BA/3/05
Meeting held at 1.30 pm on 22nd March 2005, at RNIB, 105 Judd Street, London WC1H 9NE.
1. Rollcall: Allan Young, Iain Millard, Lisa Bhogal, Maggy Grubb, Stephen Phippen, Jim McCafferty, Peter Osborne, Gareth Davies, Peter Wilkins, Marion Ripley, David Boden, Bill Poole, Barbara Leighton, Richard West, Gail Chester, Sheila Armstrong.
Apologies: Janet Bartholomew, David McKerral, Jill Allen-King, Sarah Home, Irene Grayson, Steve Pendleton, Fred Jakeman, Rhoda Carratt.
2. Minutes of the last meeting (30th November 2004). Gail Chester, Peter Wilkins and Hans Cohn should be added as apologies.
3. Matters arising from the minutes.
Allan Young asked if the question over the BAUK web site address had been resolved. Stephen Phippen replied that we still had not managed to transfer formal ownership, but the existing owner had renewed payment for the address which will cover us for the next two years.
Marion Ripley asked when an updated edition of the Braille Primer would be ready. Stephen Phippen replied that the files should be ready in April 2005, which will then need to be put into production at RNIB.
Gail Chester said that with regard to item 7 in the minutes, the Braille Maker translation software will also be updated for the changes to the British Braille rules, and should be ready in July 2005.
4. Officers' Reports.
(a) Chair.
(1) International Council on English Braille (ICEB). Bill Poole reported that work within the Unified English Braille (UEB) Contractions and Linguistics Committees, of which he is a member, had started in December. He was finding that a lot was being written, but not much progress was being made, especially with the Linguistics Committee. In that committee the emphasis had been on signs needed for foreign languages, especially African languages, though the development of phonetic signs was also on the agenda.
In the Contractions Committee Joe Sullivan had posted a long list of words in which BAUK and BANA practice differed; some corrections were needed to this list. Allan Young (who is also on the Contractions Committee) added that the length of the list was a little misleading as the same issues are repeated in groups of words.
Hans Cohn asked about the composition of the Layout Committee, of which he was previously a member. Bill Poole replied that the committees which existed before the ICEB Assembly in Toronto had been disbanded, and new committees were formed which were not directly connected to the old ones. The new Formatting Committee didn't have the same membership as the old one, but Hans could be added if he was interested.
(2) Bill Poole reported that the non-capitalized version of British Braille had been worked upon; Stephen Phippen added that it had in fact now gone in to production at RNIB, so should be available in perhaps 2 or 3 weeks.
(b) Secretary.
Stephen Phippen reported we now had general agreement from RNIB that we can place the BAUK codebooks on our web site (the issue was that RNIB produces and sells hard copy versions of these codes). This opens up the possibility of providing updates and corrections to these codebooks much more rapidly than before, though there would be the issue of the hard copy versions being less up to date than the information on the BAUK web site. Three possible levels of managing updates on the web site were: 1. Just providing lists of errata; 2. Giving substantial changes to the codes in separate lists, which should be deemed to take effect; 3. Placing fully amended versions of the codebooks on the website incorporating such changes, which should then be regarded as the current codes. After discussion it was agreed that BAUK should allow itself to follow option 3, but to include information as to how such updates differed from the hard copy versions held in stock. We should also ensure that both braille and print versions of such updates would be avaialble. Marion Ripley suggested that a notice could be put into the codebooks saying that reference should be made to the BAUK web site to see if there were any updates to the codes, and it was also suggested that a version number could be introduced.
Peter Osborne said that he would like to see the lag between the versions available on the BAUK web site and those avaialble from RNIB minimised by RNIB moving more towards a "produce on demand" strategy. RNIB would then be supplying the most up-to-date versions.
(c) Treasurer. Iain Millard said that he had nothing to report, except that the outstanding fees due from VIEW had now been paid.
(d) Public Relations Officer. Lisa Bhogal said she would continue in post, though she would prefer someone else to take over if we needed to promote UEB some time in the future.
5. UEB Conference.
Bill Poole reported that he had looked at the UEB samples produced by the Braille Authority of North America (BANA) in 2001. They may not be suitable for our evaluation as they were out of date as regards the UEB code, and also used BANA contraction preferences. One sample had been designed to show a high density of changes - would we want to use this sort of unrealistic text?
As regards setting up a conference, Bill Poole recalled that in the debate on New Contracted Braille, David McCann, Martin Milligan and himself went round to various events which other people arranged, to talk about the code. If the suggestion now is for BAUK to set up its own event, we would need to think about what we would regard as a suitable number of attendees, and what to do about people who could not attend.
