BA/6/05
Meeting held at 1.30 pm on 14th July 2005, at RNIB, 105 Judd Street, London WC1H 9NE.
1. Rollcall: Sue Clamp, Maggy Grubb, Hans Cohn, Jill Allen-King, Peter Wilkins, Steve Pendleton, Bill Poole, Sheila Armstrong, David Boden, Stephen Phippen, Barbara Leighton, Richard West, Marion Ripley, Ann Marsh, Peter Osborne, Alison Roberts (Pia), Rhoda Carratt.
Apologies: Steve McCall, Iain Millard, Jim McCafferty, Janet Bartholomew, Sarah Home, Irene Grayson, Fred Jakeman, David McKerral.
2. Minutes of the last meeting (22nd March 2005). Hans Cohn should be added as an attendee.
3. Matters arising from the minutes.
Hans Cohn said that he acknowledged that the project to produce a translation of the German braille code was a BAUK commission rather than an RNIB one as stated in the minutes, but RNIB had paid him for it, so should take an interest in its completion. He had raised the issue with Stephen King before having read the minutes which clarified the matter, so he apologized in advance in case this caused a problem.
Marion Ripley reported that she had looked at the UEB (Unified English Braille) samples on the BAUK web page, but didn't find them usable as she was expecting black dot braille. Stephen Phippen explained that the file would show as black dot braille if a braille font is used (such a font can be downloaded from a link on the BAUK web site, specifically for this sort of purpose). Nevertheless, he would see if it would be practical to represent the examples in such a way directly on the web site.
4. Officers' Reports.
(a) Chair.
(1) UEB Committee work. Bill Poole gave an update on some of the work of the UEB committees. The Contractions Committee was getting through its work quickly. He had previously objected that UEB was not sufficiently complete because of the lack of agreement on contractions; however, it now looked as though this area will be substantially settled, with most decisions in fact being made in line with British Braille practice (but with approval of BANA (Braille Authority of North America) members).
The Linguistics Committee now had Robert Englebretson as a member, a professor at Rice University with special knowledge in this field. He had undertaken to submit a proposal for phonetics script which would be similar to the current BAUK standard, but useable within UEB. (He favoured the BAUK code in preference to the current BANA one.) The completion of the phonetics code does not affect the completion status of UEB, but could be progressed alongside. A meeting of the ICEB (International Council on English Braille) Executive Committee will be held in April 2006, and the committee wanted there to be as much to report as possible. The Linguistics Committee also had to consider the orthography of some other languages in relation to UEB.
Work was continuing in other UEB Committees, e.g. Maths, on which Stephen Phippen is a representative. Stephen and Hans Cohn are UK representatives on the Formatting Committee.
Peter Osborne asked if observers would be allowed at the forthcoming Executive meeting in South Africa: he may be in the country for another reason, and would be interested in attending if permitted. Bill Poole replied that he thought observers would be allowed; he would find out the exact date of the meeting.
(2) UEB sample booklet.
Bill Poole reported that he had almost finished drafting an introduction to the UEB sample booklet and would circulate it to BAUK members for consideration. It had been a difficult task to write something that was both balanced, and which also presented the rationale for UEB. He had based it on the introduction to the BANA leaflet, but had changed it substantially. One point of uncertainty was whether to include information about BAUK at the beginning (as had been done with the BANA version). He welcomed critical comments.
Peter Wilkins asked when the consultation process would take place, to which Bill Poole replied that it could hopefully start by the autumn. Marion Ripley also said she would be interested to know the expected extent of the consultation. Peter Osborne said that RNIB's offer to produce the booklet remained open, and wondered when it would be ready. Stephen Phippen said that he had several other BAUK tasks to do which would need to take priority; in particular, producing updated versions of the maths, computer and science codes (following on from the update to British Braille). He hoped that it would be possible to do the UEB samples in the autumn.
Hans Cohn asked whether the UEB samples produced earlier would be of use. Bill Poole replied that they wouldn't be suitable for this exercise as they were written for an American audience, and were based on out of date decisions.
(b) Secretary. Stephen Phippen asked to be informed of any changes of contact details for the BAUK membership list. Dates for the next meeting had not been set, but he would try to book meetings for November, March and July (if possible avoiding Fridays).
(c) Treasurer. Iain Millard was not present, but the balance sheet for 2004-5 had been circulated. Iain had noted that the only organisation yet to pay its fees was RNIB.
