BA/6/00
Meeting held at 1.30 pm on 18th July 2000, at RNIB, Great Portland Street, London W1N 6AA.
1. Rollcall: Peter Osborne, David Taylor, Iain Millard, Fred Jakeman, Bill Poole, Stephen Phippen, Hans Cohn, David Boden, Lisa Bhogal, Alison May, Jim McCafferty, Gareth Davies, Allan Young, Gail Chester, Claire Wilson, Michael Townsend, Clare Gailans, Isobel Yule.
Apologies: David McKerral, Nigel Berry, Paul Crunden-White, Kevin Carey, Terry Moody, David Moodie, Richard West.
2. Minutes of the last meeting (29th March 2000). Mike Townsend should be added as having given his apologies. Hans Cohn said that what was stated concerning the response of the Braille Chess Association in item 9 was incorrect: the BCA has in fact responded well, but the readers of the Braille Chess Magazine have provided little feedback.
3. Matters arising from the minutes. The question of the development of a new braille translation program was raised. Mike Townsend said that the fact that Duxbury had bought MegaDots, which is used by many UK producers, put into jeopardy the development of MegaDots. A heavy-weight translator was needed which met producers' needs, although significant budget would be needed to develop a new one.
Fred Jakeman said that at its last meeting BAUK had supported such a development. However Peter Osborne said that this was a complicated area. RNIB would be shy of putting money in. Its own translator (ITS) had cost £100,000 to develop. A new translator of the sort envisaged might cost half a million pounds if developed from scratch, and it would also take a considerable length of time. Duxbury seemed to be working well with the NLS and the Daisy project, and it also has some UBC capability already in place. RNIB's finance is more likely to go into efforts towards work on using common file formats for multi-media work.
David Taylor said that there were two types of market: one was for programs which avoided user intervention, and the other, which producers are mostly interested in, were programs which allowed user intervention and editing.
Hans Cohn said that he thought it was unhealthy for someone with a commercial interest, Joe Sullivan, to be involved in ICEB. Bill Poole responded by pointing out that Joe does not have a controlling position in ICEB. Mike Townsend said that Joe Sullivan is a great asset to ICEB and that we should be grateful that he does the work which others do not.
Mike Townsend said that he was not suggesting developing a translator from scratch, but hoped that collaboration would be possible, e.g. with Pia and Duxbury. Stephen Phippen's work on file structure should also be included, as well as others who could contribute in this area.
On Bill Poole's suggestion it was agreed that a joint meeting of BAUK and UKABP would be useful to discuss this issue. BAUK would be represented by Mike Townsend, Bill Poole, David Taylor (with Richard West as a possible addition); and Peter Osborne said that UKABP would probably be represented by himself, Sarah Holme, and Mike Parr.
4. Officers' reports.
(a) Chair. Bill Poole said that the Presidency of ICEB is still unresolved. Darleen Bogart wanted to step down, but the consequences had not yet been sorted out. Joan Ledermann is still very ill.
(b) Secretary.
(1) Stephen Phippen reported that he had had some correspondence with Damon Rose about the public accountability and profile of BAUK. Damon thought that BAUK should make the minutes of its meetings publicly available shortly after its meetings, and should publicise this availability. He also suggested that BAUK could have a bi-annual news sheet and a web site. He felt that these kinds of developments were very important in order to allow debates and issues about braille to get the airing they needed, and to demonstrate that BAUK was truly open and accountable. He also thought that BAUK should join the debate on braille and copyright.
Bill Poole first asked what people's views were on a web site. Isobel Yule raised the question of whether BAUK should have its own site or be hosted by RNIB, for example. Lisa Bhogal said that if BAUK were to issue documents on a web site this should not replace the issue of braille versions. Peter Osborne also said that the resource implication should be considered.
Stephen Phippen said that we should keep such a site simple, at least to start with, e.g. containing a news page and an archive. This would make it easier to start up and maintain, and would be easier for blind people to access. He had made some enquires and been told that it would cost about £50 a year to have our own web domain name. The Moon committee were also wanting to have a web site, so it would make sense for BAUK to host theirs.
Both David Taylor and Gail Chester said that they thought a web site would be useful and would be positive for braille promotion. Bill Poole said he felt strongly that we should have our own site - BAUK must be seen to be independent. A fee of £50-100 would be fine in his view. However, such a site may need to be developed slowly.