Peter Osborne said he was concerned that, as with any consultation process, we would need to be clear about what we wanted to get from it. There is a tendency to get different answers depending on who you ask. Within RNIB, he had been asked to pull together a position paper on unifying standards - UEB was a specific case. He thought it would be useful to find out first what member organisations thought about UEB before embarking on a wider consultation process. Both Gareth Davies and Gail Chester agreed with this point, and Bill Poole added that this process would require us sending out UEB materials to organisations.
Stephen Phippen said that he had placed some simple UEB samples of ordinary literary braille and maths braille on the BAUK web site to give people an idea of what UEB is like. These could be freely downloaded. He intended to add some more.
Richard West asked whether UEB was in a sufficiently stable state for us to embark on consultation. Bill Poole replied that he thought not, as some main areas of difference are still being worked upon. However, he thought that consultation could take place without a major research program of the International Braille Research Centre (IBRC), as had been suggested at Toronto.
Richard West then concluded that we could either: (a) present people with options, asking which options people would prefer for UEB; or (b) wait until there was a firm proposal, but then we would be too late to influence the outcome. Bill Poole said that he would be against presenting people with options. In a lot of areas, e.g. contractions, there could be a lot of diversity, but no guarantee that preferences expressed would be followed by UEB committees, e.g. for technical code design reasons. His view was thus a matter of practicality.
Hans Cohn commented that UEB is based on a false premiss - that braille should follow print exactly. He thought we should leave literary braille as it is, and have special codes for special areas, such as maths or music.
Peter Osborne said that he thought it was important to have a position statement. Much of the code is in fact settled, and consultation on the design of the code would not serve much purpose. Code development is evolutionary, and we should be able to mandate UEB as a code which could be used in the UK. It could take a generation or two for the code to find its place.
Allan Young made a practical suggestion that Bill Poole, Stephen Phippen and perhaps others gather together about 30-40 pages of UEB material as it stands, using UK contractions where UEB does not specify otherwise (for definiteness). RNIB could then produce this as a booklet to be made available to the public, with a normal charge. We could then get feedback through BAUK members. Bill Poole said he would be happy with this proposal. However, Peter Osborne said we could expect that people would not like the samples if they were different from braille they were familiar with. He thought acceptance would take longer than could be achieved by a simple vote, hence his preference for simply mandating the code as one which could be used in the UK. Allan Young commented that BAUK nevertheless needed to be seen to be consulting.
Peter Wilkins said he was concerned about charging for the samples, and wondered if an alternative might be to put an established magazine into UEB instead; this would encourage people to read it. Sheila Armstrong suggested that "Welcome to a World Of", might be suitable, and the publication could be produced in both forms. Lisa Bhogal agreed that some people may not want to pay for a samples booklet but would still like some exposure to UEB; hence she favoured a dual approach using existing magazines as well as samples.
Gail Chester commented that a book of UEB samples needed a clear statement at the beginning explaining what the "big idea" of UEB was, so that readers approached the samples in the right way. A question could then also be included asking whether the reader approved of the general idea of UEB, as a separate issue from the details of the code.
Bill Poole said that he favoured the idea of having dedicated samples: they could be designed to include all the features that we wanted people to be aware of, and would be available to anyone. Just using a magazine, for example, would only include a limited number of features, and would only reach specific readers. He agreed with Gail Chester that the booklet should include a general explanation of the ideas behind UEB. UK contraction preferences should be used where UEB did not specify otherwise (there are no new contractions in UEB).
Marion Ripley added that the samples should also include something which children could use and find attractive. Bill Poole agreed, and would want them to have as wide an appeal as possible, but the main concern now was to get the project off the ground.
A vote was held on producing such a booklet of UEB samples, with a wide appeal, including an introduction on the motivation of UEB. (This would not exclude other actions being taken as well.) The motion was carried by 16 votes to 1.
As regards finance, Peter Osborne said that he would investigate the possibility of RNIB covering the cost. He favoured producing copies on demand, and the files could be made available for other producers to make copies as well. He was also in favour of the idea of RNIB simultaneously producing copies of some of its magazines for children in both codes. Sheila Armstrong said that Torch Trust would also like to produce some of its materials in UEB, but would not do so if BAUK did not endorse this course of action. Bill Poole replied that BAUK would not object to anyone producing materials in UEB, as long as it was not projected as being the official UK code.
Marion Ripley asked if we could publicize our intention to produce samples now, so as to engage people's interest, before the samples are actually ready. Peter Osborne replied that he would need details and to set up a waiting list at RNIB Customer Services first. He would confirm with Lisa Bhogal when this had been set up.
6. RNIB Braille Policy.
Bill Poole reported that there had been a meeting of the RNIB Braille Strategy Group on the previous day, at which the implementation of a braille policy was discussed. [A copy of the draft braille policy document had been circulated to BAUK members.]
