BA/3/04
Meeting held at 1.30 pm on 17 March 2004, at RNIB, 105 Judd Street, London WC1H 9NE.
1. Present: Helen Osler, Jim McCafferty, Hans Cohn, Barbara Leighton, Peter Wilkins, David Boden, Richard West, Fred Jakeman, Iain Millard, Allan Young, David McKerral, Mike Townsend, Lisa Bhogal, Rhoda Carratt, Gareth Davies, Bill Poole, Gail Chester.
Apologies: Jill Allen-King, Sue Clamp, Sarah Home, Winnie Morrell, Peter Osborne, Harry Beevers, Irene Grayson, Janet Bartholomew, Stephen Phippen.
2. The minutes of the last meeting (12 November 2003) were accepted. In the absence of Stephen Phippen, Gail Chester took the minutes of this meeting.
3. Matters arising from the minutes:
In the Torch Trust survey of religious contractions, two questions were asked: how understandable are these contractions? did people like to use them – in particular the contraction for "Christ"?
The response to the survey indicated a low understanding of the contractions. Torch Trust decided to abandon the contractions in documents for public use (e.g. hymn books), and they later also abandoned their use in theological texts.
Subsequently when the issue came up at BAUK, as there was no support for the contractions from Torch Trust, the contractions were withdrawn.
Bill Poole has written to ABAPSTAS regretting that they had not continued their membership of BAUK. The letter also rejected their idea of converting BAUK into a body of individually paying members. Far from ensuring better consultancy with braille users, it was felt to be wrong that anyone should have to pay to be consulted on braille issues that might affect them.
4. Chair's report.
The ICEB Assembly will take place in two weeks' time. Kim Charlson has written to say that BAUK's payment for membership of ICEB (which was required for participation at the Assembly) had not been received. However, Iain Millard has checked and confirmed that the payment was made from our account on 31 January 2004.
Due to a difficulty in obtaining discounted airfare and accommodation, and because of other commitments, Mike Townsend has now decided not to form part of the BAUK delegation to the ICEB Assembly.
Nominations to Executive: Fred Schroeder is eligible to continue as President, and it is likely that he will do so. The Nominations Committee appears not to have received BAUK's proposal that Hans Cohn serve as a replacement for Isobel Yule. The Nominations Committee have asked Bill Poole to be Public Relations Officer. Bill has declined because it would involve a degree of commitment to UEBC and a level of marketing skills which he does not have. Mike Townsend asked if this would mean that Bill Poole might not be recommended to continue as Vice President. Bill confirmed that this was so.
Mike Townsend noted that the ICEB Assembly had not been well prepared. The meeting agreed that if no UK person was nominated to the Executive then Bill Poole should make a nomination.
Bill Poole reported that the By-Laws Committee had not met, and this meant that the constitutional changes passed by the last Assembly had not been incorporated, and new changes had not been drafted for discussion, as agreed by the last Assembly.
Bill Poole reported that five conference papers now exist:
Fred Jakeman questioned the relevance of the Japanese paper. However Mike Townsend pointed out that UEBC has benefits not only of unifying across countries but also across codes (literary, maths etc). Bill Poole said that it shows that the concept of a Unified Braille Code has appeal for other languages.
Bill Poole has also been asked, at short notice, to provide two reports for the committees that he has chaired: One was the Contractions Committee, which produced its final report to the Project Committee following the face-to-face meeting held in London in May 2000, though agreement had still to be reached on how to unify the rules governing the use of contractions across countries. The other was the Interface with Foreign Languages Committee, where a significant amount of work remained to be done, including the development of a representation of phonetic script which was compatible with UEBC principles. The Rules Committee still had a good deal of work to do, and Bill Poole thought the codebook would be unlikely to be complete enough to ratify.
Hans Cohn reported on the history of the proceedings of the Formatting Committee, which has been disappointing. After one face-to-face meeting at Markham where some points were agreed, some members subsequently withdrew their agreement in email exchanges. Peter Osborne and Hans Cohn were left out of a conference call. A report has been made including comments on a paper on the formatting of plays written by Hans Cohn.
Bill Poole reported that new rules are being written and circulated frequently, and he has been inundated. Bill Poole has voted against almost all of the new formatting rules as he feels they need more clarification. Mike Townsend said that he thought that the code could be ratified without full formatting rules. He said he thought that Committee 5 had gone into too much detail and there should have been a light touch enabling house style to be used. Bill Poole agreed and said that he had written to Committee 5 with these comments.
Bill Poole said that it was disappointing that people responsible for the assembly had not completed tasks assigned to them, and now a few people are having to work hard (including himself).
Richard West asked if there was any hope of the code being ratified? Bill Poole was concerned that leaving it unresolved would lead to substantial differences between the various countries using it. In view of the composition of their delegation, Bill Poole thought that there was a reasonable chance for the US to vote in favour of it – this would make other countries more likely to vote in favour of it.
