Data were collected from 212 surveys completed by braille users in the US and Canada, 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, 36%, labeled themselves readers, 28% transcribers, 21% teachers, and the remaining 14% labeled themselves proofreaders. The mean number of years the respondents had been using the braille code was 34. Additionally, the mean percentage of reading done in braille by respondents was 64%. Approximately two thirds of the respondents read braille by touch, with one third reading braille by sight. Thirty-two per cent of the respondents preferred to do all of their reading in braille, while from 30 to 50 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 and their status as a reader, proofreader, teacher or transcriber.
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 the UBC features or strategies in question, with a few notable exceptions. Of the features measured, technical users were opposed only to the system of six quotation mark symbols, with 44.6% opposed, and 35.5% in favor. Among non-technical users, a majority were opposed to use of indicators for special type styles such as those indicating a sans serif or underlined passage, with 54.6% opposed and only 28.8% in favor. Additionally, some features received only marginal support from non-technical users, with those favoring the feature not constituting a majority, yet still outnumbering those opposed. These features are: including spaces in one cell whole word contractions, with 45.4% favoring and 39.2% opposing, and following the contracted form of "to" with an intervening space, with 46.4% favoring and 40.2% opposing. Despite these differences, responses from technical and non-technical users were fairly similar. Using the chi-squared statistic to test significance, the two groups were found to have significant differences in their responses to only three items: 1) Both beginning and advanced readers should be able to use UBC, 2) Capitalized passage indicator eliminates clutter of having only capitalized word indicator, and 3) UBC provides indicators for special type styles such as sans serif, bold and underline. In each of these three 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 1.
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 74, and was 71.4 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 non- technical users suggesting the longer a respondent has read braille, the less likely he / 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 0.210. Among non-technical users, for every one year increase in years reading braille, the mean index score decreases by 0.225. Although these results are significant the regression for technical users was only able to explain about 6.5 % of the observed variance in index scores, while the regression for non-technical users was able to explain 8% of the variance in index scores.
A second regression analysis also used the index score as a dependent variable. However, this regression sought to predict respondents' index scores based on their labeling of themselves as either braille readers, proofreaders, teachers or transcribers. Results for non-technical users were not significant, however those for technical 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 10.468 higher than that of braille readers, and the mean score of transcribers was 7.914 higher than that of braille readers. Braille readers had the lowest mean index score at 68.345, and proofreaders did not vary significantly from readers. This model was able to explain the greatest amount of variance in index scores, accounting for 9.9 per cent of the observed differences.
