Data were collected from 172 surveys completed by braille users in 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 52% labeling themselves technical users and the remaining 48% 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, 39%, labeled themselves braille readers, 23% transcribers, 21% teachers, and the remaining 17% labeled themselves proofreaders. The mean number of years the respondents had been using the braille code was 37. Additionally, the mean percentage of reading done in braille by respondents was 67%. Almost all of the respondents read braille by touch, with about 27% reading braille by sight. Approximately 36% 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. OLS regression coefficients were not calculated, as there were an insufficient number of respondents in each group 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. More respondents were in favor of all of the UBC features or strategies in question than were opposed to them, with two exceptions. Technical users were only 35.6% in favor and 44.8% opposed to the provision of six different quotation marks in the UBC. Among non-technical users, only 24.7% were in favor of the provision of indicators for special type styles such as bold or underline, while 59.3% were opposed. Additionally, among non-technical users, the same percentage of people were in favor of not omitting spaces from one cell whole- word contractions and following the contracted form of "to" with an intervening space, as were opposed to these items. Further, there were several items on which those in favor outweighed those opposed, but did not constitute the favor of a majority of respondents. Among technical users only 46.6% favored dropping some EBAE / British braille contractions from the UBC, while 30.7% were opposed. Among non-technical users, only 42%, 48.1% and 45.7%, were in favor of changing UBC to more accurately reflect printed text, of following the contracted form of "to" with a space, and of using the capitalized passage indicator, respectively. 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 three items: that both beginning and advanced readers should be able to use UBC, that the capitalized passage indicator eliminates the clutter of the capitalized word indicator, and that UBC should provide indicators for special type styles, such as sans serif type. In each of these instances, non- technical users were significantly less likely to favor the feature in question Chi-squared values indicate that we can be 95% confident that these differences in responses between technical and non-technical users are so great that they can not be attributed to random chance or error. 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 alright but the wrong characters have been chosen for its representation. Responses from technical and non-technical users were parallel, as the two groups were not significantly different on any of the items. Among technical users a majority approved of all of the new symbols, with two exceptions. Only 43.3% and 44.4%, respectively, of technical users were in favor of the new times sign when indicated in press by an "x", and the new plus sign. In both of these instances, of those technical respondents not in favor of the new symbol, more prefer the new symbol in a changed representation, rather than the symbol be struck from the code. Majorities of non-technical users were also in favor of the new symbols, with the exception of the non-directional double quote symbol, of which only 43.4% were in favor. In this case more non-technical respondents wanted the symbol struck from the code, than were either in favor of the symbol or the symbol in a changed representation. Among technical users on average 14.3% of respondents felt the new symbols should be struck form the UBC, and among non-technical users on average 24.2% of respondents were opposed to the new symbols. Technical users were most opposed to the non-directional double quote with 23.3% answering the symbol should be struck from the record, while 47% 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 14.38%, while the mean percentage of non-technical users in favor of the symbol in a different representation was 10.9%. However, 34.4% of technical and 22.9% of non- technical users favored the new plus sign in 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. Majorities of technical users were in favor of all of the changed symbols. Majorities of non- technical users were also in favor of most of the changed symbols, however there were several exceptions. Among non-technical users, only 43.4% favored the left directional double quote, 44.6% favored the right directional double quote, 48.2% favored the inch sign, 43.4% favored the percent sign, and 49.4% favored the italicized word indicator. With regards to each of these symbols, among those non-technical users not in favor of the symbols, a larger percentage wished the symbols to be struck from the code, than wished to keep the symbol in an altered representation. On the average 22.2% of technical users and 36.8% of non-technical users were opposed to any one symbol, feeling the symbols under examination should be struck from the code. The left and right directional double quote symbols garnered the most opposition from technical users with 30% opposing each symbol. 