Data were collected from 461 surveys completed by braille users in Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States, 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 54% labeling themselves technical users and the remaining 46% non-technical users. 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, 44%, labeled themselves readers, 22% transcribers, 22% teachers, and the remaining 12% labeled themselves proofreaders. The mean number of years the respondents had been using the braille code was 29. Additionally, the mean percentage of reading done in braille by respondents was 67%. Approximately two thirds of the respondents read braille by touch, with one third reading braille by sight. Forty-one per cent of the respondents preferred to do all of their reading in braille, while from 20 to 40 per cent preferred to read recreational, technical, reference materials, or notes and labels in braille.
Data for technical and non-technical users were analyzed separately to facilitate making comparisons between the two groups. Several statistical techniques were applied. Frequencies of responses to survey items were calculated and the chi-squared statistic was utilized to test for significant differences in responses between the groups. Correlations between respondent characteristics and responses to survey items were also calculated in order to identify significant relationships. Finally, OLS regression coefficients were calculated, allowing for prediction of a person's response to certain survey items based on knowledge of their answers to other questions. In this instance, the regression was used to predict respondents' scores on an index created from the first 19 questions in the survey, based on knowledge of their years of braille use, their status as a reader, proofreader, teacher or transcriber, and their country.
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. The bulk of respondents favored the UBC features or strategies in question, with a few notable exceptions. Majorities of technical users were in favor of each of the features measured. Among non-technical users, more people were opposed to the use of indicators for special type styles such as those indicating a sans serif or underlined passage, Nyith 43.9% opposed, than were in favor, with only 37.4%. Additionally, omitting spaces from one cell whole world contractions received only marginal support from non-technical users, with those favoring the feature not constituting a majority (48.3%), yet still outnumbering those opposed (34.1). Despite these differences, responses from technical and non-technical users were similar. Using the chi-squared statistic to test significance, the two groups were found to have significant differences in their responses to only two items: 1) Capitalized passage indicator eliminates clutter of having only capitalized word indicator, and 2) UBC provides indicators for special type styles such as sans serif, bold and underline. In each of these instances non-technical users were significantly less likely to favor the examined strategy or feature. Chi-squared values indicate that we can be 95% confident that these differences in responses between the two groups are so great that they can not be attributable to random chance or error. A summary of results of questions one through twenty may be found in Table I.
In addition, individual's responses to these same items were summed in order to create an index. Possible index scores range from 19 for those answering unacceptable to all 19 questions, to 95 for those answering essential to all 19 questions. The mean score on the scale for technical users was 77, and was 74 for non-technical users. The index was created to serve as a dependent variable in the OLS regression analyses. The first regression analysis sought to predict a respondent's score on the index based on the number of years the respondent had been reading braille. The regression produced significant results among both technical and nontechnical users suggesting the longer a respondent has read braille, the less likely he I she is to support the UBC strategies and features examined. Among technical users, for every one year increase in years reading braille, an index score decreases by 0.252. Among non-technical users, for every one year increase in years reading braille, the mean index score decreases by 0.132. Although these results are significant the regression for technical users was only able to explain about 6.4 % of the observed variance in index scores, while the regression for non-technical users explained only 3.2% of the variance in index scores.
A second regression analysis also used the index score as a dependent variable_ This regression sought to predict respondents' index scores based on their labeling of themselves as either braille readers, proofreaders, teachers or transcribers. Results for both technical and nontechnical users were significant, suggesting that teachers and transcribers are more likely to support the strategies and features of the UBC under examination. Among technical users, those classifying themselves as teachers had a mean index score 11.2 points higher than that of braille readers, and among non-technical users the mean score of transcribers was 5.9 points higher than that of braille readers. Braille readers had the lowest mean index score at 72.5 for technical and 71.7 for non-technical users. Proofreaders did not vary significantly from readers. This model was able to explain a larger amount of variance in index scores, accounting for 3.3% of the observed differences among non-technical users, and 9.6% of the observed differences among technical users.
A final regression analysis sought to predict respondents' index scores based on the respondent's country. Results for both technical and non-technical users were significant, suggesting that respondents' answers do vary significantly by country. Among non-technical users, those from Canada, Japan, New Zealand and South Africa were likely to have index scores significantly higher than those of users from Nigeria, the United Kingdom and the United States. Users from South Africa were the most in favor of proposed changes, with a mean index score of 80.12, while users from the United Kingdom were the least likely to favor changes, with a mean index score of 54.5. Among technical users, South African and Australian users scored significantly higher on the index than users from New Zealand; the United Kingdom and the United States. Again, users from South Africa were the most likely to favor proposed changes with a mean index score of 85, while in this instance users from the United Kingdom were again the least likely to favor proposed changes with a mean index score of 70.5. This regression model was able to explain the greatest amount of variance in index scores among respondents, accounting for 8.8% of the variance among technical users, and 15.9% of variance among nontechnical users.
