BA/1/06
Meeting held at 1.30 pm on 30 November 2005, at RNIB, 105 Judd Street, London WC1H 9NE.
1. Rollcall: Lisa Bhogal, Jim McCafferty, David Boden, Richard West, Iain Millard, Ann Marsh, Hans Cohn, Maggy Grubb, Rhoda Carratt, Stephen Phippen, Peter Osborne, Bill Poole, Sheila Armstrong.
Apologies: Gareth Davies, Mike Townsend, Barbara Leighton, Jill Allen-King, Peter Wilkins, Marion Ripley, Fred Jakeman, Sue Clamp, Steve McCall, David McKerral, Janet Bartholomew.
2. Minutes of the last meeting (14 July 2005). Lisa Bhogal should be added to the list of apologies. It was suggested that the phrase "normal adults" in item 6 should be changed to "sighted adults". Allan Young's retirement from the National Library should be stated as being next September, rather than next Spring.
3. There were no matters arising from the minutes.
4. Officers' reports.
(a) Chair.
Bill Poole reported that the UEB (Unified English Braille) committees he is on are running, but he has not been able to participate as much as he would have liked. The Linguistics Committee now has Robert Englebretson as a member (a linguistician at Rice University), who has made good contributions, and has drafted a new phonetics code which is based on the British one. Australia has strongly expressed a view that the development of a phonetics code should be outside the scope of the UEB project; however, an opposing view which Bill Poole shares is that the committee is a good group to get this work done. Other topics for the committee include how to deal with non-standard letters such as those used in African languages.
The work in the Contractions Committee is near to completion, and Bill Poole now regards UEB as sufficiently complete to make decisions about it. There were a number of specific issues which he would like to put to the BAUK meeting at the end of this agenda item.
The ICEB (International Council on English Braille) Executive will be meeting on 5-7 April 2006 in South Africa. Bill Poole will attend for BAUK as a member of the Executive, and RNIB will pay for Peter Osborne to attend as an observer.
Hans Cohn said he found it frustrating that the UEB Format Committee (of which he is a member) was going over ground which it had previously discussed. Debbie Gillespie is the new Chair. Stephen Phippen (who is also on this committee) said that several of the members of the committee seem to agree with the line that we have taken, i.e. that we should not be too heavy-handed in specifying format within UEB; as a consequence the committee was not sure which way to go.
Stephen Phippen added that he had suggested to the committee that they could instead usefully try to draw up general principles regarding format, without being prescriptive about the specific format itself. Nevertheless, examples of "good practice" adhering to these principles could usefully be given, but people would not be bound to follow these if they had equally good established solutions. On the whole, formatting was not a braille code issue. However, some formatting devices would need attention in the context of UEB; e.g. the traditional 12 colons used as an end marker in UK transcriptions could be modified to start with dot 5 colon in order to satisfy UEB construction rules (and this is in fact done in the UEB samples we are preparing). Stephen asked the meeting if it still agreed with this general stance he was taking in this committee.
Peter Osborne said that he agreed with this line, though Sheila Armstrong pointed out that people using translation software needed definite rules to follow. Bill Poole added that some format practices should be encouraged, but in other cases national conventions could be followed. Hans Cohn said he thought we would end up with each country going its own way.
Bill Poole returned to specific issues raised in the Contractions Committee. On the whole, the consensus and decisions which have been made are in accord with the rules followed in British Braille, which has made it easy for him to vote. However, there are four issues on which he wanted to ask for input from the meeting:
(1) In British Braille (BB) we do not contract lower wordsigns like "in" or "his" after the capital sign, but UEB would like there to be no such restriction.
Sheila Armstrong said that she preferred the UEB rule, as it was less confusing. Richard West said that he was personally happy with the UEB rule as long as it didn't cause problems for other readers. Maggy Grubb added that the UEB rule would make it easier in that the capital and italic rule would be the same in this respect. Bill Poole concluded that though he had previously opposed the UEB rule, he would now support it on the basis of this feedback.
(2) In BB we do not allow the EA contraction to bridge syllables in words like "Montreal", "Seattle", "pancreas", "caveat", etc., but UEB would like to remove this restriction. This would not include words like "pineapple", which would be excluded as a compound word.
