BA/1/08
Meeting held at 1.30 pm on 12 December 2007 at RNIB, 105 Judd Street, London WC1H 9NE.
1. Rollcall: Iain Millard, Christine Washbrook (observer, Royal National College of the Blind), Peter Osborne, Sheila Armstrong, Jim McCafferty, Jane Sellers, David Boden, Richard West, Hans Cohn, Bill Poole, Lisa Jones, Stephen Phippen, Marion Ripley, Alison Roberts, John Savage, Sarah Morley-Wilkins (observer, Chair of COTIS).
Apologies: Barbara Leighton, Maggy Grubb, Steve McCall, Fred Jakeman, David McKerral.
2. Minutes of the last meeting (3 July 2007): Lisa Jones said that her name had been omitted from the Literary Code Committee list of members in the recent BAUK Membership and Structure document, but that this had now been rectified. Hans Cohn said that the number of National Federation representatives had reduced from 3 to 2, not from 2 to 1.
3. Matters arising from the minutes. Hans Cohn asked if there had been any meetings of the Music Committee (there had not), and offered to be a member if a vacancy arose. He added that he wanted to re-publish his paper on the physical aspects of reading braille to allow him to add a case history, and would also like time for his paper to be discussed at a BAUK meeting. Bill Poole replied that it might be possible to make time for this at the March meeting.
4. Officers' Reports.
(a) Chair.
Bill Poole reported that the Australian Braille Authority (ABA) and Round Table have funding of 34,000 Australian dollars to do a UEB rulebook, and have asked ICEB (International Council on English Braille) for its support. Bill Poole said that he has expressed concern that the proposal presented to ICEB stated that the resulting rulebook would be the property of ABA; but ICEB must be responsible for maintaining UEB - so how could this be guaranteed if the codebook was owned by one country? The meeting shared this concern, and Richard West remarked - should not the rulebook be in the public domain?
Stephen Phippen said that RNIB have already responded positively to a request from Australia for them to use the file for the Braille Primer to create a UEB edition of the Primer. At the time, we raised the question of the ultimate ownership of the created UEB Primer, and suggested it should belong to ICEB. Richard West suggested we could request that ICEB formally asks ABA to produce the rulebook on its behalf, so that ICEB will retain ownership. Bill Poole said that this matter can be raised at the forthcoming ICEB Assembly.
(b) Secretary.
Stephen Phippen reported that he has had communication with BSI (the British Standards Institute) concerning BAUK's representation on BSI Committee CH/173: Assistive Products for Persons with Disability. Richard West has been on this committee, but wishes to stand down. BSI is asking if BAUK wants to put forward a replacement. Richard West said that we originally became interested because of a German proposal on computer braille, but since then he has not seen anything of interest for us. Lisa Jones asked if there would be items of interest to COTIS or UKABP, but Richard West thought not: most of the items seem to be to do with hoists and other such aids, and were certainly not blind specific. It might be better for RNIB to keep a watching brief. Sarah Morley-Wilkins said that she could raise this with the RNIB scientific section, who may already have a connection with this committee. This was agreed. Stephen Phippen needs to reply to BSI by 21st December.
(c) Treasurer.
Iain Millard reported that there was now £11,243 in the BAUK account. RNIB has agreed to cover the BAUK costs for the ICEB General Assembly, and will transfer £10,000 into the BAUK account for this.
(d) Public Relations Officer.
Michael Townsend was not present at the meeting. Peter Osborne said that a brief had been written for a statue of Louis Braille to be placed in St Pancras Station, and this seems to be going ahead. Richard West commented that a tactile map of the new St Pancras station would be welcome.
5. Merger talks with COTIS (Confederation of Transcribed Information Services) and UKABP (United Kingdom Association of Braille Producers).
Bill Poole said that various documents on this matter had been circulated to BAUK members. At this meeting he wanted to have a vote on whether BAUK should continue with these talks, but did not at this time want a decision on whether or not BAUK should agree to a merger.
Sarah Morley-Wilkins (Chair of COTIS), said that COTIS and UKABP have spent a year discussing whether to merge those organisations, and at their last AGM agreed unanimously to proceed with this; next July they will take a vote. BAUK was also invited to consider joining the merger, and it has been involved in the discussions for the last 8 months. The idea is that a merger would improve use of resources, and give greater recognition to the convergence of multi-formats. The COTIS/UKABP joint newsletter in August highlighted that there are many things in common to both organisations. A draft constitution will be ready for July, and the currently favoured name of the organisation is "United Kingdom Association for Accessible Formats". The plan is to have a board (across all of the merged organisations), with sections reporting into it. BAUK would be a section which retained its visibility as a body, e.g. in international discussions. Other sections would include: accreditiation, finance, promotion, a user advisory panel. We want membership to be as inclusive as possible, but with different levels. There would also be task groups, whose purpose would be to move special projects forward; e.g. establishing a braille certificate. A task group would disband once its task was complete. There would also be people whose responsibility was to keep a watching brief in certain areas. We have had a meeting with the Australian Round Table, which has a similar concept; it is not ideal for our purpose, but we can learn from their experience. The merged organisation would provide a "one stop shop", and would have links with other organisations, such as the Daisy Consortium. The current priorities are: to launch the new organisation in July; create an interesting web site; develop a transcription quality assessment plan; UEB; conversion from analogue tape to digital; large print.
