in Washington, D.C.
Literacy is, at the moment, a hot research topic. But, sources of research funds expect: that researchers pursue innovative strategies -- not revisit the past; that researchers participate in peer review -- not keep secrets; and that researchers collaborate with experts in relevant disciplines -- not just chat among themselves. The BANA (Braille Authority of North America) and the BRC at the APH fail, as potential research groups, to meet these basic criteria. The Grade 2 braille system, considered from a technical point of view, fails to meet even minimal research standards. This author suggests that BANA and APH/BRC participate in competitive research in order to raise internal standards.
4. MYTH 10: "Because 'the powers that be' want it, the Unified Braille Code is an inevitable, eventual reality." Nonsense! A single braille system is necessary in order to insure access to contemporary print and electronic media; the "powers that be" have no control over the market forces (educational and vocational demands) that shall cause needed changes. Also, consider these factors:
(1) It is impossible to develop a braille system without a particular print character set in mind. The print character set determines the number of dots that are needed (6, 8, perhaps 10) and then determines the length of the WFF's (Well-Formed Formulas) -- the pairs or triples of braille cells -- that are necessary for expressive completeness. The print characters to be represented in braille shall, for the most part, determine the degree of change that is necessary.
(2) No doubt the traditional squabbles and delays within the braille community shall prevail. Any results that may appear are surely dead on arrival, because the UBC models a print system that has a short half-life. The UBC can only play "catch up." Refer to the section entitled Unicode and Unibraille for a discussion of print characters.
(3) Present braille readers, fearful of change and ignorant of current print trends, shall, most likely, reject any necessary changes and hold on to the past. Print shall become less and less convertible into Grade 2 braille. Then, students and workers shall gravitate, by necessity, to a system like Dots Plus for a viable method by which to read contemporary materials.
Pseudo Benefits of Grade 2 Braille The orthodox braille researchers assume and then claim the benefits of Grade 2 braille. All of us are told that Grade 2 (contracted) braille is better than Grade 1 (uncontracted) braille. Experts of all kinds assert, with an air of authority, that it is obviously easier to write and to read. This ease-of-use is offered as a justification for the prodigious personal and financial resources required for its mastery and production.
Competent Research on Grade 2 Braille Marjorie Troughton of Canada, in a brilliant piece of "real" research, made extensive comparisons of text in Grade 1 and Grade 2 to be written and to be read by blind subjects. The data unequivocally proved that Grade 1 (uncontracted) braille is better in all respects for writers/readers of braille. This skilled researcher also determined that blind individuals with dyslexia perform much better with Grade 1 (uncontracted) braille. This research area (blind individuals with learning disability) is hardly investigated.
Marjorie Troughton cites numerous other individuals who conclude that Grade 2 braille is too complex and needs to be revamped. No discussion, however, is offered for the other braille codes in common use: the Nemeth code, the Computer code, and, last but not least, the Music code. This author expects that: if a page or two of material transcribed with Grade 2 braille, the Nemeth code, and the Computer code, were presented to the subjects in Troughton's research sample, perhaps nobody would read the material with any degree of comprehension.
You may contact Marjorie Troughton at 5 Kingsway Cresent Brantford, Ontario N3R 1M6 (519) 753-1604 for a free copy (print or audio cassette) of her revolutionary research results in book form. This treatise presents abundant justification for a tactile system in a student's arsenal of access choices and clearly establishes the need for Unibraille!
The Expense of Grade 2 Braille All of us, out of ignorance and for no good purpose, expend inordinate personal and public resources to learn, produce, and use Grade 2 braille. Here are a few trenchant examples of conspicuous waste.
1. It takes a few days at most to learn to write/read Grade 1 (uncontracted) braille; whereas, NLS offers a year course for the mastery of Grade 2 (contracted) braille -- wasted effort and time.
2. The automatic translation of text into Grade 1 via a computer program is accurate and trivial; whereas, the automatic translation of text into Grade 2 via a computer program is mostly accurate and very complex -- a waste of commercial resources and public funds.
3. Grade 1, when fixed up as Unibraille, matches print usage and requires little decoding by the reader; whereas, Grade 2 distorts print usage in various ways and requires considerable deciphering by the reader -- a waste of mental effort.
4. Multi-disabled blind youngsters can often learn Grade 1; whereas, they are unable to learn Grade 2 -- a waste of educational opportunity. 5. Grade 2 is inadequate for most elementary textbooks; whereas, Unibraille (the ultimate uncontracted braille system) could represent any textbook -- another waste of educational opportunity.