Hans Cohn asked if we could find out how much the recent ICEB Assembly had cost. Bill Poole replied that Iain Millard should be able to say, and this could be included in the minutes.
(d) Public Relations Officer. Lisa Bhogal was not present, and no issues were raised.
Bill Poole drew to the meeting's attention the retirement from BAUK of Allan Young, who had been an active member for many years, and recently Vice Chair. We would like to express our appreciation for all the work which Allan had done over this time. Allan was due to retire from NLB (National Library for the Blind) next spring. Bill Poole added that he would like to include Allan and Sheila Armstrong on the circulation list for his introduction to the UEB samples.
5. Elections. The following were elected as officers of BAUK: Chair: Bill Poole, Vice Chair: Peter Osborne, Secretary: Stephen Phippen, Treasurer: Iain Millard, Public Relations Officer: Lisa Bhogal (depending on acceptance), Trustees: Richard West and David Boden. Marion Ripley was elected as a coopted member.
The Literary Code Committee was re-elected en bloc. The members are therefore: Sheila Armstrong, Gail Chester, Hans Cohn, Barbara Leighton, Stephen Phippen, Bill Poole, Marion Ripley, Peter Wilkins, Allan Young.
6. Braille promotion.
Richard West began by saying that in response to comments he had received, he had now updated the promotional notice he had written and sent it to other Braille Promotion Committee members. He would welcome further comments, either generic or specific. Bill Poole said that he would like there to be a statement at the beginning similar to: "The value of braille to any blind or partially sighted person who is able to learn it would be hard to over-estimate." This would catch people's attention.
Richard West then went on to say that the Braille Promotion Committee had gone through Marion Ripley's list of suggestions as presented in the minutes of the last meeting. There had also been some discussion on this topic within BCAB (British Computer Association of the Blind). An important point which was made is that the arrangements by which you can find a braille teacher are far from clear or satisfactory. A few years ago he started an IT technology training scheme, and would be interested in doing something similar for braille training.
Jill Allen-King agreed: there was certainly a great need for braille teachers, but nobody is doing anything about it. Peter Osborne said that he had persuaded RNIB to include braille promotion in its business plan, e.g. the idea of doing simultaneous publication in braille, audio and large print. It is important for such things to be in the business plan as it means that budget for them will be available. BAUK itself doesn't have significant resources, but progress can be made through RNIB. Richard West agreed.
Sue Clamp emphasized that there was a big difference between braille teaching for adults and that for children. Maggy Grubb, Marion Ripley and herself were very concerned about people, who were not competent to do so, teaching braille to children; and she was also aware of adult teaching being done wrongly. Richard West said that he had some experience in setting up a scheme for the verification of competence, though not in setting up a teaching scheme itself.
Maggy Grubb stressed the need to promote the case for people in the educational area learning braille; there is a tendency not to do it. Richard West agreed - there is a lazy philosophy that a VI person can take in everything aurally, which wouldn't be acceptable for a sighted person. As an experienced braillist he uses speech a lot with the computer, but when editing a document he tends to turn the speech off and uses braille instead.
Marion Ripley said that she thought it important to have a discussion of these issues within BAUK, separate from detailed code issues. Her list was meant to give some ideas for what action could be taken, and to prompt discussion as to which of them could be done by BAUK, and which would be better done by others. She thought the suggestions for promotion, such as using flyers, stickers, and a stand at Sight Village, were all good ideas. She also thought BAUK could do more with regard to support, e.g. have a phone line for teachers, learners, producers, etc. As regards resources for learning, she thought BAUK was already doing quite well with the information we provided on our web site. We could ourselves develop resources for reading, and consideration should be given to different presentations of braille, e.g. using only 4 lines per page, or breaking braille text into chunks. Alison Roberts noted that there was also a need for single-sided braille to help sighted people keep up their skills.
Bill Poole asked whether NLB still had a learning library. Ann Marsh said that it did: it was still active and in NLB's business plan. They took advice from libraries regarding suitable material. The library is still being added to, but she was not sure what would happen when Allan Young retired. Bill Poole then asked how much a stand at Sight Village would cost. Marion Ripley replied that it was about £180 for 3 days. Richard West pointed out that a stand would also need to be manned, and wondered whether an alternative might be to have some space for BAUK attached to a UKABP (United Kingdom Association of Braille Producers) or RNIB stand. Peter Wilkins mentioned that on other stands it was common for individuals to only be on duty for a day or half a day.