Alison May then raised the question of the minutes. Bill Poole said that he was not in favour of circulating unchecked minutes, and Fred Jakeman said that minutes should be placed on the web site after approval.
Mike Townsend said he thought that a newsletter would be useful, but that it should be circulated by subscription.
Peter Osborne suggested that the issue should be looked at with the Public Relations Officer, and suggested that the PRO be asked to write a paper in consultation with others for consideration at the next meeting. Bill Poole agreed, and then asked if anyone present would like to be involved. Hans Cohn said that BAUK may need to have a web site officer, and it was also suggested that BAUK could see how COTIS handles this, and if UKABP would want to be involved.
As regards the copyright issue, Peter Osborne said that there had been a meeting with senior members of the Civil Service. The government is planning to conduct a consultation process and will be writing a document about this issue which should be available by September, which BAUK should engage with. The response time is by mid-October. Fred Jakeman said that he would like a copy of this document as soon as possible.
(2) Stephen Phippen reported that a letter had been received from an organisation called "Peace Insight", which was seeking support for its project to produce an audio cassette promoting the "International Year for the Culture of Peace" to the visually-impaired. Bill Poole said that this was outside our remit, and Peter Osborne added that he had looked into the matter after receiving a similar letter, and advised us not to get involved.
(3) The dates for the next year's meetings are: December 14th 2000, March 28th 2001, July 16th 2001.
(4) The Secretary asked to be informed of any changes to addresses and phone numbers for the new BAUK membership list.
(c) Treasurer. Iain Millard said that only VIMA and RNIB are yet to pay their fees. Peter Osborne suggested that RNIB's invoice be resent to him and he would see that it was paid. Iain Millard said that he was now using the Sage Instant Accounts program to handle the finances for BAUK.
Bill Poole asked whether the hotel bill for the ICEB conference in London had now been paid. Iain Millard said that he had not yet received the invoice. Peter Osborne explained that the process had been slow; we had been overcharged, but this problem had now been cleared up.
Iain Millard said that he was due to move house again, so for the time being BAUK receipts, etc. should be sent to him at St Dunstan's, rather than to his home address.
The BAUK annual accounts were approved.
(d) There was no report from the Public Relations Officer.
5. Report on ICEB activities.
Bill Poole said that he had written an article for the present edition of New Beacon on the ICEB Executive meeting and the UBC Committee 3 meeting held in London in May.
Bill Poole then reported on the Committee 3 meeting: Stephen Phippen took the minutes, and Peter Osborne and Jenny Clark were very helpful in organising the arrangements.
There were two parts of the meeting: the first dealing with Committee 3 issues, the second dealing with other UBC issues, for which the meeting could act in an advisory role only. The decisions taken on Committee 3 issues would form part of the committee's report to the Project Committee, though, in his opinion, the Project Committee have the power to amend any of these decisions.
Committee 3 voted to delete all the contractions recommended for deletion by Committee 2, plus some others. This deletion list is now: the double letter signs and EA, BLE, COM, the dot 6 contractions, TO INTO and BY. In addition, sequencing is abolished.
Bridging contractions were also discussed. All countries wanted to move towards the British model of liberalizing; Committees 3 and 6 will now have to work jointly to draw up rules to implement this - the final report of Committee 6 is not due till July 2001.
Shortforms do not conform to the normal UBC rules, and so some provisions are needed for them to be handled in UBC. It was decided to have strict criteria for extending shortforms: there are 46 permitted extensions, plus "s" and "'s". There was a long debate over whether extensions should be governed by a list-based or a rule-based system; the list-based system won.
Two general debates ran through the conference: (1) Whether we should make the minimum changes in order to conform to UBC principles, or use the opportunity to include all the other changes to the contraction system thought to be beneficial. In the end there was a compromise on this, although some people thought that UBC wouldn't get off the ground if too many changes were made. (2) The educational implications. For example, it was said that contractions not beginning with the relevant letter cause problems with literacy and phonic teaching methods. Teachers in integrated settings are not so interested in the details of braille, and contractions cause problems for early learners.
Two other issues discussed were: (1) Typeform indicators, where concern was expressed that books should not be peppered too much with such signs, but that they should only be used where needed. (2) Capitalisation rules, where the UK's simplified rules on termination signs were explained and well-received. The next stage will be to see if Committee 2 also views the UK's modification favourably.
