UBC Evaluation Report -- UK
2000-7-14

Data were collected from 19 surveys completed by braille users in the United Kingdom, 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 40% (n=8) labeling themselves non-technical users and the remaining 60% (n=11) 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. All of the respondents in this sample labeled themselves readers. The mean number of years the respondents had been using the braille code was 45. Additionally, the mean percentage of reading done in braille by respondents was 78%. All of the respondents read braille by touch. Seventy-four per cent of the respondents preferred to do all of their reading in braille. More people preferred to read reference materials (58%) and notes and labels (42%) in braille than recreational (26%) or technical (26%) readings.

Data for technical and non-technical users were not analyzed separately, as there were not sufficient numbers of people labeling themselves non-technical to allow for reliable comparison. 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 in each group to produce reliable regression results.

The first 20 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 on 10 of the 20 items. A majority of respondents were opposed to six items: 1) Braille text accurately reflecting printed text even if changing symbols is necessary, 2) Dropping EBAE / British Braille contractions for violation of UBC rules, 3) Not omitting spaces from one cell whole word contractions, 4) Following the contracted form of "by" with a space, 5) Following the contracted form of "to" with a space, and 6) Provision of indicators for special type styles such as sans serif. A summary of results of questions one through twenty may be found in Table 1.

Question 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 alright but the wrong characters have been chosen for its representation. Of the twelve new symbols measured, a majority approved of four of the new symbols: 1) Begin capitalized passage indicator, 2) End capitalized passage indicator, 3) End italicized passage indicator, and 4) Ampersand. Opinions split for "Begin bold face passage indicator." More opposition than support was observed for 1) Non-directional double quote and 2) End boldface passage indicator. A summary of these results may be found in Table 2.

Respondents chose from the same answer categories to rate previously changed symbols. Among 22 items, majorities of users were in favor of the changes in 5 items, 1) Forward slash, 2) Dash, 3) Dollar sign, 4) Ellipses, 5) Inch sign, 6) Division sign when indicated in print by horizontal line between dots, and 7) Dot locator. Three signs, 1) Right double quote, 2) Left directional double quote and 3) Per cent sign, were opposed by the majority. 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. The contractions received greatest opposition. All items except for "Italicized word indicator" received more than 60% favors. Table 4 provides a summary of these results.

Question 22 asked technical users to rate new and previously changed symbols for use in the technical code (n=11). While identical in format to question 21, question 22 was administered only to technical users. Readers should keep in mind that these results are based on the extremely small sample. Majorities of technical users were in favor of all but three new symbols; support did not reach a majority for 1) End sans serif passage indicator, 2) End transcriber defined passage, 3) Transcriber defined terminator within a passage or word. A Summary of these results is shown in Table 5. Majorities of technical users were also in favor of each of the 7 of 10 changed symbols. The support for 1) Dagger, 2) Double dagger, and 3) Minus sign was either equal to or less than the opposition. A summary of the results may be found in Tables 6.

TABLE 1

Table 1: Frequencies For Questions 1-20 (% of Favor, Neutral, Oppose, and Don't Know) (Base: All / n = 19)

QUESTION FAVOR OPPOSE NEUTRAL DK
Unified code for all reading matter, except braille music 37% 47% 5% 11%
All characters should be 6 - dot, 8 - dot not considered 63% 16% 5% 16%
UBC should encompass both grades I and II braille 63% 16% 5% 16%
No major changes in grade II contractions 74% 16% 0% 11%
Both beginning and advanced readers should be able to use UBC 53% 26% 11% 11%
Accuracy of computer translations should not be increased at the expense of readability of braille 79% 5% 5% 11%
UBC should have base code and method for creating technical extensions 74% 11% 0% 16%
All persons learning the base code should be required to learn common technical extensions 79% 11% 0% 11%
Symbols of multiple characters constructed with determinable beginnings and endings 74% 11% 5% 11%
Rules for making extension symbols should provide that those symbols are not ambiguous 74% 11% 5% 11%
Braille text should accurately reflect printed text, even if it is necessary to change some symbols 21% 63% 5% 11%
Some EBAE / British braille contractions have been dropped for rule violations or ambiguity 16% 53% 16% 16%
Spaces should not be omitted from one cell whole word contractions in the UBC 5% 63% 16% 16%
Contracted form of by must have a space before the word that follows and be distinguishable from was 16% 63% 5% 16%
Contracted form of to must be followed by an intervening space, despite ambiguous cell position 11% 63% 11% 16%
UBC has more symbols than UBAE / British braille and can more accurately represent printed text 37% 32% 16% 16%
UBC Grade I indicators clearly show the boundaries of a Grade I passage in a Grade II passage 21% 37% 11% 32%
Capitalized passage indicator eliminates clutter of having only capitalized word indicator 58% 21% 11% 11%
UBC provides indicators for special type styles such as sans serif, bold and underline 21% 58% 11% 11%
UBC provides six different quotation marks (technical users only; n=11) 27% 36% 9% 27%

TABLE 2

Table 2: Frequencies For New Symbols In Question 21 (% of Favor, Neutral, Oppose, Favor Different Presentation and Don't Know) (Base: All/ n = 19)