Marion Ripley made the point that there is government funding for training normal adults who are not literate; funding should also be available for VI people in the same position in relation to braille. Peter Osborne said that the RNIB braille policy included a right to literacy campaign; he would make sure some of these suggestions are included in this campaign.
Bill Poole suggested that these issues be discussed further by the Braille Promotion Committee. Richard West was interested in how such items sat within the RNIB business plan, and asked whether there was someone who he could phone to discuss the matter. Peter Osborne replied that Richard could contact him.
7. RNIB policy on UEB.
An RNIB policy paper on UEB had been circulated prior to the meeting. Bill Poole reported that he had spoken at an RNIB AIG (Accessibility and Innovation Group) meeting on 12 July, and added that all organizations of BAUK are similarly entitled to have a policy on UEB.
Peter Osborne said that UEB was a major issue for RNIB, and it was important to try to set out a position, which he had attempted to do in this paper. He supported the idea that UEB should be allowed to evolve, and also the use of UEB on an experimental basis (rather than a mandatory one); some adjustments to the wording of the paper as circulated were needed to make these points clearer. AIG has accepted the paper as RNIB's current position; this was helpful to him as he can now offer support on UEB projects such as the UEB samples booklet.
Hans Cohn said he would like it added that no decision on UEB would be made without a survey of users' views. Bill Poole replied that this was indeed BAUK's stated position, but was not within RNIB's policy.
Richard West asked if RNIB would assist BAUK's consultation on UEB by ensuring all RNIB members had knowledge of it, e.g. through its membership database or magazine circulation list.
Hans Cohn said that he was afraid that RNIB may put aside the interests of UK readers in favour of readers outside the UK. Peter Osborne agreed that RNIB does have conflicting interests. Ann Marsh added that NLB is writing a similar paper which broadly agrees with RNIB's paper, and would be willing to help with the distribution of samples.
Bill Poole made the point that we could neither accept nor reject UEB at this stage, but we can adopt some UEB features in British Braille which we think are positive (and have done so already). However, if we eventually wanted to adopt UEB, the option whether or not to indicate capitals in the UK could be retained. In the light of the RNIB and NLB papers, he proposed a motion to welcome the publication on an experimental basis of full UEB materials to give the public exposure to the code, as had happened in other countries. This would not, of course, commit ourselves to adopting the code. A vote supported this motion unanimously.
Richard West asked if it was known what impact UEB would have on automatic braille production. Bill Poole replied that it was thought that UEB would facilitate it: automatic 2-way translation was one of UEB's design features. However, its impact may be over-estimated.
Stephen Phippen asked whether there should be a time link between the questionnaire provided with the UEB sample booklet, and the possibility of publishers producing more UEB material. People's views are likely to drift over time as they have more exposure to UEB, so the results from an early questionnaire could become increasingly out-of-date as time went on. Bill Poole replied that the questionnaire would have to be treated as consultative, and such shifting opinion would also have to be taken on board. Stephen Phippen suggested that RNIB might think of including some sort of questionnaire of its own in its UEB publications, so that feedback can be obtained over a period of time to gauge if there is any drift of opinion.
Sue Clamp was concerned about how many people knew about UEB; she thought hardly any did in the educational sector. Bill Poole thought that there were quite a lot of people who did know about UEB, e.g. through the evaluation BAUK conducted earlier, but there was less knowledge of its technical code aspects. Sue Clamp asked if there was a UEB maths code, besides the BAUK and BANA codes, and if so, who was working on it. Stephen Phippen said that maths notation was built into UEB, and that he had been a member of the UEB committee which had designed the UEB maths features (though he had not been a member right at the beginning), and was a member of the current committee tidying up a few maths related items. The UK had had quite a big input into the code in this area. As regards how widespread knowledge of UEB was, he said that it was part of the individual responsibility of members of BAUK to communicate the issues of the day to the organisations or groups which they are supposed to represent; UEB was one such important subject. BAUK also had information and links on UEB on its web site.
Peter Osborne said he was concerned about deferring the question of resourcing the evaluation until the next BAUK meeting. It could be quite expensive; he would propose that the Chair be authorised to commit £2000 of BAUK's money for the evaluation, and then RNIB may match it. Bill Poole agreed with this strategy.
8. Any other business.
Peter Osborne reported that in collaboration with Bloomsbury, the new Harry Potter book will be coming out in braille simultaneously with the print.
The meeting closed.
BAUK web address: www.bauk.org.uk