BA/7/06
Meeting held at 1.30 pm on 4th July 2006 at RNIB, 105 Judd Street, London WC1H 9NE.
1. Rollcall: Ann Marsh, Iain Millard, Lisa Bhogal, Stephen Phippen, Peter Osborne, Barbara Leighton, David Boden, Peter Wilkins, Maggy Grubb, Marion Ripley, Hans Cohn, Bill Poole, Michael Townsend, Alison Roberts, Claire Wilson (guest).
Apologies: Richard West, Jim McCafferty, Steve Pendleton, Sue Clamp, Steve McCall, Fred Jakeman, Rhoda Carratt, Jill Allen-King.
2. The minutes of the last meeting were agreed.
3. Matters arising from the minutes. Marion Ripley reported that the braille and Moon learners survey had been published by NLB (National Library for the Blind).
4. Officers' Reports.
(a) Chair.
Bill Poole reported that there had been a letter published in NB magazine commenting on the braille rule changes and querying BAUK's authority; the letter was read out. Stephen Phippen had drafted a brief response on BAUK's behalf (which he summarised for the meeting), but this had not been written in time to be published in NB with the original letter; however, it was hoped that it would be included in another issue. Peter Wilkins said that the author was probably voicing views which others shared, and in fact his wife had been puzzled when she first met the changes in Braille Radio Times; however, Bill Poole suggested that the author was voicing views of the uninformed. BAUK had issued a list of the changes, and it was up to publishers to put suitable notices in magazines.
Hans Cohn said that BAUK had spent a very long time considering the braille changes and dealing with feedback; if we had extended this process further it would have taken even longer. Bill Poole made the point that the amount you consult depends on the seriousness of the changes proposed, e.g. deciding on UEB would involve wide public consultation; in addition, when taking account of feedback you cannot just take the majority view on all points, because braille rules are interrelated.
Marion Ripley said she thought that it was right that a response to the letter be made, and that Stephen's reply seemed adequate.
(b) Secretary.
Stephen Phippen stated the dates of the next BAUK meetings which had been arranged: 29th November 2006, 21st March 2007, 3rd July 2007. These were agreed.
The BAUK web address is due for renewal in December, and the issue of it being owned by another person had still not been resolved from last time. We could look for another name, but in the first place Stephen will contact the name's owner again to see if it can be properly transferred.
Peter Osborne said there could be an issue with regard to RNIB's and NLB's membership of BAUK, given their merger plans. Bill Poole said that we could perhaps look at increasing the number of representatives a combined RNIB and NLB should have, but that can wait until the circumstance arises.
(c) Treasurer.
The annual accounts had been circulated before the meeting and were approved. Iain Millard reported that Torch Trust and Scottish Braille Press had yet to pay this year's membership fees. A new accountant had been secured for BAUK, and will charge the same rate as the previous accountant (£25) for the preparation of the annual financial report.
(d) Public Relations Officer.
Lisa Bhogal said that she had not been well before April and not been able to do much; as a consequence she had nothing to report. Peter Wilkins commented that Lisa had nevertheless made regular contributions in email discussions, which Bill Poole agreed was useful.
5. Elections.
The following officers of BAUK were elected: Chair: Bill Poole; Vice Chair: Peter Osborne; Secretary: Stephen Phippen; Treasurer: Iain Millard; Public Relations Officer: Mike Townsend; Trustees: Richard West and David Boden. Marion Ripley was elected as a co-opted member.
Mike Townsend suggested advertising for a further co-opted place. Stephen stated that according to the BAUK constitution, the number of co-opted members must not exceed one-eighth of the total number of ordinary members: currently this would allow up to 3 co-opted members (the elected Chair is automatically deemed as a co-opted member). Lisa Bhogal asked if a clause could be added to the constitution to the effect that a co-option could be made for the purpose of increasing the range of the BAUK membership. Bill Poole said that a change could be drafted for consideration at the next meeting. Lisa Bhogal asked if the constitution could be sent out to members; it was agreed that the Secretary would send it out on request, rather than making a general send out.