It is time to stop the waste! It is also time for the orthodox braille organizations (BANA, APH, NLS, and the braille presses), mostly supported by tax dollars, to relinquish all claims to authority and relevance. It is also time for NFB and ACB to place the welfare of blind youngsters, in mainstreamed classrooms, ahead of personal middle-aged preferences and ingrained bad habits.
Word Processors and More Literacy is no longer definable, for vital educational and vocational pursuits, by a person's ability to write with a slate/braillewriter or pencil/pen. Now, for better or worse, it is defined by the word processor that a person uses. The reader may readily confirm this claim in several ways. Watch the TV commercials about the low-cost word processors advertised as part of consumer electronics. Look in the want-ads in the local paper under secretarial, administrative, or sales positions and note the mandatory computer skills. Contact the admission's office of a respected university about obligatory computer skills as part of the entrance and/or graduation requirements. There are good reasons for this high-tech change in the workplace and classroom. Twin benefits are increased efficiency and increased productivity, for the word processor eliminates tedium of document production and allows flexibility of presentation. As examples of these two benefits: The user never retypes the same page because a word or phrase is omitted or misplaced; it is just inserted at or moved to the desired spot. The user can use diverse type styles or several type sizes with the press of a few keys or with the click of a button.
The word processor, with a few extras, can serve as the writer's workbench. The user can: edit the text, reformat it in an instant as paragraphs or columns, check for misspelled words, substitute a synonym for a dull word and consult a dictionary for instant definitions. A contemporary writer must utilize this high-tech tool of the trade in order to compete effectively in the document "construction" business.
This author must reiterate that print shall become less and less convertible into Grade 2 braille, for document construction tools continue to evolve. Sophisticated document producers, even now, rely on Document Publishers -- word processors with lots of features needed for book layout and lots of graphics for enhanced presentation. Popular document publishers (like FrameMaker, PageMaker, and QuarkXpress) are totally inaccessible to blind users via current voice and braille technology. Print Characters and Braille characters The 101-keyboard, with forty-seven keys and those same keys shifted, lets the user generate ninety-four print characters. The keyboard on the Perkins Brailler, with combinations of six keys, lets the user generate sixty-three braille characters. The excess print characters are matched up with some pairs of braille characters.
The word processor extends the character set associated with the forty-seven keys of the 101-keyboard in a clever way. The user can select additional print characters from a displayed list of print characters or by some other method. WordPerfect, the most popular word processor in the blind community, lets the user select from 1,500 characters. Most of these print characters are unknown to the Myths Paper authors, to the UBC developers, and to the blind community at large; hence, most of these print characters lack braille equivalents. This insufficient correspondence between print and braille symbols puts the blind person involved in educational or vocational pursuits at a grave disadvantage.
Unicode and Unibraille Too many inconsistent codes plague the sighted community as well as the blind community. ISO has the responsibility for the development and implementation of a single code to serve the worldwide sighted community. Unicode shall permit communication among all nations in a consistent and simple form. Unicode is designed to represent as many as 64000 print characters; Unicode shall serve the worldwide sighted community by decade's end. This author proposes the development of Unibraille for the worldwide blind community. Unibraille should replicate the print character subset of Unicode called ISO Latin-1 in order to secure equal access by the blind to all publications and communications throughout the Western world.
Too Few Dots It is reasonable, upon initial reflection, to merely increase the number of dots contained within a single braille cell or use a sequence of multiple conventional braille cells as a basis for Unibraille. A single 16-dot braille cell (4 by 4 dots) or a sequence of 3 6-dot braille cells (consider as a single entity) is needed to replicate the Unicode character set. Neither solution is, however, viable because most braille characters would contain too many dots to feel and decipher. It is necessary, therefore, to seek another basis for Unibraille.
The Music Code The current braille system no longer meets the necessities of the blind. The vexing need to assimilate differing braille codes for every day use is inconceivable. Perhaps the most frustrating of the current braille codes is the Music code.
It has often been said that a picture is worth a thousand words, and this seems to be true of the Music code -- it requires a thousand words to represent one picture. The Music code is not, in reality, a representation of printed music but rather a textual discussion of printed music. The Music code could be said to be, more or less, usable for a single note instrument like a trumpet or a saxophone. But, it is totally inadequate for polyphonic instruments like the piano and organ, and it is hopelessly inadequate for orchestral scores.