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 dot locator symbol, with 74.6% of technical and 69.7% of non-technical approving, 7.9% of technical and 21.2% of non-technical opposing, and 12.3% of technical and 4% of non-technical favoring a changed representation. In this instance, while majorities of both types of users were in favor of the new symbol, among those opposed technical users were more likely to favor the symbol in a different representation while non-technical users were more likely to be opposed to the symbol entirely. Among technical users a majority approved of all of the new symbols, with the exception of the symbols for the times sign when indicated in print by an "x" with only 47.4 % approving of the symbol. Majorities of non-technical users were also in favor of the new symbols with only one exception. Only 47.5% of non-technical users were in favor of the symbol for non-directional double quotes. Among technical users on average 12.7% of respondents felt the new symbols should be struck form the UBC and among non-technical users on average 21% of respondents were opposed to the new symbols. Technical users were most opposed to the non-directional double quote with 24.6% answering the symbol should be struck from the record, while 41.4% 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 12.7%, while the mean percentage of non-technical users in favor of the symbol in a different representation was 10.2%. Substantially more respondents among both technical and non-technical users were in favor of changing the representation of three symbols. 31.6% of technical and 22.2% of non-technical users felt the times sign when indicated in print by an "x" symbol should be in a different representation. 29.8% of technical and 21.2% of non-technical users felt this way about the plus sign, and 23.7% of technical and 18.2% of non-technical users felt the equals sign should have a changed representation. 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 parallel, with significant differences in responses appearing only with regards to the italicized word indicator. As in the case above, majorities of both technical (57%) and non-technical (53.5%) were in favor of the changed symbol, however, among those opposed non-technical users (32.3%) were more likely than technical users (14.9%) to be desire the symbol be struck from the code, while technical users (12.3%) were more likely to favor the symbol in a different representation than non-technical users (4%). Majorities of technical users were in favor of all of the changed symbols. Majorities of non-technical users were also in favor of the new symbols with the exception of the left and right directional double quotes with only 47.5% approving of each symbol. On the average 20.2% of technical users and 33% of non-technical users were opposed to any one symbol, feeling the symbols under examination should be struck form the code. The left and right directional double quotes garnered the most opposition from both technical and non-technical users with 28.9% of technical and 45.5% of non-technical users opposing the left directional double quote, and 29.9% of technical and 44.4% of non-technical users opposing the right directional double quote. 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. Results for technical and non-technical users were very similar with no significant differences in responses between the two groups. However, unlike above, majorities of respondents were not in favor of the symbols examined. On the average technical users were only 35.6% in favor of the contraction symbol and were 54.9% opposed to the contraction symbol. Non-technical users had similar results with the average percentage in favor of the contraction symbol 36.6% and the average percentage opposed 51.5%. Technical users opinions regarding the contracted form of "ble" when followed by a word form the only exception to this pattern with 53.5% in favor of the contraction symbol and 29.8% 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, 79% of respondents were in favor of the new symbols, while 6.4% were opposed and 6.7% 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 65.3% and 66.1%, respectively, favoring the new symbol, and 23.7% opposing each of the two symbols. Results of opinions regarding changed symbols were nearly identical to those regarding new symbols, with on the average 83.7% approving, 7.2% opposing, and 2.1% 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)
| Technical | Non-Technical | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Question | Oppose | Favor | Oppose | Favor | |