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. As above, responses from technical and non-technical users were parallel. Responses from technical and non-technical users were significantly different with regards only to the non-directional double quote symbol. Technical users were significantly more likely to favor the new symbol for the non-directional double quote than non-technical users. A majority of all users approved of all of the new symbols. Among technical users on average 9% of respondents felt the new symbols should be struck form the UBC and among non-technical users on average 14% of respondents were opposed to the new symbols. Technical users were most opposed to the non-directional double quote with 19.9% answering the symbol should be struck from the record, while 31% of non-technical users were opposed to the same symbol. The mean percentage of technical users who were in favor of the new symbols, but in a different representation was also 10%, while the mean percentage of non-technical users in favor of the symbols in a different representation was 8%. Substantially more respondents among both technical and non-technical users were in favor of changing the representation of the times sign when indicated in print by an "x" symbol, with 19% of technical and 14% of non-technical reporting the symbol should be in a different representation. Additionally, 13% of non-technical users and 18% of technical users favored changing the representation of the plus sign. A summary of these results may be found in Table 2.
Respondents chose from the same answer categories to rate previously changed symbols. Responses from technical and non-technical users were again similar, with significant differences in responses appearing with regards only to the left bracket. Majorities of both technical and non-technical users were in favor of the changed symbol, however, among those opposed non-technical users were more likely than technical users to desire the symbol be struck from the code, while technical users were more likely to favor the symbol in a different representation than non-technical users. Majorities of all users were in favor of all of the changed symbols. On the average 16% of technical users and 24% of non-technical users were opposed to any one symbol, feeling the symbols under examination should be struck form the code. The left directional double quote garnered the most opposition from non-technical users 32% of users opposing. The right directional double quote received the most opposition from technical users with 22% opposing. Finally, on the average only 3% of non-technical users and 5ºiº of technical users were in favor of any one changed symbol in a different representation. 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 the previous sections, results for technical and non-technical users were not similar. Significant differences were found in responses between the two groups on every item. Although there was far less support for these symbols than that for any other grouping, non-technical users were significantly more likely to favor each of the proposed contractions. Technical users support (62.9) of the contracted form of "ble" is the only exception to this trend. On the average technical users were only 39.5% in favor of a contraction symbol and were 51% opposed to any one contraction symbol. Non-technical users results were quite different with the average percentage in favor of the contraction symbol 48%, and the average percentage opposed 41%. 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, 74% of respondents were in favor of the new symbols, while 6% were opposed and 6% were in favor of a new symbol in an alternative representation. The symbols for beginning and ending sans serif passages had the weakest support with only 65.5% and 65.9%; respectively, favoring the new symbol, and 17.1 % and 19%, respectively, opposing each of the two symbols. Results of opinions regarding changed symbols were nearly identical to those regarding new symbols, with on the average 78% approving, 7% opposing, and 3% favoring the changed symbol in a different representation. Summaries of these results may be found in Tables 5 and 6.