Hans Cohn asked whether the international connections would be English-speaking only, to which Sarah Morley-Wilkins replied that there would be no reason to restrict it to that. Hans then asked, taking BAUK as a model where some organisations only have one repreentative, if there would be sufficient membership to cover all of the proposed wide remit. Bill Poole replied that the structure had not yet been finished, but the proposal would mean a genuine merger with overlaps - people may have multiple interests. There also may be more delegates as needed to cover the tasks.
Peter Osborne said that the working group progressing this should be congratulated for getting as far as the current stage: it was a difficult task.
Bill Poole said he would like to place a resolution that merger talks between COTIS, UKABP and BAUK continue, with a view to producing a final merger document by July 2008 for us to vote on at the BAUK AGM. Peter Osborne suggested that it might be better to be less precise about the date, but Bill Poole replied that the date was only a target. Peter Osborne also commented that from the legal point of view it might be necessary for the meetings of the three organisations at which a vote was taken, to all be on the same date.
Marion Ripley said she was interested to know what the general feeling about this matter was amongst BAUK members - it was not clear to her what people were thinking. Bill Poole said that he didn't know what BAUK's attitude would be, and Sarah Morley-Wilkins added that this was one of the reasons she was attending the meeting. Jim McCafferty said that Scottish Braille Press would welcome it. Hans Cohn said he thought it was a good idea as there were a lot of common interests, but there are many members of BAUK who would have no interest in being in UKABP, for example: not all interests are common. Lisa Jones said that she was a representative in each of the different organisations, and is in favour as long as there is adequate end user representation. Peter Osborne said that he was reassured that it was being said that BAUK's identity and key strengths would be preserved.
Bill Poole said that he was amazed at the speed at which this is taking place, though there is much work to be done by July. He congratulated Sarah Morley-Wilkins for her time and thought put into this.
Hans Cohn asked, if the merger went ahead, would the Chair of BAUK be out of a job? Bill Poole replied that he would, but he may have a role in the new organisation.
Peter Osborne said that RNIB is agreeing to underwrite the legal process to help this merger process, and Bill Poole thanked him for this generous support. Sarah Morley-Wilkins added that she had applied for consultancy for certification and merger documentation.
A vote on the proposal to proceed with these discussions was taken, and agreed unanimously.
6. UEB Consultation.
Bill Poole said that BAUK had passed a resolution at its last July meeting that we would have both workshops and a slimmed down questionnaire for the UEB consultation process. Richard West said that he had prepared such a questionnaire, and also had a solution to the issue of processing responses, which would be cheaper than the VICTAR (Visual Impairment Centre for Teaching and Research) proposal. Bill Poole said that it had been agreed to set up a working group, but this had not progressed things. It would be possible to set up a new working group consisting of not only BAUK members - names put forward were: Bill Poole, George Bell, Christine Washbrook, Marion Ripley, Lisa Jones, Mike Parr, Richard West, Mike Townsend (if willing). Bill Poole suggested that the group was too large, and others agreed.
Hans Cohn said that although Sara Morgan is no longer with us, others may take up her cause. He is concerned that if we continue to cut the questionnaire we may be open to similar criticism as over capitalisation. However, Richard West said that the important point was to distribute the questionnaire widely, not its length.
Alison Roberts said that she was not clear what the purpose of such a group would be, to which Bill Poole replied: to finalize the questionnaire and its distribution, and possibly produce materials in UEB. He thought it would be unrealistsic to have results by the ICEB Genaral Assembly.
Discussion moved on the the resolution from Peter Osborne, circulated to members prior to the meeting: "It is proposed that BAUK should endorse UEB as a code for use in the UK, encouraging members to provide various examples of the code's use to enable braille readers to make an informed choice concerning its potential future use.". He believed that the UK was not yet ready to make a decision on UEB, and his purpose was to address this situation. People needed to be exposed to more information on UEB in a variety of usages. He wanted to give UEB a proper status in the UK, to encourage producers to produce it. He is not proposing that UEB is the only code, but that is a code for use in the UK.
Alison Roberts viewed the aim of the resolution as being to help people come to an educated opinion on UEB. However, Lisa Jones thought that it would be a public relations disaster - people would say that BAUK was introducing UEB by the back door; though she agreed that people should be given materials to help them be more informed on UEB.
Bill Poole made the point that he has publicly stated that BAUK would not introduce UEB without due public consultation, so the proposal as it stands could put his own and BAUK's integrity on the line: UEB could be seen as having equal status as SEB. So he wanted to propose two amendments: (a) that the wording be amended to say that UEB would be endorsed as a trial code; (b) that there be a sunset clause, stating that the trial will expire on 31 December 2008, and that BAUK will decide on the status of the code thereafter at its autumn 2008 meeting.