The difficulty lies in expressing multiple simultaneous and overlapping events. When printed music is viewed, it is obvious from the music notation: which notes are to be played and when; which notes follow other notes; and the duration of every note. The Music code takes the approach that goes something like this:
There is a whole note "C" two ledger lines below the bass clef. Above this note there is a half note "C" on the second line of the bass clef. Above this there is a quarter note "E" on the third space of the bass clef. There is a quarter note "G" on the fourth space of the bass clef. There is a grace note before the "E" quarter note on the first line of the treble clef, and on and on ad nauseam.
The performer must: mentally arrange this verbal description; keep track of which events occur on what beat or portion of beat; and memorize it and play it. It is much simpler to take ear training and learn to play a piece of music in that manner. To accomplish this, there is already technology available that can take a printed score and play it through a music synthesizer or keyboard.
Music Notation It must be realized that printed music is graphical in nature, universal, and has symbology with unique physical aspects. If normal printed music could be produced in a tactile format, the blind would have potential access to all music scores. The advances that have been made in computer software and hardware technology now makes this feasible. Let us first take a quick look at how a modern musician produces scores.
The MIDI Standard Now, and forever after, the central pivot point in music technology is the Musical Instrument Digital Interface standard --- called MIDI for short. This universal standard lets music instrument manufacturers, music software manufacturers, and music equipment manufacturers produce consistent music components. Today practically every musical instrument has an electronic counterpart or can be outfitted with hardware that will provide access to MIDI information. A modern musician would "play" a keyboard connected to a computer via a MIDI device that controls music software in the computer. A music program, like "Music Composer" or "MESA", interprets keyboard activity as music and stores the intended composition as computer data. This stored data can then be: used to play back the composition via a music synthesizer; edited and manipulated in various ways; or sent to a printer.
Raised image technology can potentially serve as part of a system that would produce tactile music images -- feelable scores. It is only necessary that an ink-jet or laser printer can make images that, when processed, would result in raised images, for music notation is already unique and would not need a new aspect (braille code) to be read by either the blind or the sighted. There are at least three possible approaches that could be successfully implemented:
1. Special inks could be developed that would produce raised images on contact with normal paper.
2. Special papers could be develop that would produce raised images upon being exposed to ordinary inks. This approach would be preferable to the first since it would involve only placing different paper in the printer rather than changing ink cartridges or ribbons.
3. A third method could involve the creation of raised images from print images made on normal paper with normal inks.
Computerized Music Today, the primary hardware utilized to input music data into a personal computer is the music keyboard. This device looks like a small version of a piano with a variety of push buttons, wheels, dials and displays. The actual playing of this electronic instrument is relatively simple; however, the preparation of this electronic instrument, the control of its hardware, and the operation of its associated music software can present a multitude of problems for the blind musician. This hi-tech instrument poses various challenges to the blind, for it, in most cases, provides no tactile or audible feedback when in operation. Some of these gems, like the Yamaha DX7 Series synthesizers, sport a completely flat smooth surface as the input panel. Dots would have to be affixed to the panel to alert the blind musician as to which switch does what. However this is not as easy as it sounds since practically all of the pressure points activate more than one function, depending on the setting of other switches, which in turn activate even more functions. Some of these delightful monstrosities, like the Kurtzweil Series synthesizers, contain hundreds of functions.
To make the musical adventure even more thrilling, the effect of activating functions is then represented on a computer-like display using menus and arrow keys associated with a moving cursor. To bring the experience to the level of ecstasy, there is little consistency from display to display within the same unit. For more excitement, when accessing some of these menus on consecutive sessions, the arrow key has moved to an unpredictable position. There are several easily accomplishable things that could be done to make music making more enjoyable instead of a bad psychedelic trip:
1. A "clear" function should be provided. This function would set all parameters to a known state.
2. A "home" function should be provided on all display pages so that the cursor is placed at a known position, like some of the older Casio 100, 1000, 3000 and 5000 series synthesizers and the Kawai K-5 and K-1 series synthesizers.
3. Cursor movement should be consistent within each page. Moving the cursor in any of its directions should always produce the same results. For example, if the MIDI interface page is accessed, then moving the cursor right once should always bring you to the same function, for example, MIDI send channel, like in the Kawai and Casio units mentioned above.
4. The press of a function or cursor key should produce audible feedback such as a soft beep or click when the action sought is executed.
