UBC Evaluation Report -- Australia
1998-7-13

Data were collected from 68 surveys completed by braille users in Australia, regarding the individuals' use of braille, their opinions regarding suggested changes and additions to the braille code, and opinions regarding the symbols to be changed or added. Data were analyzed with the intention of both identifying trends in opinions regarding various changes in the braille code, and the specific characteristics of the braille users holding these opinions.

The opening portion of the survey asks respondents to describe their braille usage. Respondents identified themselves as either technical or non-technical users of the braille code, with 100% of Australia's respondents labeling themselves technical. Surveys for technical and non-technical users vary slightly, with technical users being asked to complete an additional section regarding symbols for use in the technical code. Respondents also characterized their primary interactions with the braille code as either reading, proofreading, teaching or transcribing. The largest percentage, 37%, labeled themselves teachers, 32% readers, 19% transcribers, and the remaining 12% proofreaders. The mean number of years the respondents had been using the braille code was 23.5. Additionally, the mean percentage of reading done in braille by respondents was 63%. About half of respondents read braille by touch, with the other half reading by sight. Thirty - eight per cent of the respondents preferred to do all of their reading in braille, while about 20 per cent preferred to read recreational, technical, reference materials, or notes and labels in braille.

Data for technical and non-technical users were not analyzed separately, as there were no people labeling themselves non-technical. Frequencies of responses to survey items were calculated in order to identify areas of opposition. OLS regression coefficients were not calculated, as there were an insufficient number of respondents to produce reliable regression results.

The first 19 items on the survey consist of a series of questions in which the respondent is asked to rate on a scale of one to five, UBC features, such as capitalized passage indicators, or strategies, such as having a unified code for all reading matter. Question 20, regarding quotation mark symbols in UBC, is identical in format but was administered only to technical users. A score of one indicates the respondent felt the feature was completely unacceptable, while a score of two indicates the feature was judged simply unnecessary. A score of three indicates the respondent was neutral toward the feature. A score of four indicates the respondent felt the feature was a good idea, and a score of five indicated the respondent felt the feature was absolutely essential. A majority of respondents favored all but one of the UBC features or strategies in question. In the case of the UBC provision for six different quotation mark symbols, those favoring (48.5%) out numbered those opposing (33.9%), but were unable to constitute a majority. On the average, 77% of respondents favored a given feature or strategy, while 13% were opposed. A summary of results of questions one through twenty may be found in Table 1.

Item 21 asks respondents to rate new and previously changed UBC symbols, and EBAE or British braille contractions not allowed in UBC, choosing from the following response categories: 1) symbol is acceptable, 2) symbol should be struck from the UBC code, and 3) symbol is all right but the wrong characters have been chosen for its representation. A majority approved of all of the new symbols. On average 5.8% of respondents felt the new symbols should be struck form the UBC. Users were most opposed to the non directional double quote with 14.7% answering the symbol should be struck from the record. The mean percentage of users who were in favor of the new symbols, but in a different representation was 9.2%. More users were in favor of changing the symbol representation for the new end boldface passage indicator, with 14.7% favoring each of the symbols in a different representation. A summary of these results may be found in Table 2.

Respondents chose from the same answer categories to rate previously changed symbols. Majorities of users were in favor of all of the changed symbols. The average percentage favoring any one changed symbol was 70%, with the forward slash garnering the least favor, with 50%. On the average, 11.6% of users were opposed to the changed symbols, feeling the symbols under examination should be struck from the code. The decimal point earned the most opposition from users with 23.5% opposing the symbol. A summary of these results may be found in Table 3.

The last section of question 21 asks respondents to use the same answer categories to rate symbols for EBAE and British braille contractions not allowed in UBC. Unlike above, majorities of respondents were not in favor of the symbols examined. On the average users were only 33.5% in favor of the contraction symbol and 59.7% opposed. Users opinions regarding the contracted form of "ble" when followed by a word form the only exception to this pattern with 77.9% of users favoring the contraction symbol and 13.2% of users opposing. Table 4 provides a summary of these results.

Question 22 asked users to rate new and previously changed symbols for use in the technical code. While identical in format to question 21, question 22 was administered only to technical users. Majorities of technical users were in favor of all of the new symbols examined. On the average, 88% of respondents were in favor of the new symbols, while 6% were opposed and 5% were in favor of a new symbol in an alternative representation. The symbol for minus sign had the weakest support with only 78% favoring the new symbol, 8% opposing the new symbol and 14% favoring the symbol in a different representation. Results of opinions regarding changed symbols were nearly identical to those regarding new symbols, with on the average 90.5% approving, 5.5% opposing, and 4% favoring the changed symbol in a different representation. Summaries of these results may be found in Tables 5 and 6.

TABLE 1

Results of Survey Questions 1 - 20; given in % Opposing (answering unacceptable or unnecessary) and % Favoring (answering good idea or essential)