50.6% and 48.2% of non-technical users were opposed to those same symbols. Responses from technical and non-technical users were quite similar, with one significant difference in responses between the two groups regarding the changed symbol for the italicized word indicator. Similar levels of both technical and non- technical users were in favor of the symbol. However, among those not in favor, most non- technical users wanted the symbol struck from the code, and technical users were about evenly divided between wanting the symbol struck from the code, and favoring the 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. Results for technical and non-technical users were very similar with no significant differences in responses between the two groups. Unlike above, majorities of respondents were not in favor of the symbols examined. On the average technical users were only 38.2% in favor of the contraction symbol and 63.1% opposed. Non-technical users had similar results with the average percentage in favor of the contraction symbol only 40.7% and the average percentage opposed 49.6%. Technical users opinions regarding the contracted form of "ble" when followed by a word form the only exception to this pattern with 50% favoring the contraction symbol, and 34.4% of technical 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, 80.1% of respondents were in favor of the new symbols, while 6.4% were opposed and 6.9% were in favor of a new symbol in an alternative representation. The symbol for the begin sans serif passage indicator had the weakest support with only 67% favoring the new symbol, and 21.3% opposing the new symbol. Results of opinions regarding changed symbols were nearly identical to those regarding new symbols, with on the average 83.5% approving, 7.7% 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 | 22.7 | 61.3 | 35.8 | 50.7 | |
| All characters should be 6 - dot, 8 - dot not considered | 13.8 | 77 | 12.5 | 83.8 | |
| UBC should encompass both grades I and II braille | 11.4 | 84.1 | 18.5 | 71.6 | |
| No major changes in grade II contractions | 16 | 72.4 | 11.3 | 75 | |
| Both beginning and advanced readers should be able to use UBC | 4.6 | 90.9 | 18.5 | 75.3 | |
| Accuracy of computer translations should not be increased at the expense of readability of braille | 5.6 | 92.1 | 3.7 | 91.4 | |
| UBC should have base code and method for creating technical extensions | 4.5 | 80.5 | 11.1 | 80.2 | |
| All persons learning the base code should be required to learn common technical extensions | 9.1 | 85.3 | 13.8 | 77.6 | |
| Symbols of multiple characters constructed with determinable beginnings and endings | 9.1 | 86.3 | 8.7 | 82.8 | |
| Rules for making extension symbols should provide that those symbols are not ambiguous | 9.1 | 86.3 | 7.4 | 81.5 | |
| Braille text should accurately reflect printed text, even if it is necessary to change some symbols | 30.7 | 55.7 | 40.7 | 42 | |
| Some EBAE / British braille contractions have been dropped for rule violations or ambiguity | 30.7 | 46.6 | 38.3 | 51.9 | |
| Spaces should not be omitted from one cell whole word contractions in the UBC | 35.2 | 51.1 | 42 | 42 | |
| Contracted form of by must have a space before the word that follows and be distinguishable from was | 28.4 | 60.2 | 39.5 | 48.1 | |
| Contracted form of to must be followed by an intervening space, despite ambiguous cell position | 34.1 | 54.6 | 42 | 42 | |
| UBC has more symbols than UBAE / British braille and can more accurately represent printed text | 19.5 | 66.7 | 23.4 | 59.3 | |
| UBC Grade I indicators clearly show the boundaries of a Grade I passage in a Grade II passage | 20 | 56.3 | 17.2 | 74 | |
| Capitalized passage indicator eliminates clutter of having only capitalized word indicator | 14.8 | 80.7 | 38.3 | 45.7 | |
| UBC provides indicators for special type styles such as sans serif, bold and underline | 34.1 | 50 | 59.3 | 24.7 | |
| UBC provides six different quotation marks | 44.8 | 35.6 |
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 | 72.2 | 14.4 | 4.4 | 69.9 | 20.5 | 4.8 |
| End capitalized passage indicator | 72.2 | 15.6 | 7.8 | 68.7 | 19.3 | 8.4 |