Possible Access Enhancements When programming these little pets, it would be useful to provide speech feedback. This could be accomplished in one of several ways, to whit:
1. As an internal function through a small speaker.
2. As an accessory.
3. MIDI cables and connections do not use all of the wires in the system. Two could be used to provide an audio signal that could be sent to a MIDI-through box outfitted with a small amplifier speaker system or a separate amplifier speaker box with a MIDI through connection.
4. Via computer software that helps program music keyboards.
But, this software is usually unavailable until after a unit is on the market for a while, and this software is usually only available for the most popular units. Moreover, the new music keyboards are graphical in nature; i.e., they do not talk. Moreover, another drawback to using computer software is the fact that most blind musicians don't use computers.
Job Access Crisis There is a long way to go to make today's musical scores and modern musical equipment available to the blind musician. This is a sorry situation since music is one of the areas where a blind person can perform on an equal basis with the sighted. It is one of the areas in which a blind individual has little difficulty in obtaining employment, for if you are good, you get the job. It is sad to note that the blind shall loose out in this employment arena for lack of access to today's musical scores and computerized instruments. TACTICS FOR TACTILE SYSTEMS
Representation of Tactile Images Virtually all documents, whether business letters, romance novels, or esoteric treatises on the origin of the universe, contain mostly a, b, c, ..., z; that is, letters of the alphabet. It is that very small residue of nonletters in most documents that vex the Myths Paper authors, the UBC developers, and the blind community at large. Dr. Nemeth and the UBC developers employ compound braille symbols to represent nonletters; this author can personally attest to the futility of this approach. Print expressions, with numerous nonletters, translate into extremely long and complex braille equivalents. The braille reader must decipher the braille expression which takes far too much effort and time.
Dr. Gardner uses dots for the construction of alphabetic characters and other very common print characters and uses raised tactile images for esoteric and unusual print characters. The proponents of the orthodox dots-only approach shall, no doubt, appeal to historical accounts wherein raised tactile images failed to work.
A few crucial observations can preempt this argument. The methods, by which to produce raised tactile images, are, then and until now, poor. The raised tactile images are usually too large and too complex to feel and decipher. Dr. Gardner uses, at the moment, the PixelMaster to create raised tactile images of the proper size and with the right tactile intricacy. The development of a better device to create raised tactile images is under way. Note that raised tactile images with discrete roughness, developed by researchers involved in tactile maps for the blind, are easy to feel and decipher. The lack of a device that can rapidly create appropriate raised tactile images is the only real impediment. A suitable Unibraille shall soon follow the development of a reliable and affordable tactile device to replace the dots-only equipment in use today.
The Dots Plus approach to Unibraille possesses significant advantages over the dots-only method. Consider these: It can represent any and all print characters in Unicode; remember that Unicode shall soon prevail worldwide. It can also represent any and all icons (little pictures) that appear on computer displays; note that icons shall soon prevail worldwide as well.
Production of Tactile Images Dr. Gardner convened on March 15, 1994, a conference to address the problem of tactile image production. Presenters exhibited and discussed alternative means by which to create inexpensive and flexible tactile devices. This author infers several significant conclusions: viable tactile display devices are realizable within a year or shortly thereafter; the potential devices can generate high-resolution tactile characters and tactile images; and these devices can represent, via the proper software, all of Unicode.
This author asserts, as soon as these tactile displays are available, a plethora of possible tactile codes shall evolve from which users shall freely pick and choose. Then, and only then, can research begin into the necessary discrimination of tactile characters and images, as well as other psychophysical aspects of tactile displays, and finally have rational tactile standards evolve.
A Graceful Retirement for Braille The blind community deserves, and should demand, equal access to all print and electronic media. Braille, as it exists today and as it might become after the proposed unification, is insufficient for this purpose. It is past time to retire the present braille systems and related equipment and replace both with an integrated tactile system (Unibraille and associated software/hardware) that is easier to learn and that provides universal access to publications and telecommunications.
The Americans with Disabilities Act In the Summer of 1990, President Bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act. This far-reaching law (known as ADA) mandates complete access by the disabled to all employment opportunities and public accommodations, but it fails to cover access to print and electronic media. This inattention to access with respect to public information places the disabled, especially the blind, at a grave disadvantage in educational and vocational pursuits.