Symbol Favor Oppose FDP DK
Begin capitalized passage indicator 63% 16% 11% 11%
End capitalized passage indicator 53% 21% 21% 5%
Begin italicized passage indicator 42% 16% 32% 11%
End italicized passage indicator 53% 11% 32% 5%
Non - directional double quote 32% 42% 16% 11%
Ampersand 79% 11% 0% 11%
Begin boldface passage indicator 42% 47% 0% 11%
End boldface passage indicator 32% 47% 11% 11%
Umlaut over following letter 42% 32% 16% 11%
Grave over following letter 42% 32% 16% 11%
Circumflex over following letter 47% 26% 16% 11%
Acute over following letter 42% 32% 16% 11%

TABLE 3

Table 3: Frequencies For Changed Symbols In Question 21 (% of Favor, Neutral, Oppose, Favor Different Presentation and Don't Know) (Base: All/n = 19)

Symbol Favor Oppose FDP DK
Left parenthesis 32% 47% 5% 16%
Right parenthesis 37% 42% 5% 16%
Left bracket 42% 37% 5% 16%
Right bracket 42% 37% 5% 16%
Left directional double quote 32% 53% 0% 16%
Right directional double quote 32% 53% 0% 16%
Right directional single quote 42% 42% 0% 16%
Asterisk 47% 37% 5% 11%
Forward slash 63% 32% 0% 5%
dash 58% 32% 5% 5%
decimal point 47% 32% 11% 11%
British pound sign 42% 47% 0% 11%
Dollar sign 58% 37% 0% 5%
Ellipses 68% 16% 5% 11%
Inch sign 53% 37% 5% 5%
Per cent sign 26% 63% 5% 5%
Times sign when indicated in print by an "x" 42% 42% 5% 11%
Plus sign 47% 47% 5% 0%
Minus sign when distinguished in print from hyphen 47% 42% 11% 0%
Division sign when indicated in print by horizontal line between dots 53% 32% 16% 0%
Equals sign 47% 42% 11% 0%
Dot locator 53% 47% 0% 0%

TABLE 4

Table 4: Frequencies For Contractions Not Allowed In UBC In Question 21 (% of Favor, Neutral, Oppose, Favor Different Presentation, and Don't Know) (Base: All/n = 19 symbol)

Symbol Favor Oppose FDP DK
Italicized word indicator 42% 42% 5% 11%
Contracted form of "ble" when followed by a word 32% 63% 0% 5%
Contracted form of "into" when followed by a word 32% 63% 0% 5%
Contracted form of "by" when followed by a word 26% 68% 0% 5%
Contracted form of "com" 32% 63% 0% 5%
Contracted form of "dd" 32% 63% 0% 5%

TABLE 5

Table 5: Frequencies For New Symbols In Question 22 (% of Favor, Neutral, Oppose, Favor Different Presentation and Don't Know) (Base: Technical users/n = 11)

Symbol Favor Oppose FDP DK
Capitalized terminator within passage or word 55% 9% 27% 9%
Begins San Serif passage indicator 55% 45% 0% 0%
End sans serif passage indicator 45% 45% 9% 0%
Boldface word indicator 55% 36% 0% 9%
Boldface terminator within a passage or word 55% 36% 0% 9%
Italicized terminator within a passage or word 73% 9% 9% 9%
Begin underline passage indicator 55% 36% 0% 9%
End underline passage indicator 55% 36% 9% 0%
Begin Transcriber defined passage 55% 27% 9% 9%
End transcriber defined passage 45% 27% 27% 0%
Transcriber defined terminator within a passage or word 45% 27% 18% 9%
General fraction line 64% 9% 18% 9%
General fraction open 64% 18% 9% 9%
General fraction close 64% 18% 9% 9%
Left braille grouping symbol 64% 18% 9% 9%
Right braille grouping symbol 64% 18% 9% 9%
Radical open indicator 82% 0% 9% 9%
Radical close indicator 73% 0% 18% 9%
Copyright 91% 0% 9% 0%
Registered trademark (circled R) 82% 9% 9% 0%
Registered trademark (circled TM) 73% 9% 9% 9%
Bullet (large dot) 64% 18% 9% 9%
Caret 82% 0% 9% 9%
Non-directional single quote 73% 9% 9% 9%
Visible space in computer notation 82% 9% 0% 9%
Space - digit 64% 0% 27% 9%
Continuation indicator at end of line of computer notation 100% 0% 0% 0%
Capital Greek sigma 73% 18% 0% 9%

TABLE 6

Table 6: Frequencies For Changed Symbols In Question 22 (% of Favor, Neutral, Oppose, Favor Different Presentation and Don't Know) (Base: Technical users/n = 11)

Symbol Favor Oppose FDP DK
Greek sigma 73% 18% 0% 9%
Right directional single quote 55% 36% 0% 9%
Numeric fraction line 82% 9% 9% 0%
Contracted form of "dd" 63% 32% 0% 5%
Superscript 73% 18% 9% 0%
Subscript 82% 18% 0% 0%
Dagger 36% 36% 27% 0%
Double dagger 36% 45% 18% 0%
Degree sign 55% 18% 18% 9%
Section mark (interlocked s's) 82% 9% 0% 9%
Female or Venus sign 55% 36% 0% 9%
Male or Mars sign 55% 36% 0% 9%
Foot sign 73% 18% 0% 9%
Minus sign 45% 55% 0% 0%


ICEB contact information
ICEB home page
Page content last updated: July 27, 2001