Sheila Armstrong said that since we contract EA in "create", we should contract it in these other words too - she therefore supported the UEB rule. Maggy Grubb agreed that it would simplify teaching. Bill Poole noted that BANA (Braille Authority of North America) already contract EA in such cases. Bill Poole again concluded that though he had previously opposed the UEB rule, he would now support it on the basis of this feedback.
(3) In BB the ING contraction is not allowed at the beginning of a word, but it is proposed that it should be allowed in that position in UEB. In some cases, such as "ingle" and "ingenious" the contraction seems acceptable, but what about words such as "ingrowing"? If it were to be allowed at the beginning of a word, should it be in all cases?
Hans Cohn said he thought prefixes should be untouched, hence we should continue to use the IN rather than the ING contraction. Richard West agreed that it was better to have a clear rule, and not to allow ING at the beginning in any cases, so avoiding the need for extra rules for words such as "ingrowing". The space saved in using ING at the beginning of words was minimal. Peter Osborne asked if there was a consensus within the UEB Contractions Committee about exceptions to the proposed rule, to which Bill Poole replied that there was not. Bill Poole concluded that he would maintain the UK position of not supporting the use of ING at the beginning of words.
(4) In BB the ONE contraction is not allowed when followed by "d", "r", etc., and in words such as "erroneous". In UEB it has been proposed that the contraction be allowed in all cases except where it bridges a suffix, such as in "lioness" or "sermonet".
Lisa Bhogal suggested that an alternative formulation could be that the contraction should be used unless the "e" is part of the original word. Hans Cohn said that since no space saving is gained by the change, there is no reason to make it. Richard West agreed that the case for change had not been made, and Maggy Grubb thought that the change could disadvantage some readers less familiar with English. Bill Poole noted that the proponents believed they were simplifying the rules, but in his view these arguments were not valid. He would therefore continue not to support the rule change for this contraction.
Bill Poole then reported on a proposal being made within RNIB that grade 1 should become the default for people up to the age of 19. Individuals would still be able to ask for grade 2, but RNIB would promote the use of grade 1 for this group. Papers have been written on this subject, and he intended to write a paper himself against the proposal, and would circulate it to BAUK.
Richard West said he didn't like the proposal - using grade 1 made sense if people couldn't intellectually cope with grade 2, but since most braille is in grade 2 the proposal would mean that people would not have access to it. Hans Cohn said that people should have the choice; Bill Poole commented that he thought the proposal would be inimical to choice, especially if RNIB put its weight behind it. Sheila Armstrong agreed. Maggy Grubb, also agreeing, said that although some people need grade 1, the proposal would close the door on grade 2.
Richard West wondered what the thinking was behind this at RNIB. Peter Osborne said that from a production point of view a choice between grade 1 and grade 2 was possible. But if RNIB campaigned for grade 1, it would become the norm, so choice would not be relevant.
(b) Secretary.
Stephen Phippen reported that ABAPSTAS (Association of Blind and Partially Sighted Teachers and Students) have reapplied for BAUK membership (for one representative), so we need to formally accept their application. Lisa Bhogal asked if this matter could be deferred to the next meeting, as there is currently some discussion within ABAPSTAS as to its future. However, Bill Poole and Sheila Armstrong said that internal discussions within ABAPSTAS need not delay our decision, and it was agreed to accept their application.
Stephen Phippen reported that notices announcing amendments to the computer and science braille codes have been placed on the BAUK web site, saying that these changes are now in force. The full code documents themselves have not been amended yet, but will be as soon as time permits.
A new web site has been set up for Moon, to be officially launched on 25th January. The web address is www.moonliteracy.org.uk.
(c) Treasurer.
Iain Millard reported that the BAUK bank balance currently stands at £9925. He will need to look for a new accountant for BAUK since our current one is retiring. Iain said he will need another cheque for £50 for his float so he can pay expenses out of hand. Richard West suggested raising this to £200, which was agreed.
(d) Public Relations Officer.
Lisa Bhogal noted that she had been re-elected as PRO at the last Annual General Meeting in her absence, which she had subsequently accepted. However, she added that she would need to check that her organisation could still afford to send her (i.e. covering travel costs). Bill Poole said that Lisa should continue until her organisation said otherwise.