Real access to employment and public accommodations is mere fantasy without guaranteed access to the Electronic Environment that heralds life in the 21st century. Life pursuits, except the most trivial or menial, shall, by decade's end, rely on immediate access to relevant information -- bar codes at supermarket checkout counters; library catalogs on computers; and so on. Public accommodations, like hotels, shall rely, more and more, on data devices -- room phones that notify the guest of personal messages; room TV systems that rely on menu displays by which to select entertainment choices; and so on.
This oversight in the ADA is further exacerbated by current federal and industrial initiatives. Some of these trends shall profoundly impact educational and vocational pursuits; hence, they shall determine, to a significant degree, the viability of any tactile system -- braille, Dots Plus, or whatever emerges as the tactile standard. Some of these initiatives are next briefly discussed, for they make present efforts to stabilize and augment the braille system moot.
Digital TV Television is about to become a major source of electronic information. The Grand Alliance, a consortium of electronic and media firms sanctioned by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), is about to launch a new era in TV broadcast technology. TV signals shall become "digital" like those in computers. Digital TV permits better quality pictures and, most importantly, wireless transmission of data to every household. The race is on to unveil Digital TV by the Summer Olympics in 1996 to be held in Atlanta Georgia.
The popular press and TV news bites acclaim the enhanced clarity and realism to appear on your TV set. This achievement is, however, a minor innovation compared with the fundamental change about to take place. Digital TV shall let newspapers and magazines, as well as soap operas, appear on your set. Computers shall, in a few years, contain Digital receivers so they can obtain data directly from TV and radio stations. The days of modems are few in number.
Windows TV TV shall become vast in its available channels and program choices. It's anticipated that up to 800 channels shall soon come to your TV set. The twist of a dial or click of the remote shall give way to a "menu" system of channel/program choices -- similar to menus in word processors. The founder of Microsoft, Bill Gates, recommends a Windows interface for viewers. Windows is a way to present text and graphics in a unified form. You can, even now, purchase a TV with modest Windows capability which lets you watch two channels at the same time.
Multimedia Multimedia, the use of digital voice, music, and images, is the current wave of home entertainment and educational opportunity. The "Baby Bell" systems are in a pitched battle for control of media production firms like Paramount because your telephone shall soon deliver voice, data, and, of course, pictures all blended together. Multimedia computers are now advertised by Radio Shack as consumer items. These computers are, for example, able to present excerpts of famous addresses with the speaker's voice and photograph.
Digital Telecommunications The Whitehouse backs a nationwide Electronic Highway which shall unify, via a global digital network, a multitude of communication and data transmission systems. Decreased cost and increased efficiency as well as universal availability of information are the three paramount goals of the Electronic Highway. The Whitehouse believes that the worldwide competitiveness of our nation is at stake unless all of us travel together along the Electronic Highway with due haste.
Digital Phones The ISDN (Integrated Service Digital Network) is the cornerstone of 21st century phone service, but the disabled community failed to discuss its access issues while its standards were under public review. Ads from AT&T, that currently air in the Boston TV market, proclaim the wondrous benefits of ISDN soon to be realized by customers. ISDN lets, for example, the caller's telephone number appear on your telephone, but the blind can neither see it nor hear it.
Digital Interfaces The GUI (Graphical User Interface) standard, set by the Macintosh computer and now utilized by Microsoft Windows for the PC, raises major access issues for blind computer users. The developers of GUI's could readily make major provisions for disabled users if asked to do so while in the design phase, but nobody asked. The blind community, on the other hand, insisted that ADA compliant signage possess Grade 2 inscriptions, a silly requirement when almost nobody reads braille -- recall the APH statistics previously presented. The larger issue for the ADA, on the other hand, of "access to electronic interfaces" received little if any commentary.
Most electronic consumer products (microwave ovens, VCR's, stereo systems, and so forth) possess control panels based on GUI concepts; these control panels are virtually inaccessible to the blind community. The keypad of a typical telephone is, on the other hand, an example of a digital interface that is totally accessible to the visually impaired. The caller makes selections from voice menus via key presses; the caller can, for example, select a date or bank service.
Digital Images The UBC, if and when adopted, is Dead on Arrival, for text, as braille readers understand it, shall no longer serve the literate community. The previous examples of advances in information technology should convince, even the most unaware dots-only proponent, that information is, sooner or later, a blend of text and images. Dots Plus, or some analogous tactile system, is essential so that the blind can reap the benefits of the Electronic Environment.