| Unified code for all reading matter, except braille music | 21.6 | 63 | 31 | 54.6 | |
| All characters should be 6 - dot, 8 - dot not considered | 13.6 | 73.6 | 10.5 | 83.3 | |
| UBC should encompass both grades I and II braille | 9.9 | 84.7 | 18.6 | 73.2 | |
| No major changes in grade II contractions | 15.5 | 73.7 | 9.4 | 75 | |
| Both beginning and advanced readers should be able to use UBC | 3.6 | 91.9 | 16.5 | 77.3 | |
| Accuracy of computer translations should not be increased at the expense of readability of braille | 5.4 | 91.9 | 7.2 | 91.7 | |
| UBC should have base code and method for creating technical extensions | 5.5 | 80 | 9.3 | 82.5 | |
| All persons learning the base code should be required to learn common technical extensions | 8.2 | 83.6 | 11.5 | 80.3 | |
| Symbols of multiple characters constructed with determinable beginnings and endings | 9 | 87.4 | 8.2 | 83.5 | |
| Rules for making extension symbols should provide that those symbols are not ambiguous | 7.3 | 87.3 | 6.2 | 83.5 | |
| Braille text should accurately reflect printed text, even if it is necessary to change some symbols | 28.8 | 59.4 | 36.1 | 49.4 | |
| Some EBAE / British braille contractions have been dropped for rule violations or ambiguity | 25.2 | 54 | 33 | 56.7 | |
| Spaces should not be omitted from one cell whole word contractions in the UBC | 30.6 | 54.9 | 39.2 | 45.4 | |
| Contracted form of by must have a space before the word that follows and be distinguishable from was | 24.3 | 63.9 | 36.1 | 53.6 | |
| Contracted form of to must be followed by an intervening space, despite ambiguous cell position | 27.9 | 58.5 | 40.2 | 46.4 | |
| UBC has more symbols than UBAE / British braille and can more accurately represent printed text | 19.1 | 68.2 | 21.9 | 62.5 | |
| UBC Grade I indicators clearly show the boundaries of a Grade I passage in a Grade II passage | 17.4 | 59.2 | 16.4 | 74.3 | |
| Capitalized passage indicator eliminates clutter of having only capitalized word indicator | 13.5 | 81 | 25.1 | 51.5 | |
| UBC provides indicators for special type styles such as sans serif, bold and underline | 31.5 | 53.1 | 54.6 | 28.8 | |
| UBC provides six different quotation marks | 44.6 | 35.5 |
Results of Survey Question 21 regarding New Symbols; given in % Favoring symbol, % Opposing symbol, and % Favoring the symbol in a different representation
| Technical | Non-Technical | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symbol | Favor | Oppose | Change | Favor | Oppose | Change |
| Begin capitalized passage indicator | 73.7 | 12.3 | 3.5 | 69.7 | 19.2 | 4 |
| End capitalized passage indicator | 75.4 | 13.2 | 6.1 | 70.7 | 17.2 | 7.1 |
| Begin italicized passage indicator | 68.4 | 12.3 | 14 | 57.6 | 21.2 | 16.2 |
| End italicized passage indicator | 75.4 | 10.5 | 8.8 | 66.7 | 21.2 | 7.1 |
| Non - directional double quote | 56.1 | 24.6 | 13.2 | 47.5 | 41.4 | 6.1 |
| Ampersand | 82.5 | 10.5 | 1.8 | 78.8 | 13.1 | 3 |
| Begin boldface passage indicator | 70.2 | 14 | 10.5 | 56.6 | 29.3 | 9.1 |
| End boldface passage indicator | 68.4 | 15.8 | 9.6 | 58.6 | 26.3 | 10.1 |
| Times sign when indicated in print by an "x" | 47.4 | 15.8 | 31.6 | 51.5 | 21.2 | 22.2 |
| Plus sign | 51.8 | 13.2 | 29.8 | 57.6 | 15.2 | 21.2 |
| Minus sign when distinguished in print from hyphen | 68.4 | 11.4 | 14.9 | 63.6 | 17.2 | 14.1 |
| Division sign when indicated in print by horizontal line between dots | 71.1 | 8.8 | 14.9 | 69.7 | 15.2 | 9.1 |
| Equals sign | 58.8 | 12.3 | 23.7 | 60.6 | 16.2 | 18.2 |
| Dot locator | 74.6 | 7.9 | 12.3 | 69.7 | 21.2 | 4 |
| Umlaut over following letter | 76.3 | 11.4 | 7 | 65.7 | 20.2 | 9.1 |
| Grave over following letter | 74.6 | 12.3 | 7.9 | 66.7 | 20.2 | 8.1 |
| Circumflex over following letter | 72.8 | 11.4 | 10.5 | 64.6 | 21.2 | 8.1 |
| Acute over following letter | 74.6 | 11.7 | 8.8 | 65.7 | 21.2 | 7.1 |
Results of Survey Question 21 regarding Changed Symbols; given in % Favoring symbol, % Opposing symbol, and % Favoring the symbol in a different representation
| Technical | Non-Technical | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symbol | Favor | Oppose | Change | Favor | Oppose | Change | |