Question Oppose Favor
Unified code for all reading matter, except braille music 11.7 79.5
All characters should be 6 - dot, 8 - dot not considered 7.4 77.9
UBC should encompass both grades I and II braille 4.4 86.7
No major changes in grade II contractions 14.7 73.5
Both beginning and advanced readers should be able to use UBC 10.3 83.8
Accuracy of computer translations should not be increased at the expense of readability of braille 10.3 82.4
UBC should have base code and method for creating technical extensions 3 89.7
All persons learning the base code should be required to learn common technical extensions 4.4 89.7
Symbols of multiple characters constructed with determinable beginnings and endings 4.4 89.7
Rules for making extension symbols should provide that those symbols are not ambiguous 2.9 95.6
Braille text should accurately reflect printed text, even if it is necessary to change some symbols 16.2 76.4
Some EBAE / British braille contractions have been dropped for rule violations or ambiguity 23.5 63.2
Spaces should not be omitted from one cell whole word contractions in the UBC 20.6 66.1
Contracted form of by must have a space before the word that follows and be distinguishable from was 20.6 73.5
Contracted form of to must be followed by an intervening space, despite ambiguous cell position 25 64.7
UBC has more symbols than UBAE / British braille and can more accurately represent printed text 13.3 78
UBC Grade I indicators clearly show the boundaries of a Grade I passage in a Grade II passage 11.8 64.7
Capitalized passage indicator eliminates clutter of having only capitalized word indicator 5.9 91.2
UBC provides indicators for special type styles such as sans serif, bold and underline 26.5 64.7
UBC provides six different quotation marks 33.9 48.5

TABLE 2

Results of Survey Question 21 regarding New Symbols; given in % Favoring symbol, % Opposing symbol, and % Favoring the symbol in a different representation

Symbol Favor Oppose Change
Begin capitalized passage indicator 85.3 4.4 4.4
End capitalized passage indicator 77.9 4.4 11.8
Begin italicized passage indicator 79.4 4.4 10.3
End italicized passage indicator 77.9 4.4 11.8
Non - directional double quote 66.2 14.7 13.2
Ampersand 88.2 0 2.9
Begin boldface passage indicator 79.4 7.4 5.9
End boldface passage indicator 70.6 7.4 14.7
Times sign when indicated in print by an "x" 79.4 2.9 8.8
Plus sign 85.3 1.5 4.4
Minus sign when distinguished in print from hyphen 79.4 1.5 10.3
Division sign when indicated in print by horizontal line between dots 79.4 5.9 5.9
Equals sign 82.4 4.4 4.4
Dot locator 83.8 1.5 5.9
Umlaut over following letter 70.6 8.8 11.8
Grave over following letter 66.2 10.3 13.2
Circumflex over following letter 67.6 10.3 13.2
Acute over following letter 67.6 10.3 11.8

TABLE 3

Results of Survey Question 21 regarding Changed Symbols; given in % Favoring symbol, % Opposing symbol, and % Favoring the symbol in a different representation

Symbol Favor Oppose Change
Left parenthesis 73.5 8.8 8.8
Right parenthesis 72.1 8.8 8.8
Left bracket 75 5.9 5.9
Right bracket 69.1 7.4 11.8
Left directional double quote 66.2 10.3 8.8
Right directional double quote 64.7 10.3 8.8
Right directional single quote 67.6 10.3 13.2
Asterisk 67.6 8.8 11.8
Forward slash 50 17.6 0
dash 67.6 8.8 1.5
decimal point 66.2 23.5 0
British pound sign 70.6 13.2 4.4
Dollar sign 85.3 7.4 1.5
Ellipses 70.6 16.2 5.9
Inch sign 79.4 10.3 2.9
Per cent sign 70.6 14.7 7.4
Italicized word indicator 69.1 14.7 8.8

TABLE 4

Results of Survey Question 21 regarding Contractions Not Allowed in UBC; given in % Favoring symbol, % Opposing symbol, and % Favoring the symbol in a different representation

Symbol Favor Oppose Change
Contracted form of "ble" when followed by a word 77.9 13.2 2.9
Contracted form of "into" when followed by a word 25 67.6 0
Contracted form of "by" when followed by a word 20.6 73.5 0
Contracted form of "com" 19.1 75 0
Contracted form of "dd" 25 69.1 0

TABLE 5

Results of Survey Question 22 for Technical Users regarding New Symbols; given in % Favoring symbol, % Opposing symbol, and % Favoring symbol in a different representation

Symbol Technical Favor Oppose Change
Capitalized terminator within passage or word 90 6 4
Begins San Serif passage indicator 80 16 4
End sans serif passage indicator 80 16 4
Boldface word indicator 84 8 8
Boldface terminator within a passage or word 82 8 10
Italicized terminator within a passage or word 94 2 4
Begin underline passage indicator 86 6 8
End underline passage indicator 82 6 12
Begin Transcriber defined passage 82 8 10
End transcriber defined passage 86 6 8
Transcriber defined terminator within a passage or word 82 10 8
General fraction line 90 8 2
General fraction open 92 8 0
General fraction close 92 8 0
Superscript 90 6 4
Subscript 90 6 4
Left braille grouping symbol 88 6 6
Right braille grouping symbol 88 6 6
Radical open indicator 94 6 0
Radical close indicator 94 6 0
Copyright 90 4 6
Registered trademark (circled R) 90 4 6
Registered trademark (circled TM) 92 4 4
Dagger 82 10 8
Double dagger 80 10 10
Degree sign 80 4 16
Section mark (interlocked s's) 96 2 2
Female or Venus sign 98 2 0
Male or Mars sign 98 2 0
Bullet (large dot) 94 4 2
Caret 94 4 2
Foot sign 86 6 8
Minus sign 78 8 14
Non-directional single quote 86 8 6
Visible space in computer notation 88 2 10
Space - digit 94 4 2
Continuation indicator at end of line of computer notation 98 2 0

TABLE 6

Results of Survey Question 22 for Technical Users regarding Changed Symbols; given in % Favoring symbol, % Opposing symbol, and % Favoring symbol in a different representation

Symbol Technical Favor Oppose Change
Capital Greek sigma 96 4 0
Greek sigma 96 4 0
Right directional single quote 82 8 10
Numeric fraction line 88 6 6


ICEB contact information
ICEB home page
Page content last updated: April 13, 2000