The GUI system from Microsoft, called Windows, blends all sorts of data together into a coherent multimedia display which can show text and images in any combination. Also, voice annotations can tag either the text or images for "audio" emphasis -- true multimedia. This technology relies on OLE (Object Linked Embedding) technology. As an example: Paradox, a database program for Windows, possesses "Pixel Fields" that can contain images like scanned photos, maps, and so forth. A police department, with this Windows program, can create a database of suspects where: a Text Field contains the suspect's name; another Text Field contains the suspect's MO; a Pixel Field contains the suspect's photo; and another Pixel Field contains the suspect's finger prints. The OLE technology makes this kind of "suspect" database possible.
A dots-only tactile system can never accommodate OLE software! A Dots Plus approach is needed if visual displays with images are to be represented in a tactile form. The tactile devices must, of course, possess "lots of dots" per inch in order to provide the proper tactile graphic resolution. (This author and colleagues are engaged in the development of a tactile printer that can represent GUI displays.)
The RFB (Recordings for the Blind) research group keenly recognizes this fact, and therefore, it intends to base its entire e-text (Electronic Text) endeavor on the original SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) files for textbooks.
Braille from Electronic Books A valid braille edition of an elementary algebra book or of a treatise on metric spaces can only result from the original textbook; hence, it is necessary to rely on the Electronic Publisher's original master. This is, of course, the SGML file for that textbook.
Some state legislatures mandate, by force of law, that publishers make SGML files for books available. These files are to be limited in Hidden Code content until a braille translator for mathematics is available. It is imperative, therefore, to develop a math translator as soon as possible.
RFB's commitment to SGML files insures a plentiful supply of Electronic Textbooks to be brailled once a universal translator and a unified braille system are available.
HyperText Markup Language The Whitehouse backs a nationwide Electronic Highway which shall unify, via a global digital network, a multitude of communication and data transmission systems. Decreased cost and increased efficiency as well as universal availability of information are the three paramount goals of the Electronic Highway. The Whitehouse believes that the worldwide competitiveness of our nation is at stake unless all of us travel together along the Electronic Highway with due haste.
It is necessary to insure that the blind community has complete access to the Electronic Highway. The Internet, thousands of computers linked together nationwide, provides a vast educational, vocational, and entertainment resource for all who wish to take a "joy ride" on the Electronic Highway.
Electronic Publishers of information on the Internet propose to settle on the HTML (HyperText Markup Language) for electronic Information. HTML is, of course, compatible with SGML. Braille from Electronic Information Compatibility between the SGML and HTML standards for text and information representation and interchange means that the proposed universal translator and unified braille system can also handle Electronic Information -- e-mail and online books.
The Universal Character Set It is impossible to program systems that are unclear, incomplete, or inconsistent. It is necessary, therefore, as part of this project, to "clean up" the systems used to render print into braille. Most importantly, the character set to be converted from print to braille requires precise definition.
The ISO character set known as ISO Latin-1 is the obvious choice, for it is the standard now accepted by the WorldWide Web used throughout the entire western world. Also, the character set for SGML and HTML is ISO Latin-1; moreover, ISO Latin-1 contains all of ASCII.
Most of the technical issues involved in the development of a tactile system are understood by those who develop analogous systems for the sighted community. This expertise is shunned in preference to a somewhat incestuous relationship among the orthodox braille experts. This author asserts that a joint effort is necessary between those who set standards for the sighted community and those who wish to set comparable standards in the blind community. Remember that the primary goal of any tactile system is to provide blind readers equal and complete access to all printed materials and now, of course, to electronic materials as well. This author further proposes that the development of Unibraille be the proper domain of ISO, for this august body possesses abundant expertise and sufficient resources to meet the needs of the entire community -- sighted and blind citizens.
Appeal to Amateurs Experts from industry developed the standards for Digital TV guided by FCC requirements. The developers didn't, before or after the standards were formulated, ask TV viewers to approve or disapprove them, for these standards are, naturally, too complex for the non- expert to intelligently comment upon. The Myths Paper authors, on the other hand, apparently expect a referendum on the UBC by braille transcribers and readers. Either the UBC is so simple that amateurs can develop it, or these authors, and perhaps the groups they are affiliated with, wish to avoid ultimate responsibility for the proposed braille system.