Results of Survey Questions 1 - 20; given in % Opposing (answering unacceptable or unnecessary) and % Favoring (answering good idea or essential)
| Question | Non-Technical Oppose | Non-Technical Favor | Technical Oppose | Technical Favor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unified code for all reading matter, except braille music | 21.1 | 66.5 | 15.9 | 71.8 |
| All characters should be 6 - dot, 8 - dot not considered | 12.5 | 77.1 | 12.1 | 75.3 |
| UBC should encompass both grades I and II braille | 13.5 | 76.6 | 7.1 | 85.4 |
| No major changes in grade 11 contractions | 7.8 | 77.4 | 14.8 | 74 |
| Both beginning and advanced readers should be able to use UBC | 12.7 | 79 | 7.8 | 86.4 |
| Accuracy of computer translations should not be increased at the expense of readability of braille | 4.4 | 89.2 | 7.8 | 88.1 |
| UBC should have base code and method for creating technical extensions | 6.8 | 85.9 | 6.2 | 81.8 |
| All persons learning the base code should be required to learn common technical extensions | 6.8 | 87.2 | 6.2 | 86.8 |
| Symbols of multiple characters constructed with determinable beginnings and endings | 5.8 | 87.8 | 6.6 | 88 |
| Rules for malting extension symbols should provide that those symbols are not ambiguous | 4.4 | 85.8 | 6.2 | 90.1 |
| Braille text should accurately reflect printed text, even if it is necessary to change some symbols | 29.2 | 57.6 | 23 | 67.1 |
| Some EBAE / British braille contractions have been dropped for rule violations or ambiguity | 31.9 | 53.9 | 24.7 | 57.6 |
| Spaces should not be omitted from one cell whole word contractions in the UBC | 34.1 | 48.3 | 27.8 | 58.9 |
| Contracted form of by must have a space before the word that follows and be distinguishable from was | 31 | 56.1 | 24.3 | 67.7 |
| Contracted form of to must be followed by an intervening space, despite ambiguous cell position | 33 | 51.2 | 29.2 | 60 |
| UBC has more symbols than BAE / British braille and can more accurately represent printed text | 14.7 | 68.1 | 16.9 | 71.6 |
| UBC Grade I indicators dearly show the boundaries of a Grade I passage in a Grade II passage | 12 | 74.1 | 15.4 | 65.6 |
| Capitalized passage indicator eliminates clutter of having only capitalized word indicator | 22.9 | 62 | 9 | 84.5 |
| UBC provides indicators for special type styles such as sans serif, bold and underline | 43.9 | 37.4 | 25.5 | 62.1 |
Results of Survey Question 21 regarding New Symbols; given in % Favoring symbol, Opposing symbol, and % Favoring the symbol in a different representation
| Symbol | Non-Technical Favor | Non-Technical Oppose | Non-Technical Change | Technical Favor | Technical Oppose | Technical Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Begin capitalized passage indicator | 75.7 | 11.9 | 3.8 | 74.9 | 8.4 | 4 |
| End capitalized passage indicator | 752 | 11.9 | 8.1 | 76.9 | 8.8 | 8.4 |
| Begin italicized passage indicator | 69.5 | 13.3 | 12.9 | 73.7 | 8.4 | 11.2 |
| End italicized passage indicator | 71.4 | 14.8 | 9 | 76.1 | 6.8 | 10.8 |
| Non-directional double quote | 56.7 | 31.4 | 5.7 | 60.6 | 19.9 | 12.7 |
| Ampersand | 83.3 | 9 | 2.9 | 83.7 | 6.8 | 2 |
| Begin boldface passage indicator | 67.6 | 19.5 | 7.6 | 74.5 | 11.2 | 7.2 |
| End boldface passage indicator | 68.6 | 18.6 | 8.1 | 71.7 | 11.6 | 10 |
| Times sign when indicated in print by an 'x' | 64.8 | 13.3 | 13.8 | 61 | 8.8 | 19.1 |
| Plus sign | 69.5 | 8.6 | 13.3 | 63.3 | 7.6 | 17.9 |
| Minus sign when distinguished in print from hyphen | 73.3 | 9.5 | 9 | 70.9 | 6.8 | 11.2 |
| Division sign when indicated in print by horizontal line between dots | 75.7 | 9.5 | 5.7 | 72.5 | 6.8 | 9.6 |
| Equals sign | 71.9 | 8.6 | 11.4 | 67.7 | 7.6 | 13.1 |
| Dot locator | 75.7 | 12.4 | 3.8 | 75.7 | 4.8 | 8.4 |
| Umlaut over following letter | 76.2 | 13.3 | 5.7 | 76.1 | 9.2 | 7.6 |
| Grave over following letter | 74.8 | 14.3 | 6.7 | 73.7 | 10 | 8.8 |