5. Pharmaceutical Labelling.
Bill Poole reported that a European directive of 2004 stated that there must be braille labelling on all newly licensed medical drug packaging, and patient information leaflets must be available in an accessible format. An EBU (European Blind Union) working group under John Heilbrunn of Denmark was set up to look at this issue. They reported to the RNIB International Committee in October 2004. He learnt in October 2005 that a recommendation had been made, but unexpectedly it included not only a specification for the positioning and dimensions of braille on such packaging, but also recommendations for some braille signs for international use as well. Four signs requiring our particular attention are:
Bill Poole added that this topic was connected to the general question of international standardisation in braille: the WBU (World Blind Union) has wanted to progress the standardisation of such non-alphabetic signs, and to this end a working group has been set up to form a World Braille Council (WBC).
Peter Osborne said that packaging manufacturers are already beginning to use the new guidelines, and sometimes ask RNIB for artwork for braille labels. He asked whether the guidelines apply only to packaging labels, or to the patient information leaflet as well. Bill Poole replied that it appeared only to apply to the packaging - the patient information could be supplied in another medium, e.g. audio, or in braille by a producer such as RNIB using normal transcription standards.
Lisa Bhogal noted that in her experience the dosage frequency is absent from the braille labelling; Peter Osborne explained that stating the frequency is not mandatory in the specification.
Hans Cohn was concerned about the logistics: is a chemist required to keep braille instructions for each medicine? Bill Poole and Peter Osborne explained that whereas all packaging will be labelled, it is stated that patient information will be issued via "patient organisations".
Richard West asked why, given the issue of language differences, labels are not dealt with separately within different countries? Stephen Phippen answered that the medicine label appearing on the package is fixed - only the patient information leaflet is liable to differ between countries.
Lisa Bhogal raised the possibility that "mcg" might not be suitable for "micrograms" in German, as she thought that in that language the word is spelt with a "k" rather than a "c"; but it was agreed that this would be an issue for the German-speaking countries to raise if they felt it was a problem.
Peter Osborne said he thought the four signs now proposed were a step forward from the previous signs, and we should accept them, if only as a temporary solution. It would be too difficult to go back at this stage. However, David Boden said he was still not happy with dot 3 for decimal point and full stop, and Richard West said that his first choice would be to follow individual countries' standards, then to look for other alternatives if this failed.
Stephen Phippen emphasised the need for urgency in this matter. Manufacturers are producing labels now, and are asking RNIB for guidance; RNIB is also setting up training for this. There needs to be a standard which can be used now.
Bill Poole agreed that he will talk to John Heilbrunn to see what can be done.
6. UEB Samples Booklet.
Bill Poole reported that Stephen Phippen had recently circulated to members of the Literary Code Committee a complete draft of the samples booklet including the introduction, questions, and a range of samples, and suggested that this matter be progressed within that committee, with the addition of any other members who were interested. Both Richard West and Lisa Bhogal expressed an interest in being included in this process.
The introduction and questions (which Bill Poole drafted) had been circulated earlier to the whole BAUK membership for consideration, and some responses to these have been received. He agreed that it was not necessary to include the membership of BAUK in the introduction. Marion Ripley and others (to some extent) thought that the information giving the history of the project was excessive; Marion had in fact drafted a rewrite to show where she thought the text could be shortened or improved, and this was very useful. Bill Poole asked the meeting if they agreed that the introduction included too much history. Peter Osborne said he thought there should be some context to explain why we have got to where we are now, but Sheila Armstrong thought that many people would not be interested in this.
Marion also suggested that separate questions should be given asking for a personal opinion of UEB, and then an opinion as to the benefit for others or for the future. Bill Poole said that at present he was not inclined to agree with this suggestion, as he had intended that people write freely whatever they wanted to say in answer to the question given. He also noted that this consultation was not intended to be mandatory, and the booklet should say this.
It was agreed that the Literary Code Committee should hold a meeting to complete this work; once that committee are happy with the booklet it can be released to the public without referring the matter back to BAUK. As regards timescale, Bill Poole added that we should try to have the booklet completed and released before the next BAUK meeting.
Bill Poole suggested that we should ask the Birmingham Research Centre to process the responses; Peter Osborne agreed (although we do not know who currently runs the centre, or how much they would charge).
7. Update on Braille Promotion.
Richard West reported that he had sent out an updated version of his article on braille in the last few days, and would like it to be used now. He suggested having it put into an RNIB magazine, and in NALSVI News.
8. Any Other Business: No items were raised.
9. Dates of next meetings: 21st March 2006; 4th July 2006.
[BAUK web site: www.bauk.org.uk.]