The Tactile Standards Authority The lack of leadership by BANA and the other proponents of braille is all too evident. This author proposes, therefore, the establishment of a pristine TSA (Tactile Standards Authority). The TSA should serve a roll similar to that of the FCC; namely, establish national guidelines for tactile codes and devices and allow industrial experts to provide state-of-the-art products. The TSA must include experts from outside of the blind community as well as technically competent members of that community. Members should also represent the educational community, for any tactile system under consideration must serve the current K-12 population which is radically different in make up from that of prior generations of blind youngsters. The TSA should involve, or operate as a subgroup of, some august body like ISO in order to insure print and tactile code compatibility. Unicode and Unibraille must keep in sync to avoid the perennial "catchup" scenario.
Today about twenty states have adopted braille laws which mandate a renewed emphasis on braille as the means to literacy for blind children. These laws focus on three aspects of literacy: (1) Some braille laws mandate competency testing in braille for teachers of blind children; (2) other braille laws require that youngsters use the most appropriate medium for them -- print or braille. (3) A number of the more recent braille bills have called upon textbook publishers to provide materials in electronic media readily translatable into braille.
Item (1) ignores the reality of the current classroom and the present limitations of the braille system. The itinerant or classroom teacher, who has the time and takes the year course from NLS for braille certification, is quickly disappointed. The teacher soon realizes that Grade 2 braille is unsuitable for even the simplest math or science workbook, that special math and computer codes are required for adequate transcription of these workbooks, and that the necessary codes are more complicated than Grade 2 braille and are often more complex than the actual materials to be transcribed within them. Also, the teacher must spend hours and hours to transcribe materials on a Perkins braillewriter, or the school system must purchase a very expensive computerized braille production system which is still unable to transcribe most workbooks.
The head of the National Education Association recently, out of frustration with braille, decried its use in public schools and suggested that blind youngsters were better off in segregated schools. This protestation is just another example of the problematic nature of braille as it exists.
Item (2) makes eminent sense, for it mandates that the most appropriate tool, at a particular time for a particular student, is the best tool . There is no right or wrong approach; but, there is a need to meet the student's individual learning style and circumstances.
Item (3) is by far the most significant aspect of the legislation, for it mandates that Electronic Publishers provide texts in a standard form (SGML format) suitable for diverse access methods. These texts, with proper access technology, are renderable via voice, video, or tactile output. Unibraille is vital if tactile output is to be rendered as hard/refreshable copy.
The Access Coalition Access issues involve legality, politics, and most importantly profit. This author proposes, therefore, to form a coalition of disabled lawyers to address substantive matters before access guidelines are put in place. This author must reiterate that the inclusion of access features while in the public review phase of a national standard or while in the design phase of a commercial product is readily accomplishable. The inclusion, however, of access features is quite difficult after public review of a national standard or after product design is completed.
A coalition of disabled attorneys is an ideal body to address access issues in potential technology, for they must rely on high- tech tools to be efficient and successful. They understand the technology and its potential barriers for disabled users, and they also appreciate the limits of the law in these matters and the usefulness of political persuasion and the benefits of market forces.
Access to Copyrighted Materials RFB, an illustrious and innovative organization, provides accessible published materials through its "e-text" project. Authors and publishers grant, on a voluntary basis, RFB the right to put works on computer disk for purchase by print-impaired RFB customers. This commendable organization is in the forefront of the endeavor to make print materials accessible.
RFB's laudable efforts prove, without question, that this author's access initiative to published materials is viable. But, force of law must replace voluntary compliance, and nationwide availability must replace a targeted population.
This author suggests that modification of present copyright law can extend the availability of accessible texts beyond the scope set forth in the various braille bills. Perhaps, copyright law should require an applicant to provide the material to be copyrighted in electronic form (SGML format) as well as in hard copy form in order to qualify for protection. This requirement would give sufficient reason for all authors and publishers to make the necessary effort to provide electronic versions of copyrighted works. The word/document industry, out of necessity, would develop and then set standards for compliance; that is, provide a means to create files in SGML format. Authors and publishers would then have new products and a ready market -- all of us.
Access to Consumer Products The NFB hosted a conference on technology for the blind on November 4-6, 1993. A speaker noted that "The problem can be reduced to two elements: an ever increasing diversity of products with visual displays on one side of the problem and a finite group of handicapped individuals requiring different modes of sensory input on the other side." This statement presents valid concerns, but misses the essence of the situation at hand.
The Department of Education, Special Education Division, succinctly describes the essence of the problem as a requirement for diverse MATE (Multi-Access Text Environment) technology; that is, technology which utilizes several concurrent means of information access. The handicapped market is large, not small as implied by the NFB speaker! At least 11 percent of the U.S. school population is classified as disabled by the U.S. Department of Education. The needs of the elderly, when viewed as handicaps, no doubt doubles this percentage.