| Circumflex over following letter | 74.3 | 14.3 | 6.2 | 73.3 | 9.6 | 10 |
| Acute over following letter | 74.8 | 14.8 | 5.7 | 74.1 | 9.2 | 8.8 |
Results of Survey Question 21 regarding Changed Symbols; given in % Favoring symbol, Opposing symbol, and % Favoring the symbol in a different representation
| Symbol | Non-Technical Favor | Non-Technical Oppose | Non-Technical Change | Technical Favor | Technical Oppose | Technical Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Left parenthesis | 68.1 | 24.3 | 2.9 | 71.7 | 15.9 | 5.2 |
| Right parenthesis | 67.6 | 25.2 | 1.9 | 70.1 | 16.7 | 5.2 |
| Left bracket | 70.5 | 24.3 | 0.5 | 74.9 | 13.9 | 2.8 |
| Right bracket | 70 | 23.8 | 1.4 | 73.3 | 13.9 | 4.4 |
| Left directional double quote | 62.4 | 31.9 | 1 | 66.1 | 20.7 | 3.6 |
| Right directional double quote | 60 | 31 | 2.4 | 63.3 | 21.9 | 4 |
| Right directional single quote | 65.2 | 25.7 | 1.9 | 67.3 | 19.9 | 5.2 |
| Asterisk | 65.7 | 24.8 | 3.3 | 67.3 | 16.3 | 6.8 |
| Forward slash | 71.9 | 19.5 | 2.9 | 68.5 | 11.6 | 4 |
| dash | 67.1 | 24.8 | 1.4 | 69.7 | 16.3 | 1.2 |
| decimal point | 66.7 | 24.3 | 2.9 | 65.3 | 18.7 | 3.6 |
| British pound sign | 72.4 | 17.6 | 1.9 | 75.3 | 11.2 | 3.2 |
| Dollar sign | 75.2 | 17.1 | 2.9 | 78.5 | 8 | 3.2 |
| Ellipses | 72.9 | 18.6 | 2.9 | 68.9 | 12.7 | 4 |
| Inch sign | 65.7 | 25.2 | 3.3 | 69.3 | 15.5 | 6 |
| Per cent sign | 56.2 | 28.6 | 7.1 | 62.9 | 17.5 | 10 |
| Italicized word indicator | 64.3 | 25.7 | 3.3 | 62.5 | 14.7 | 10.4 |
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 | Non-Technical Favor | Non-Technical Oppose | Non-Technical Change | Technical Favor | Technical Oppose | Technical Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contracted form of "ble" | 54.3 | 34.8 | 1.4 | 62.9 | 22.7 | 4 |
| Contracted form of "into" when followed by a word | 48.6 | 44.3 | 0 | 35.5 | 56.2 | 0 |
| Contracted form of 'by' when followed by a word | 46.7 | 38.1 | 0 | 32.7 | 59.8 | 0 |
| Contracted form of "com" | 45.2 | 44.8 | 0 | 33.1 | 59 | 0 |
| Contracted form of "dd" | 43.3 | 47.1 | 0 | 33.1 | 59 | 0 |
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 | 75.8 | 5.6 | 2.4 |
| Begins San Serif passage indicator | 65.5 | 17.1 | 5.2 |
| End sans serif passage indicator | 65.9 | 19 | 3.2 |
| Boldface word indicator | 71.8 | 9.5 | 6.7 |
| Boldface terminator within a passage or word | 72.6 | 9.5 | 5.6 |
| Italicized terminator within a passage or word | 76.2 | 6.3 | 5.2 |
| Begin underline passage indicator | 75 | 7.1 | 5.6 |
| End underline passage indicator | 73 | 9.5 | 5.2 |
| Begin Transcriber defined passage | 71.8 | 9.1 | 7.1 |
| End transcriber defined passage | 72.6 | 9.1 | 6 |
| Transcriber defined terminator within a passage or word | 70.6 | 10.7 | 6.7 |
| General fraction fine | 74.2 | 7.1 | 6.3 |
| General fraction open | 76.2 | 5.6 | 6 |
| General fraction close | 76.6 | 5.6 | 5.6 |
| Superscript | 74.6 | 5.2 | 7.9 |
| Subscript | 72.2 | 4.4 | 7.1 |
| Left braille grouping symbol | 75 | 4.4 | 4 |
| Right braille grouping symbol | 77.8 | 5.6 | 4 |
| Radical open indicator | 75.8 | 5.2 | 6.7 |
| Radical close indicator | 75.8 | 4.4 | 7.5 |
| Copyright | 80.6 | 3.6 | 4 |
| Registered trademark (circled R) | 80.6 | 4 | 3.6 |
| Registered trademark (circled TM) | 79.4 | 4 | 4.8 |
| Dagger | 73.4 | 6.3 | 7.9 |
| Double dagger | 69.8 | 6 | 7.9 |
| Degree sign | 67.9 | 4 | 11.9 |
| Section mark (interlocked s's) | 76.2 | 2.4 | 5.2 |
| Female or Venus sign | 78.6 | 2.4 | 2.8 |
| Male or Mars sign | 77.8 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| Bullet (large dot) | 74.2 | 6.7 | 2.8 |
| Caret | 75.8 | 4.4 | 7.5 |
| Foot sign | 76.6 | 4 | 7.1 |
| Minus sign | 74.2 | 4.8 | 4.8 |
| Non-directional single quote | 70.2 | 8.3 | 5.2 |
| Visible space in computer notation | 77 | 4 | 6.7 |
| Space - digit | 79.8 | 4 | 4 |
| Continuation indicator at end of line of computer notation | 81 | 2.4 | 4.4 |
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 | 80.6 | 4.4 | 2.4 |
| Greek sigma | 79 | 6 | 2 |
| Right directional single quote | 72.6 | 11.1 | 3.2 |
| Numeric fraction line | 78.6 | 5.2 | 2.4 |