Allan Young said that he had read the policy document, and his reaction was that, although we are of course all keen on braille promotion, there needed to be a more structured approach to braille teaching; for example, in schools, where pupils are losing the skills of how to read and write in their own medium. Peter Osborne relpied that he would try to stress this more in the RNIB business plan.
Hans Cohn said that he was disappointed in the document, which he thought was long on words but short on action. It disregarded the primary needs of blind people, who are typically the over 65's, but it talked too much about internet use. One action that should be taken is to point out that there is an obligation in the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) for local authorities to provide braille training, on the grounds of literacy. He also felt that the document pre-empted a decision about UEB, and thought RNIB should stand aloof from this issue.
Gail Chester, however, said she thought the main part of the document was well-written and understandable, though she felt that the appendices could be confusing as they might be interpreted as if RNIB was signing up to their content.
On a separate matter Hans Cohn asked what progress had been made by RNIB on the transcription of his translation of the German braille code; he was annoyed that it had taken so long. There was a similar document for the French braille code (which he had not worked on). Stephen Phippen explained that the project was a BAUK one (within the Foreign Languages Committee), and not RNIB's. The person who had offered to take on this task, the Secretary of the BAUK Foreign Languages Committee, happened to be an employee of RNIB, but did not have specific time allocated at RNIB to do the work, and had unfortunately found it more difficult than originally envisaged to fit the task in within her heavy RNIB workload. The task was also quite complex, and involved making a conversion from a manual braille script into an XML file, so that bilingual braille, print, and possibly electronic copies of the document could be produced. The work was about a third of the way through. It was of course unsatisfactory that the project had taken so long, but it wasn't clear how to make faster progress with it in the current situation. Peter Osborne agreed that it was a BAUK priority, not an RNIB one, but he would try to see if resources for it could be organised.
7. Braille Promotion
Bill Poole reported that there had been a lot of communication within electronic discussion groups, and dissatisfaction had been expressed, for example, about braille teaching, but without the knowledge of the leverage needed to get action. He had also read Richard West's notice on braille promotion, and had thought it could be sharpened up and reworded in places. Richard West added that he had written it in August and asked for feedback from the Braille Promotion Committee, but had received none, so he had not worked on it since. He had intended it to be a skeleton article which could be tailored for particular purposes. His main aim had been to show that braille was available and learnable - he felt that this message was not getting through to professionals and channels of communication in the field, e.g. to social workers, education workers, etc. He thought a strategy was needed to progress this. Gail Chester suggested that it would be useful for the notice to include contact details. Richard West agreed, and asked for help with suitable contacts to include.
Marion Ripley said that she was not sure to what extent BAUK regarded its job as doing braille promotion. Braille needs to be publicized, but there is a whole infrastructure missing; this is a big issue, for example, for children. Our constituency has changed over the last few years. 70% of visually impaired children now have other difficulties, and 38% of those learning braille have additional difficulties. Bill Poole explained that BAUK's constitution cites that we have a role to play in this, but not an exclusive role. Marion Ripley continued that she gets the impression that BAUK spends most of its energy on coding issues - this is its main task - but the promotion side is also very important. She had noted down a number of ideas:
(a) Promotion is being rushed at BAUK meetings, which affects the standing of BAUK. Maybe we should have more frequent meetings. Bill Poole commented that it is not code legislation which takes time (as this is done in separate technical committees), but issues such as our policy on UEB. Richard West agreed that more activity within the Braille Promotion Committee was needed.
(b) A helpline could be set up for teachers, learners and producers. Phone or email contact could be used.
(c) A flyer in print and braille could be produced for wide distribution to encourage people to find out about learning braille.
(d) Braille stickers could be produced, e.g. for children to put on their jumpers. The idea is to make braille seem more attractive.
(e) BAUK could have a stand at Sight Village to encourage interaction between committee members and the public.
(f) More consideration could be given to less able learners and readers when making coding decisions, etc. This group is growing.
(g) The future of braille reading should be a regular item on the BAUK agenda.
Bill Poole suggested that this list be passed to the Secretary so that it could be circulated prior to the next meeting. The issue can be included as an agenda item after Officers' Reports.
Peter Osborne made the point that BAUK makes progress with code development because RNIB resources it, whereas braille promotion is not similarly resourced. BAUK should therefore ask its member organisations what they view their role as in braille promotion.
Hans Cohn wanted more stress to be given to the physical aspects of reading braille, as well as reading speed.
Richard West said he would like more direction as to how to take this matter forward within the Braille Promotion Committee. He felt that more progress could be made with small groups, than through the full BAUK meetings.
8. Any other business. Gareth Davies briefly reported on a meeting of the World Blind Union in Capetown.
9. Date of next meeting: 14 July 2005.
(BAUK web address: www.bauk.org.uk)