BA/1/09
Meeting held at 1 pm on 1 December 2008 at RNIB, 105 Judd Street, London WC1H 9NE.
1. Rollcall: John Savage, David Boden, Richard West, Jane Sellers, Iain Millard, Stephen Phippen, David McKerral, Anne Donnelly, Lisa Jones, Marion Ripley, Michael Townsend, Bill Poole, Jim McCafferty, Sarah Home, Hans Cohn.
Apologies: Steve McCall, Maggy Grubb, Sue Clamp, Alison Roberts, Peter Osborne.
The Chair, Bill Poole, explained that the meeting would consist of two parts, the first formally dealing with a legal document and agreement concerning the transfer of BAUK's assets to UKAAF (UK Association for Accessible Formats). The second part of the meeting would follow the normal BAUK agenda as circulated.
Part 1 of the meeting is minuted separately (as prepared by the solicitor). It was additionally agreed that Lisa Jones be paid £500 expenses for her work in dealing with responses from the UEB (Unified English Braille) questionnaire. Alan West would also be paid for producing the analysis of the responses. The vote on resolution 6 in the prepared document from the solicitor was passed by 15 to 0.
Part 2 of the meeting follows:
2. Minutes of the last meeting. With regard to item 5 (merger discussion), Marion Ripley asked for clarification on where it said that there would be a check on the numbers of UKAAF members coming from particular organisations. It was explained that this meant organisations such as RNIB, not the merging organisations. Marion then asked for confirmation that if a member was not an official representative of such an organization then this condition would not apply; this was confirmed.
3. Matters arising from the minutes.
Bill Poole asked if there was any news about the BAUK fees not yet paid by AVIOS and NLBD. Iain Millard replied that AVIOS had now paid, but NLBD had said it had decided not to continue with BAUK (so fees are not due). Richard West remarked that NLBD would therefore not be transferred to UKAAF from BAUK (but could apply to be a member separately).
Iain Millard then raised the issue of BAUK's standing order for ICEB (International Council on English Braille) subscription fees, which is arranged to go out in January. In reply it was reported that the UKAAF Interim Board had now discussed this matter, and had agreed that BAUK should stop this transfer going ahead, and that UKAAF would make the payment itself.
On item 5, it was stated that the first UKAAF AGM would take place in the second calendar quarter, where there will be elections to the first official board. The Chair of the User Group would be a member of the board.
On item 6, the Louis Braille bicentenary celebrations, Bill Poole reported that we are negotiating with Melvyn Bragg to get an item on braille on his "In Our Time" programme on BBC Radio 4. They would need to sort out speakers - Bill Poole said that he would be willing to be a speaker, which the meeting supported. Mike Townsend also reported that a service to commemorate Louis Braille would take place at 12.00 (noon) on 21st March, at St. Martin in the Fields (Trafalgar Square, London).
On item 8 (International Phonetic Alphabet braille code), Bill Poole reported that it had been agreed to delegate to a working group the task of determining the basis on which the new IPA braille code developed under ICEB could be brought to be the official UK IPA braille code. To carry this forward it would be necessary to get the new UKAAF board to set up a task group - he would suggest the same people as in the current BAUK working group for this. A task group would also be needed to take forward considering and implementing proposed amendments to British Braille which had been collected (he suggests the current BAUK LCC members for this). Another matter was arranging a meeting of the Joint Technical Committee to consider UEB. Richard West thought that the latter would also have to be progressed as a new task group, and made a general point that a document should be drawn up and sent to UKAAF, listing all the items requiring task groups. Adding to this Bill Poole also mentioned the need for a foreign language task group to take forward the translations of the French and German braille codes.
On item 3, Bill Poole reported that he had not yet received any list of signs which the EBU (European Blind Union), wanted to agree to, for use on labels. There was a need to get people to appreciate that there is a public interest in moving this matter forward. The sought agreement would apply to labels generally, not just pharmaceutical labels. This would again be an item for a UKAAF task group ("Braille labelling of commercial products").
4. Officers' reports.
(a) Chair. Bill Poole said he had no additional items to report.
(b) Secretary.
Stephen Phippen reported that we now have an extension for the BAUK web site address for a further two years, allowing public access to this material until such time as a UKAAF site is ready to take it on. Mike Townsend asked if the BAUK archives will be passed over to UKAAF. Bill Poole replied that only himself and Stephen Phippen hold archive material: we will need to talk about this matter and progress it. Richard West suggested adding a notice to the BAUK web site (when appropriate), stating that it had transferred to UKAAF, and adding a link to their site. Hans Cohn remarked that the BAUK committees should be informed about what is going on as regards the merger, which was agreed.