| Left parenthesis | 68.4 | 22.8 | 3.5 | 59.6 | 33.3 | 2 | |
| Right parenthesis | 65.8 | 24.6 | 4.4 | 56.6 | 35.4 | 3 | |
| Left bracket | 73.7 | 19.3 | 1.8 | 61.6 | 32.3 | 1 | |
| Right bracket | 72.8 | 19.3 | 1.8 | 58.6 | 33.3 | 3 | |
| Left directional double quote | 63.2 | 28.9 | 2.6 | 47.5 | 45.5 | 2 | |
| Right directional double quote | 32.3 | 29.8 | 2.6 | 47.5 | 44.4 | 3 | |
| Right directional single quote | 64.9 | 26.3 | 2.6 | 55.6 | 36.4 | 2 | |
| Asterisk | 66.7 | 21.9 | 4.4 | 57.6 | 34.3 | 3 | |
| Forward slash | 72.8 | 11.4 | 6.1 | 60.6 | 30.3 | 3 | |
| Dash | 64.9 | 23.7 | 0.9 | 56.6 | 35.4 | 3 | |
| Decimal point | 58.8 | 24.6 | 6.1 | 60.6 | 31.3 | 2 | |
| British pound sign | 76.3 | 10.5 | 3.5 | 69.7 | 21.2 | 2 | |
| Dollar sign | 71.9 | 9.6 | 4.4 | 66.7 | 23.2 | 5.1 | |
| Ellipses | 59.6 | 15.8 | 3.5 | 66.7 | 23.2 | 4 | |
| Inch sign | 63.2 | 21.1 | 4.4 | 52.5 | 35.4 | 4 | |
| Per cent sign | 57.9 | 19.3 | 11.4 | 58.5 | 33.3 | 7.1 | |
| Italicized word indicator | 57 | 14.9 | 12.3 | 53.5 | 32.3 | 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
| Technical | Non-Technical | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symbol | Favor | Oppose | Change | Favor | Oppose | Change | |
| Contracted form of "ble" when followed by a word | 53.5 | 29.8 | 6.1 | 42.4 | 44.4 | 2 | |
| Contracted form of "into" when followed by a word | 34.2 | 57 | 0 | 38.4 | 53.5 | 0 | |
| Contracted form of "by" when followed by a word | 28.9 | 63.2 | 0 | 33.3 | 46.5 | 0 | |
| Contracted form of "com" | 29.8 | 61.4 | 0 | 35.4 | 57.6 | 0 | |
| Contracted form of "dd" | 28.9 | 63.2 | 0 | 33.3 | 55.6 | 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
| Technical | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symbol | Favor | Oppose | Change | |
| Capitalized terminator within passage or word | 83.9 | 5.9 | 3.4 | |
| Begins San Serif passage indicator | 65.3 | 23.7 | 4.2 | |
| End sans serif passage indicator | 66.1 | 23.7 | 3.4 | |
| Boldface word indicator | 74.6 | 9.3 | 9.3 | |
| Boldface terminator within a passage or word | 76.3 | 10.2 | 6.8 | |
| Italicized terminator within a passage or word | 78 | 5.9 | 9.3 | |
| Begin underline passage indicator | 78 | 9.3 | 5.9 | |
| End underline passage indicator | 78.8 | 11 | 3.4 | |
| Begin Transcriber defined passage | 75.4 | 9.3 | 8.5 | |
| End transcriber defined passage | 77.1 | 9.3 | 6.8 | |
| Transcriber defined terminator within a passage or word | 74.6 | 11 | 7.6 | |
| General fraction line | 78.8 | 5.9 | 8.5 | |
| General fraction open | 78 | 5.1 | 10.2 | |
| General fraction close | 78 | 5.1 | 10.2 | |
| Superscript | 78.8 | 4.2 | 10.2 | |
| Subscript | 78.8 | 4.2 | 10.2 | |
| Left braille grouping symbol | 83.1 | 5.1 | 5.1 | |
| Right braille grouping symbol | 83.1 | 5.9 | 4.2 | |
| Radical open indicator | 78.8 | 4.2 | 10.2 | |
| Radical close indicator | 78 | 4.2 | 11 | |
| Copyright | 88.1 | 2.5 | 2.5 | |
| Registered trademark (circled R) | 87.3 | 3.4 | 2.5 | |
| Registered trademark (circled TM) | 84.7 | 2.5 | 5.9 | |
| Dagger | 79.7 | 5.9 | 7.6 | |
| Double dagger | 78.8 | 5.9 | 8.5 | |
| Degree sign | 78.8 | 3.4 | 11 | |
| Section mark (interlocked s's) | 83.9 | 2.5 | 6.8 | |
| Female or Venus sign | 87.3 | 2.5 | 3.4 | |
| Male or Mars sign | 85.6 | 3.4 | 3.4 | |
| Bullet (large dot) | 78.8 | 9.3 | 5.1 | |
| Caret | 78.8 | 3.4 | 11 | |
| Foot sign | 79.7 | 5.1 | 8.5 | |
| Minus sign | 87.3 | 3.4 | 2.5 | |
| Non-directional single quote | 78 | 9.3 | 5.9 | |
| Visible space in computer notation | 82.2 | 3.4 | 7.6 | |
| Space - digit | 84.7 | 3.4 | 5.1 | |
| Continuation indicator at end of line of computer notation | 86.4 | 2.5 | 4.2 |
Results of Survey Question 22 for Technical Users regarding Changed Symbols; given in % Favoring symbol, % Opposing symbol, and % Favoring symbol in a different representation
| Technical | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Symbol | Favor | Oppose | Change | |
| Capital Greek sigma | 84.7 | 5.1 | 3.4 | |
| Greek sigma | 84.7 | 5.9 | 2.5 | |
| Right directional single quote | 78.8 | 14.4 | 0 | |
| Numeric fraction line | 86.4 | 3.4 | 2.5 |