This author suggests that manufacturers should refrain from unique technology to serve a specific disability. Rather, they should provide technology to serve a broader consumer population. As examples: Technology, that would serve those citizens who can't read print for some reason or other --at least 20 percent of us, would also serve the blind. Visual displays, usable by the majority of the elderly, would also serve the low-vision population.
This approach -- technology to serve a broader market that happens to also serve a unique and small market -- makes the technology viable as well as more profitable. As another example: This author's answering machine speaks lots of built-in messages but has silent buttons. The manufacturer should make the keys talk so errors are less frequent, and then, as a consequence, let me hear them. This view of the answering machine adds overall value to the product and makes it accessible to me.
This author suggests that consumer law should require products to possess state-of-the-art MATE technology in order to qualify for certain SIC (Standard Industry Code) classifications. This would give sufficient reason for manufacturers to make the necessary innovative MATE enhancements to current and future products. The industry, out of necessity, would develop and then set its own standards for compliance. Manufacturers would then have new and more profitable products and a ready market -- all of us.
Specific standards and implementation of MATE technology (like the infrared sensor suggested by the NFB speaker) is unwise, for innovative commercial technology appears on the market faster than standards are set and promulgated. The NASA space program, for example, suffers from this dilemma. Its regulations demand the utilization of computer technology which becomes obsolete before the launch date. The DOD (Department of Defense), on the other hand, recently launched the Clementine lunar probe that utilizes, as a cost-saving experiment, off-the-shelf personal computers with a realized 90 percent savings to the tax payer and with a ten-fold increase in capability. Any savvy traveler on the Electronic Highway, via the InterNet, can see the lunar landscape as Clementine takes pictures. BANA is related to NASA in the same way TSA is related to DOD -- a lumbering bureaucratic group verses a leaner and meaner newcomer. BRL ACTIVISM
Brief Summary Many topics and numerous points are presented in this position paper. The reader may find a brief synopsis of salient points and conclusions useful.
Conclusions The research of Marjorie Troughton shows that Grade 2 braille possesses no real benefits for blind writers/readers and also shows that a Grade 1 braille system can meet the needs of blind writers/readers. These two facts provide ample justification for a major revamp of the current braille system. This overhaul of the braille system can serve to unify and extend the extant braille codes into a tactile system that is, on the one hand, easy to learn and use and, on the other hand, expressively complete and compatible with Print Usage and Electronic Publisher's standards.
The new Grade 1 braille system, to be called Unibraille, must rely on accepted principles of Code Theory and Telecommunications. These principles shall insure consistency of the braille system and provide a clear basis on which to extend the braille system as the need arises.
Unibraille must rely on a universally accepted character set, like ISO Latin-1, so that blind writers/readers have the same access to the world as sighted peers. Unibraille must, moreover, permit a mix of Characters and Graphics within a tactile document, for Text and Images are now on an equal par. Unibraille must also permit multiple tactile fonts; that is, a dots-only font to be used by current braille users on present braille equipment and a dots-plus font to be used by future users on innovative equipment for the representation of mixed Text and Image documents.
The limited readership of the present braille systems and the insignificant availability of brailled materials insures a minimal disruption for the blind community. Unibraille shall provide a single and simple braille system for teachers to instruct and for students to learn and use. Decreased effort and cost shall foster a climate of acceptance and recognition of the benefits that a viable tactile system offers.
Needed Funds BRL seeks and is grateful for any tax deductible donations in any amounts. BRL needs further funds in order to step up its activism on behalf of the blind who wish to have equal access to the wondrous technology of today and of that to come. BRL believes that access to technology is the only insurance that disable people have to educational and vocational opportunity. Access to consumer technology also insures a better quality of life. Present Endeavors Sufficient funds shall let BRL set up the Tactile Standards Authority and The Access Coalition as well as pursue its two political access initiatives -- Access to copyrighted Materials and Access to Consumer Products. It is vital to establish both of these advocacy groups and to keep both of these important initiatives in public view. These groups and initiatives shall provide sufficient political pressure on the Congress and the community at large to engender governmental and public actions to insure equal access to the Electronic Environment for all disabled citizens. It is also vital to forge a consensus among those who set standards, those who must abide by them like manufacturers, and those who rely on them like students and consumers.
| ../easisem.html">Return to EASI-SEM Page Return to EASI Homepage |