Hans Cohn asked the meeting how the UK should vote. Richard West said that he thought UEBC was not in a fit state to be ratified, but it has got to a point where it could be opened to a period of public consultation. Mike Townsend was concerned about exposing the public to a code that will still change substantially. The principles underlying it are good for allowing braille to be learnt and used as widely as possible, but he was concerned that the UEBC consultation that had already taken place had harmed it.
David McKerral said that there was an equal and opposite argument that change will discourage people from learning braille.
Hans Cohn commented that UEBC could be divisive in the international situation.
Gareth Davies was against change and thought that UEBC would be too disruptive to the teaching of braille. He pointed out that although a unified braille code might be introduced, there were no plans to introduce unified spelling of English between the different countries. Helen Osler stated that it should be a priority to reduce the bulk of braille, and if the change meant fewer contractions then we should not ratify it. Lisa Bhogal stated that she agreed with the principles, but couldn't accept the increase in bulk that UEBC would mean.
Mike Townsend commented that the impact of change apparent with UEBC is much less if a braillist is allowed to read a substantial number of pages rather than just a brief sample.
Richard West was keen that UEBC should go out to consultation in the UK. Many braillists do not realise how elaborate print has become.
Bill Poole noted that if BAUK votes in favour of the code, then we must agree to recommend it to the UK public. The UK delegates need to understand what freedom of action is available to them.
Mike Townsend noted that UEBC would have a significant impact on technology – translation programs would be adapted for codes that the majority of users follow, and the UK might be left behind if it did not adopt UEBC. However the impetus for change is less here, as the UK does not have so much to gain by the change as our codes are already well-integrated when compared with those in the US.
Allan Young proposed that the UK abstain from the vote.
Hans Cohn raised his concern that UEBC will mean braille would be for high flyers only. However, many people commented that it would be quite the reverse, and it would make braille easier to learn.
Richard West noted that the level of substantial change implied in adopting UEBC would not happen by voluntary work, but would realistically need four or five paid people six months to deliver successful change.
A vote was taken on how UK delegates should vote on the ratification of the code. The voting options were: for, against, abstain, free hand. Bill Poole noted that our consultation and agreement options are limited if the vote is yes or no.
The vote was as follows: for: 0; against: 5; abstain: 9; free hand: 2.
It was duly agreed to register the UK's abstention at the Assembly.
5. British Braille.
The Literary Code Committee met and discussed the feedback to the consultation on the changes to British Braille.
It was reported that there was to be no change to the way website and email addresses are written.
Trademark, registered and copyright now have their own signs: dots 45 t, dots 45 r and dots 45 c, respectively, which are normally spaced from the previous character string.
The termination sign for capitals and italics will go after punctuation.
The special joint Technical Committee are now considering what changes might be needed to the technical codes as a result of the changes in the literary code.
It was asked if there were to be minutes of the LCC meeting; the answer was that there will not.
The meeting was asked if it now wished to ratify the proposed changes to British Braille? The vote was: for 12 ; against: 2; abstentions: 3.
The new British Braille code was duly ratified.
6. Joint Technical Committee.
Stephen Phippen was unable to report to the meeting as he was absent, but some members of the Technical Committee had received minutes from their recent meeting. Bill Poole noted that these should have been emailed to all BAUK members. The committee had decided to bring the technical codes into line with literary braille as regards the following items: oblique stroke; use of word mode for two or more capital letters in a string (and the same will apply to other fonts); unit abbreviations; computer code default case (now to be lower case). Examples will be circulated within the committee for the suggestion that chemical formulae now be represented in general scientific material using normal maths rules, rather than the special chemistry code rules, before a decision is made. Samples on all the decisions made by the committee will be circulated to committee members for consultation with colleagues.
One member of the Technical Committee, David Spybey of RNIB New College, had said that it is more important that technical codes are unified across all languages than that they are unified with an individual country's literary braille code.
7. Braille Promotion Committee.
The committee had met in the morning prior to this meeting. An oral report will be given at the next meeting.
8. Moon Forum.
Lisa Bhogal reported that the recent meeting had been well-attended. A full written report is available from Lisa.
9. There were no other committee reports.
10. Any other business.
Fred Jakeman raised the issue of the increase in the costs of brailling materials from RNIB. He suggested that in March 2003 approx 180 sheets of Stainsby paper had cost £1.95. The current price for 180 sheets was £3.99 plus £2.50 handling charge. It was agreed that RNIB should not place obstacles in the way of braille literacy, and Bill Poole understood that there was a case for the handling charge not to be applied to braille materials, and he would take it further. It was noted that members of the TCS Committee present at this meeting recognised the serious nature of this issue.
Date of next meeting: 7 July 2004.