In summary, Bill Poole said that he thought the meeting was successful, and that there was now a solid code for consideration. The previous decision to hold only limited evaluations was vindicated, because significant changes to the code have been made since then. He would now be happy to conduct workshops on the basis of these decisions.
Isobel Yule added that many of the decisions taken concerning the dropping of certain contractions were supported by the experience of herself and Sally Mangold in teaching learners who do not have the expertise available to support them. Many countries start with grade 1 braille up to the age of 9-10, then move onto grade 2. There is an argument that the same practice should exist in this country. Mike Townsend wondered if 9-10 was a bit late to move over to grade 2, to which Isobel Yule replied that her point was the principle and she was not fixing any particular age. David Taylor agreed, but thought there should be some guidance. Claire Wilson supported this view but added that some learners could be left at grade 1 level. All key stage 1 and 2 books produced at RNIB are in both grade 1 and 2. Gail Chester pointed out that the government's position was that the key stage 1 test for 7 year olds should be produced only in grade 2, although teachers are allowed to rebraille the papers in grade 1 or grade 1-and-a-half.
David Taylor agreed about the deterioration of support: braille must be made accessible at an easy level without detracting from adult use. Alison May said there was concern over who would teach people the new rules. Mike Townsend said that research was needed on how braille is learnt. What impact does shape have?
Fred Jakeman asked about the controversy over numbers. Bill Poole replied that it had not been raised at the conference, and that the main battle was taking place in North America.
Bill Poole said that the new contraction changes were different from the earlier changes; the latter were prompted more out of necessity to satisfy UBC principles. As contractions are dropped people will have to learn old contractions in order to read old books. He noted that he had not personally supported the deletion of some contractions. We will now need to expose people to UBC, and will have to decide whether we want to have a major consultation exercise. Peter Osborne thought that this should be decided at the December meeting. He added that the fact that the UK amendment to the rules on capitals was accepted so readily made him nervous about simply accepting the previous decisions. He would like to delay mandatory implementation of capitals. Mike Townsend agreed.
Alison May asked whether BAUK members would be asked to endorse UBC as individuals or as representatives of organisations. Bill Poole replied that people would have to decide how to represent their organisations best. He would not direct members how to conduct themselves on this matter.
Hans Cohn asked whether it was intended to hold a UBC workshop at NFB, to which Bill Poole replied that he did. Clare Gailans noted that the next BAUK meeting is in December, and asked whether workshops could be held before then. Bill Poole replied that they could, and that the Secretary should be notified if any member is intending to conduct such a workshop.
Mike Townsend asked about the impact of UBC on music braille. Bill Poole replied that music was outside the scope of UBC. It was recognised that music has an international braille code, and it would be too disruptive to attempt to include it.
6. Elections.
The following were elected as officers of BAUK: Chair: Bill Poole, Vice Chair: Mike Townsend, Secretary: Stephen Phippen, Assistant Secretary: Allan Young, Treasurer: Iain Millard, Public Relations Officer: Peter Osborne.
The following were elected as trustees: Richard West, David Boden.
The following are coopted members: Bill Poole, Claire Wilson, Kevin Carey.
The Literary Code Committee was re-elected as follows: Bill Poole, Sheila Armstrong, Lisa Bhogal, Gail Chester, Hans Cohn, Clare Gailans, Stephen Phippen, Claire Wilson, Allan Young.
Peter Osborne expressed his thanks to Bill Poole as Chair for the qualities of fairness and independence he has shown in dealing with the recent difficult issues, regardless of his personal views. The meeting echoed this thanks.
7. Braille Promotion Committee. Fred Jakeman said that the committee had not met, and there was nothing else to report.
8. Reports from other committees. Chess Committee. Fred Jakeman reported that Hans Cohn has proposed some changes to the chess code in order to save space. Hans agreed to publish these proposals in the chess magazine and ask for readers' views, and Fred himself has asked the Braille Chess Association for their views. There have been no adverse comments from either quarter, and he therefore recommended that BAUK support the changes. This was agreed. Clare Gailans added that although the Braille Chess Association had agreed to the changes, the mood was that it did not want any more. Fred Jakeman confirmed that any future proposals should be dealt with through the Chess Committee.
Stephen Phippen asked whether the new version of the code should be documented before being used. Bill Poole and Fred Jakeman replied that it would not be necessary (although the code document should be updated as soon as practicable), and that the changes can be used in the October edition of the Chess Magazine.
The meeting closed.