Jane Sellers said she would like to see more workshops on UEB - so far there had only been the ones at Sight Village. Lisa Jones asked what the status of the resolution would be if BAUK joined the merged COTIS/UKABP. Bill Poole replied that BAUK would become a section within the new organisation, so we should have time and support to decide how to progress this.
Richard West queried if there was a need for the motion; surely as part of the consultation process we could get producers (such as RNIB) to produce UEB materials for the purpose of the questionnaire.
Peter Osborne responded that it was not his intention to push UEB in by the back door, but to provide a platform to help organisations support the consultation. He liked the amendments proposed by Bill Poole, and found them useful. Sarah Morley-Wilkins added that commercial software companies needed a statement to help them put resources into making software for UEB.
Marion Ripley said she was happier with the proposal with the amendments, and went on to ask if we could offer money for organsiations to produce UEB materials? Sarah Morley-Wilkins said that the forthcoming COTIS/UKABP joint newsletter would be done in UEB, and Peter Osborne said that he would like RNIB to do some magazines in UEB, and the resolution would help this come about.
Hans Cohn said that people who read literary braille would be horrified if they thought SEB would be abandoned in favour of UEB. UEB is based on the false premiss that braille should be like print. Why can't we allow user choice, as we have done for capitals? Bill Poole replied that he has a deviancy measure for braille code comparison; and between UK codes and UEB, it would be very low for literary braille, but high for technical braille - so he thought it would be impractical for the two standards to coexist.
A vote was held on Peter Osborne's motion, with Bill Poole's amendments. This was carried by 13 votes to 0.
Bill Poole said that the working group would be empowered to sign off the questionnaire. Peter Osborne said that he would like to offer the services of Mandy White, who in her new post has a role in RNIB for braille projects. Marion Ripley asked what the arrangements would be for financing this project? Richard West said that processing the shortened questionnaire in the form he suggested would cost much less than £5000 using the person he had in mind. Sarah Morley-Wilkins said that her team is also responsible for standards; she might be able to offer research resources, beyond simple questionnaire parameters.
7. Standard for Braille Dimensions.
Sarah Morley-Wilkins spoke on this topic. A voluntary standard has been developed for the height of braille on pharmaceutical packaging: this is 0.46 mm (0.5 mm in the EU), as would typically be produced by a good embosser. Actual braille produced on packaging is nowhere near as high as this, and the low height used was thought not to be legible. Some research by herself and Birmingham University was done to test this; such research has not been done before. The results show that people can read braille at a lower level, i.e. a 0.18 mm height can be read by 93% of braille readers; raising the height to 0.19 or 0.23 mm doesn't increase this figure. At this height people can read almost as well as normal height braille, but below this height people make significantly more errors. This height is also achievable by manufacturers on pharmaceutical packaging, and there will be a European standard on braille size, shape and height for such applications.
Lisa Jones said that the Federation has also worked on this issue with the Coop, not just for medicine packaging, but for other braille applications. Sarah Morley-Wilkins replied that the current research, although meant for medicine packaging, could also be applied to other areas.
As regards the standard for braille coding on pharmaceutical packaging, Sarah Morley-Wilkins advised that if BAUK was approached, it should not go further than what has already been announced on the MHRA (Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) web site. However Stephen Phippen said that at earlier meetings, BAUK had already discussed and provisionally agreed to the then suggested pharmaceutical braille sign changes (i.e. percent, microgramme, full stop or decimal point). Some others have since been added to the list (e.g. the omission of letter signs), but BAUK has not discussed or given its assent to these yet.
Richard West pointed out that there was also the question of whether the embossed material could hold the dot height, to which Sarah Morley-Wilkins replied that there were lots of issues of this type covered in the research.
8. ICEB General Assembly: policy on expected decisions.
Bill Poole reported that Hans Cohn has decided not to go to the ICEB General Assembly, so the UK delegation was now: Bill Poole, Peter Osborne and Mike Townsend.
Stephen Phippen said that at the last General Assembly the UK delegation was faced with important resolutions which it had to decide upon without prior discussion or agreement from BAUK, e.g. the resolution that UEB was now ready and recommended for use. Could we anticipate possible issues which might arise, and gauge BAUK members' opinions before the Assembly? Bill Poole said that no conference papers had been received yet, so it was hard to say what might come up. Richard West wondered if a paper on braille height as just discussed would be suitable, but Sarah Morley-Wilkins said that it might not be ready in time. Hans Cohn's paper on the physical aspects of reading braille was also suggested, but Hans wasn't sure it would be suitable.
9. Any Other Business.
Stephen Phippen asked if he should put a notice on the BAUK web site (beyond what was in the minutes) about the merger talks. However, because COTIS had been unable to update its web site, it was thought that BAUK should leave this for the moment.
The meeting closed.