The Literary Code Committee was re-elected, with Lisa Bhogal replacing Gail Chester. The members are now: Bill Poole (Chair), Sheila Armstrong, Lisa Bhogal, Hans Cohn, Barbara Leighton, Stephen Phippen, Marion Ripley, Peter Wilkins, Allan Young.
The question was raised as to whether the names of members of BAUK and its various committees ought to be placed on the BAUK web site; Peter Wilkins who raised this thought it would be a good idea. Peter Osborne asked if we had Data Protection registration, to which the answer was that we did not. After discussion it was agreed that the names of members could be added to the web site, but not addresses or other details at this stage. People could convey their views on this to the Secretary.
6. Reports from Committees.
Richard West was not present at the meeting, but had sent a report to say that the Braille Promotion Committee had not met, but an article had been produced promoting the value of braille, which had been reproduced in several places.
Mike Townsend suggested that Braille promotion be made a regular item on the BAUK agenda. There has been lively debate on braille in the VI Forum, especially with regard to the RNIB proposal to make grade 1 the default for younger readers. Claire Wilson has collected these messages into one document; she could send it to the Secretary who could in turn send it out on request. Marion Ripley commented that there were many memorable quotes in this collection.
Lisa Bhogal said that Mike Townsend, as Public Relations Officer, should now be added to the Braille Promotion Committee. Mike Townsend said he thought the BPC should meet more in order to start things moving. Bill Poole said he would talk to Richard West about this.
7. UEB Consultation.
Bill Poole reminded the meeting that a group had been set up to determine how to take the UEB consultancy process forward given the high projected costs of analysing the responses and producing a report. Bill Poole, Richard West and Peter Osborne held a conference call using a method suggested by Marion Ripley, which had gone well.
Peter Osborne had taken notes, and reported on the discussion to the meeting. One option considered was to scale down the survey in some way; however, they had moved away from the idea of limiting the number of participants in the consultation. It was also thought that the process should be managed by professional people, so that the results would be robust. Answering in braille or email, etc., should be possible, but audio could be difficult to handle, so was excluded. Recent developments at RNIB and its braille strategy might mean that RNIB would be able to offer support for the consultation. The rest of this year should be spent on thinking about what we might want to do, e.g. run workshops, etc., then the consultation process itself could perhaps take place in 2007-8.
RNIB has an investment fund which might be released for this work, if written in to a specific project; however, there are other areas requiring investment (such as braille translation software), so UEB consultation would just form part of the overall package. It would be necessary to bid for funds, and some preparation work would be needed to make this bid.
In conclusion, BAUK needs a clear position on what it is doing with UEB, so that by 2008 (the next ICEB Assembly), the UK's stand is clear.
Lisa Bhogal wondered if there might be a possibility of someone conducting this research as an academic thesis. Bill Poole said that it might be possible, but it would be at least a year-long project; Peter Osborne added that the quality of the research would also not be assured.
Mike Townsend asked how UEB consultation had been conducted elsewhere, e.g. in Australia. Bill Poole replied that he thought focus groups had been used, but he was not sure whether all braille users had been consulted. Canada have a grant to fund a research project on UEB over two years. Canada has not yet decided whether to adopt UEB; but Australia, South Africa, Nigeria and New Zealand have definitely decided to adopt it. In Canada there is division of opinion, with concerns over the impact on students, and the potential divergence from the US. In the US there seems to be little activity with UEB at the moment; again there is a division of opinion, with some people keen to see the Nemeth maths code as part of UEB, whilst others want UEB to stay as it is. Hans Cohn asked whether the American Council and Federation are still opposed to UEB. Bill Poole replied that they were when UEB was last voted upon, though there is mixed opinion within these organisations.