Lisa Jones told the meeting of the death of Danny Denny in July, who had been Chair of the BAUK Shorthand Committee. Loughborough College (where he worked), were now looking for a replacement braille teacher.
(c) Treasurer.
Iain Millard reported that BAUK currently has £17,086 in its account. Richard West asked how much of the £15,000 given to BAUK by RNIB for the UEB consultation is left - it may need to be returned to RNIB. This was not known at the meeting, but the £10,000 donated to BAUK by RNIB for the ICEB conference has all been spent.
(d) Public Relations Officer. Mike Townsend reported that he had made broadcasts about UEB (e.g. on "In Touch"). He would be happy to make further broadcasts either on the merger, or on whatever is decided at this meeting about UEB.
5. UEB consultation.
Bill Poole opened this item by saying that two sets of analyses of the responses to the UEB questionnaire had now been made; the main set had already been circulated to BAUK members, and the second, which contained some additional details, would be circulated with the minutes of the current meeting. He asked for opinions about the results.
Marion Ripley said that she would find it helpful to outline some options:
1. Accept UEB and move ahead with the technical evaluation.
2. Do the technical evaluation, and reconsider UEB as a whole after that.
3. Not go ahead with UEB, but revisit it in 5 years time.
4. Say that we are not interested in UEB.
Mike Townsend added a fifth: Support the use of UEB as a code, so it could be a continuing decision for BAUK. However, Richard West thought that this option would need an explanation from BAUK as to its purpose.
Hans Cohn wanted discussion on what we thought of the results of the questionnaire. He felt that the response rate was pitifully low (e.g. compared to the capitalization questionnaire which received 1200 responses). He thought the response from the over 64 group was very low; however, Richard West disagreed: there were 151 responses from this group.
David McKerral asked how it had been decided who would receive questionnaires, to which it was replied that the names came from the RNIB and Scottish Braille Press circulation lists, in addition to which we advertised it wherever possible. Marion Ripley thought that we hadn't really missed anything as regards distribution, and that we had done our best.
Mike Townsend said he was also disappointed by the response rate. We had thought of doing other events such as road shows, but this did not happen. He thought a lot of people weren't interested in doing a questionnaire; although most people go for no change rather than change, with more information they would have participated more. He thought that braille should be allowed to evolve, like print does. Richard West thought that the comments received in the responses showed an element of misunderstanding about print from braille readers. Hans Cohn said that the straitjacket on braille is not one we have created, but is inherent in its own character, i.e. the fact that braille consists of only 64 characters means that it becomes cumbersome through multi-cell signs being used. But Mike Townsend replied that he thought an extra straitjacket had been applied through BAUK and BANA (Braille Authority of North America).
Anne Donnelly said that there had been a lot of changes in braille over the years, and people still find some of these difficult: they are still coming to terms with the list of changes from the last edition of British Braille. If we introduce UEB now it could kill braille off; she was working very hard to keep it going. Jim McCafferty said he supported that view 100 per cent, and many others also agreed. Lisa Jones said that she took braille exams in 1999, but was retaking them now to refresh, which cost £400. If UEB was introduced she would have to go through all this again, with additional expense. She agreed it would kill off braille.
David McKerral agreed that if UEB went through, the number of braille readers would go down, and RNIB might drop it, just like it had dropped Moon. He knew many older readers who have said they would stop reading braille if UEB were introduced.
Bill Poole said that he was known within ICEB not to be a supporter of UEB. He was very disappointed over the turnout for the questionnaire. There is a suggestion that if people don't want change they won't vote; another factor might be that some people held a view that it doesn't matter if I don't vote, as BAUK will do what they want anyway. In response to Mike Townsend's previous comments, there are reasons why braille is more legislated for than print: There was a time when there was greater diversity in braille, but this led to mutual incomprehension. At the turn of the century different states in the US had different codes, but in 1932, together with us, they adopted SEB as the single code. If we didn't legislate the diversity would be to people's disadvantage. He regretted there hadn't been more workshops. But the headline figures are clear: 24% of respondents were in favour of UEB and 76% against, with 33% saying that it would benefit future braille readers and 66% saying not. We could not adopt UEB as the UK code on this basis. Nor did he think we could adopt UEB as a code (as some suggested). If we are to respect the views of those who expressed a view, but we are still interested in UEB, then the only option for us is to leave UEB for now and revisit it at a later date. It was a similar situation with capitalisation in braille - opinion could change; but he couldn't vote for a two code solution.