| Begin italicized passage indicator | 64.4 | 15.6 | 15.6 | 54.2 | 25.3 | 16.9 |
| End italicized passage indicator | 72.2 | 13.3 | 10 | 63.9 | 25.3 | 7.2 |
| Non - directional double quote | 57.8 | 23.3 | 13.3 | 43.4 | 47 | 6 |
| Ampersand | 82.2 | 11.1 | 2.2 | 77.1 | 15.7 | 3.6 |
| Begin boldface passage indicator | 68.9 | 15.6 | 11.1 | 51.8 | 33.7 | 10.8 |
| End boldface passage indicator | 67.8 | 17.8 | 8.9 | 54.2 | 30.1 | 12 |
| Times sign when indicated in print by an "x" | 43.3 | 18.9 | 33.3 | 50.6 | 24.1 | 21.7 |
| Plus sign | 44.4 | 16.7 | 34.4 | 55.4 | 18.1 | 22.9 |
| Minus sign when distinguished in print from hyphen | 65.6 | 12.2 | 17.8 | 61.4 | 19.3 | 15.7 |
| Division sign when indicated in print by horizontal line between dots | 67.8 | 11.1 | 16.7 | 67.5 | 18.1 | 9.6 |
| Equals sign | 53.3 | 15.6 | 26.7 | 59 | 18.1 | 19.3 |
| Dot locator | 71.1 | 10 | 14.4 | 68.7 | 22.9 | 4.8 |
| Umlaut over following letter | 75.6 | 11.1 | 8.9 | 63.9 | 24.1 | 8.4 |
| Grave over following letter | 73.3 | 12.2 | 10 | 63.9 | 24.1 | 8.4 |
| Circumflex over following letter | 71.1 | 11.1 | 13.3 | 61.4 | 25.3 | 8.4 |
| Acute over following letter | 74.4 | 11.1 | 10 | 62.7 | 25.3 | 7.2 |
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 | 65.6 | 25.6 | 4.4 | 57.8 | 37.3 | 1.2 | |
| Right parenthesis | 64.4 | 26.7 | 4.4 | 54.2 | 38.6 | 3.6 | |
| Left bracket | 71.1 | 22.2 | 2.2 | 60.2 | 34.9 | 1.2 | |
| Right bracket | 70 | 22.2 | 2.2 | 56.6 | 36.1 | 3.6 | |
| Left directional double quote | 63.3 | 30 | 2.2 | 43.4 | 50.6 | 2.4 | |
| Right directional double quote | 63.3 | 30 | 2.2 | 44.6 | 48.2 | 3.6 | |
| Right directional single quote | 64.4 | 26.7 | 3.3 | 55.4 | 38.6 | 2.4 | |
| Asterisk | 65.6 | 23.3 | 4.4 | 55.4 | 38.6 | 2.4 | |
| Forward slash | 68.9 | 14.4 | 6.7 | 57.8 | 33.7 | 3.6 | |
| Dash | 65.6 | 25.6 | 1.1 | 53 | 39.8 | 3.6 | |
| Decimal point | 57.8 | 26.7 | 6.7 | 59 | 33.7 | 2.4 | |
| British pound sign | 75.6 | 12.2 | 3.3 | 67.5 | 25.3 | 1.2 | |
| Dollar sign | 70 | 11.1 | 5.6 | 63.9 | 27.7 | 4.8 | |
| Ellipses | 64.4 | 20 | 3.3 | 63.9 | 27.7 | 3.6 | |
| Inch sign | 57.8 | 24.4 | 5.6 | 48.2 | 41 | 3.6 | |
| Per cent sign | 57.8 | 21.1 | 10 | 43.4 | 37.3 | 8.4 | |
| Italicized word indicator | 52.2 | 15.6 | 14.4 | 49.4 | 37.3 | 4.8 |
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 | 50 | 34.4 | 4.4 | 45.8 | 43.4 | 2.4 | |
| Contracted form of "into" when followed by a word | 38.9 | 52.2 | 0 | 42.2 | 50.6 | 0 | |
| Contracted form of "by" when followed by a word | 33.3 | 58.9 | 0 | 38.6 | 45.8 | 0 | |
| Contracted form of "com" | 35.6 | 55.6 | 0 | 39.8 | 54.2 | 0 | |
| Contracted form of "dd" | 33.3 | 58.9 | 0 | 37.3 | 54.2 | 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 | 79 | 6 | 3 | |
| Begins San Serif passage indicator | 67 | 21.3 | 5.3 | |
| End sans serif passage indicator | 69.1 | 21.3 | 3.2 | |
| Boldface word indicator | 75.5 | 9.6 | 8.5 | |
| Boldface terminator within a passage or word | 76.6 | 10.6 | 6.4 | |
| Italicized terminator within a passage or word | 77.7 | 7.4 | 8.5 | |
| Begin underline passage indicator | 79.8 | 8.5 | 5.3 | |
| End underline passage indicator | 79.8 | 9.6 | 4.3 | |
| Begin Transcriber defined passage | 76.6 | 9.6 | 7.4 | |
| End transcriber defined passage | 78.7 | 9.6 | 5.3 | |
| Transcriber defined terminator within a passage or word | 75.5 | 11.7 | 6.4 | |
| General fraction line | 78.7 | 5.3 | 9.6 | |
| General fraction open | 77.7 | 5.3 | 10.6 | |
| General fraction close | 77.7 | 5.3 | 10.6 | |
| Superscript | 77.7 | 5.3 | 10.6 | |
| Subscript | 77.7 | 5.3 | 10.6 | |
| Left braille grouping symbol | 81.9 | 5.3 | 6.4 | |
| Right braille grouping symbol | 81.9 | 6.4 | 5.3 | |
| Radical open indicator | 79.8 | 3.2 | 10.6 | |
| Radical close indicator | 78.7 | 3.2 | 11.7 | |
| Copyright | 88.3 | 2.1 | 3.2 | |
| Registered trademark (circled R) | 87.2 | 3.2 | 3.2 | |
| Registered trademark (circled TM) | 86.2 | 2.1 | 5.3 | |
| Dagger | 80.9 | 5.3 | 7.4 | |
| Double dagger | 80.9 | 5.3 | 7.4 | |
| Degree sign | 80.9 | 3.2 | 9.6 | |
| Section mark (interlocked s's) | 83 | 3.2 | 7.4 | |
| Female or Venus sign | 86.2 | 3.2 | 4.3 | |
| Male or Mars sign | 84 | 4.3 | 4.3 | |
| Bullet (large dot) | 80.9 | 6.4 | 6.4 | |
| Caret | 79.8 | 2.1 | 11.7 | |
| Foot sign | 79.8 | 6.4 | 7.4 | |
| Minus sign | 88.3 | 3.2 | 2.1 | |
| Non-directional single quote | 81.9 | 6.4 | 5.3 | |
| Visible space in computer notation | 79.8 | 4.3 | 9.6 | |
| Space - digit | 83 | 4.3 | 6.4 | |
| Continuation indicator at end of line of computer notation | 86.2 | 3.2 | 4.3 |
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 | 85.1 | 5.3 | 3.2 | |
| Greek sigma | 85.1 | 6.4 | 2.1 | |
| Right directional single quote | 78.7 | 14.9 | 0 | |
| Numeric fraction line | 85.1 | 4.3 | 3.2 |