Hans Cohn asked whether we had dropped the idea of using volunteers to help with the consultation. Peter Osborne replied that because of the scale of the process, it would be necessary instead to work through an agency. Bill Poole also emphasised the desirability of the analysis being done independently of BAUK, in order to maintain credibility. This was a reason why it would be very useful to latch on RNIB funding and resources if possible. Some people will be sceptical whatever BAUK does, but most will listen if the research is done independently.
Hans Cohn asked if the fact that we were doing a survey would mean that we would not have to make a decision ourselves. Bill Poole replied, no: it would be a consultation process, and the outcome will be more nuanced than that. We would have to decide what will be in the best interests of braille users.
Mike Townsend commented that we will need to have a large amount of material in UEB available. Stephen Phippen said that it was relatively easy to create UEB, as the Duxbury DBT translation program is already set up to be able to produce in that code as an option (as well as normal SEB, of course). Mike Townsend added that the samples needed to be realistic, unlike the samples used previously which contained too many "road blocks" for easy reading. He thought we should move towards exposing people to UEB, and was in favour of the idea of making a bid for funding as part of an RNIB package on developing braille. He hoped that a genuinely positive approach could be engendered, rather than people falling into camps as was the case with the debate on capitals.
Marion Ripley suggested that we could have a stand at Sight Village with UEB books available to give away. Stephen Phippen asked if it would be expensive to produce a magazine in UEB. Peter Osborne said he would like to produce a range of magazines, perhaps in both UEB and SEB versions, for people to try.
Hans Cohn asked if UEB implied using capitals. Stephen Phippen replied that there is an expectation with UEB that capitals are being shown, but you could get around this if you wanted to; Bill Poole agreed. Mike Townsend thought that in our trials we should use normal UEB (i.e. showing capitals), and then if necessary revisit the matter. This was agreed.
Mike Townsend asked how UEB would be maintained as a code. Stephen Phippen replied that there was already a standing UEB Committee under ICEB which was responsible for this.
Peter Osborne suggested that there should be a working group within BAUK which would do more detailed work on how to progress the UEB evaluation. This was agreed, and the following were included: Peter Osborne (who would convene the discussions), Mike Townsend, Stephen Phippen, Marion Ripley, Hans Cohn, Bill Poole.
8. Report on ICEB Executive meeting. This will be made after the minutes of the meeting from the ICEB Secretary have been made available.
9. Any Other Business.
2009 is the bicentennial of Louis Braille's birth. A paper was written for the International Forum suggesting that this would be an opportunity to bring braille to the fore. How is this to be done? Bill Poole replied that he was not sure; he thought WBU (World Blind Union) would be making arrangements for this occasion. Mike Townsend suggested that tours to Louis Braille's birth place, etc, could be promoted. Hans Cohn said he was dubious about sending funds to France if the French government itself was not supporting it financially. Bill Poole wanted to make a distinction between using the event as an opportunity to promote braille, as opposed to just a chance for people to focus on a place of veneration. Bill Poole asked for people's views on Hans Cohn's suggestion that a braille reading competition be run in that year, e.g. would it be worthwhile, given that it would be a closed event aimed at blind people only? Peter Wilkins wondered if it could be opened out by getting someone to read the news from braille on TV one night; and Peter Osborne agreed that something of this sort with a high profile would be good - the Ideal Home Exhibition, the Chelsea Flower Show and Songs of Praise were mentioned.
Marion Ripley asked if the NLB reader survey report could be made an agenda item at the next meeting, with the report circulated.
Peter Osborne mentioned that the issue of pharmaceutical labelling in braille was still live, and that the pharmaceutical industry needed standards to work with. Stephen Phippen commented that the standards emanating from EBU (with amendments resulting from our feedback) were supposed to be the working standards. It was agreed that it would be appropriate to put these on the BAUK web site for people to refer to.
The meeting closed.
Next BAUK meeting: 29th November 2006.
[BAUK web site: www.bauk.org.uk]