David McKerral said that he wanted UEB to be dropped completely.
Richard West said that he had found it necessary to defend BAUK in various groups, e.g. saying that the reason braille is as uniform and stable as it is, is because of BAUK. As far as UEB is concerned, he agreed with Bill Poole that we couldn't go ahead with it on the basis of the questionnaire results. But we can still test the usefulness of the maths/science aspect: UEB has the benefit that you do not have to learn two sets of characters. As regards the future of braille, he thought the main factor was the lack of teaching of braille, not whether or not UEB is used.
Mike Townsend said that he was not surprised by the reactions expressed at this meeting. One of his biggest disappointments since being a member of BAUK is its emphasis on codes rather than the promotion of braille - the latter is more important as regards the future of braille. He thought that the people answering the questionnaire weren't aware of what UEB could do, e.g. it could standardize braille displays, help automate translation, is bi-directional - we need to have the option to encode print if we want to. He would accept doing more work on the braille system to benefit the future, and UEB could help with the answer. Braille readers to whom he has shown UEB have not found it to be a problem. We are on a journey: braille has changed, but we can still read braille produced in the 1950's. He is not suggesting that we remove all controls from braille standards, but we need braille to live, so it is suitable for 100 years time as it is for now.
Hans Cohn remarked that there are no initiatives elsewhere to introduce proposals along the same lines as UEB, but Bill Poole and Mike Townsend disagreed.
Bill Poole, commenting on the remarks so far, said that he would personally read braille regardless of whether or not UEB were introduced, and that people generally shouldn't really have much difficulty reading ordinary literary text in UEB. He agreed that braille promotion was in fact the main factor affecting the future of braille, and thought that code maintenance and braille promotion should be separate activities. The bi-directionality of UEB translation was stressed at the workshops as one of its main benefits. He thought that UEB had been a missed opportunity for reform, e.g. in not pruning the list of contractions at the lower end of the usefulness scale; on the other hand he did not approve of some of the contraction deletions, such as sequencing: he was confident that sequencing was something that people could cope with. UEB had deleted 9 contractions, 6 or 7 of which were frequent enough that people would have some difficulty reading older texts. He thought generally there were more problems with the writing rules for UEB than for the reading rules. He had been working on UEB for a long time, and looked forward to being able to be relieved from that task, whatever decision is made. While working on UEB his aim had been to make it as good as it could be.
Mike Townsend said that RNIB is looking at saving money in its braille production, and thought that UEB could help in this by making transcription easier, and facilitating the exchange of files. Anne Donnelly asked if UEB was for the comfort of the producer or the user, to which Mike Townsend replied, the user, as it would enable more braille to be produced. What would be worse is no braille being produced. Bill Poole pointed out that when BAUK was reformed the aim was to make sure that all types of braille user had an equal say - both readers and producers. Hans Cohn asked whether it was a real possibility that RNIB would stop producing braille according to British Braille rules. Mike Townsend replied that it was not. John Savage asked, cannot modern translation software deal with the different varieties of braille anyway (without having to standardize)?; Mike Townsend replied that it could not.
A series of votes were then taken on the following motions:
1. In the light of the consultation results no further action on UEB should take place. Rejected by 9 votes to 4.
2. The temporary status accorded to UEB as a trial code in the UK should be suspended. Accepted by 8 votes to 3.
3. Work should be done to test the usability and validity of UEB as a technical braille code (e.g. for maths, science and computing). Accepted by 13 votes to 1.
It was also agreed that the results of that work be reported back to UKAAF by the end of 2010.
4. Following the outcome the above UEB technical code evaluation, we would revisit UEB in 2013. Accepted by 11 votes to 0.
It was agreed that a public statement about these decisions on UEB should be made: Stephen Phippen will put a statement on the BAUK web site, together with the text of the questionnaire results from the first analysis. Mike Townsend said he could make an announcement on "In Touch". It was agreed that the questionnaire results could be sent out on request.
In his closing remarks to the meeting, Bill Poole said that having been Chair of BAUK for 30 years, he had very much enjoyed the debates, which he thought were always fair and honest. The closing of BAUK was the end of an era. The meeting thanked Bill Poole for his great work and service to BAUK over the years. The meeting also thanked the Secretary, Stephen Phippen, for his work over many years, and likewise the Treasurer, Iain Millard.
The meeting closed.