Comment

Unified English Braille: Australians Blazing the Trail

William Jolley

The Australian Braille Authority (ABA), at its annual meeting on May 14, 2005, adopted Unified English Braille (UEB) as the national standard for braille in Australia. The ABA encouraged organizations with responsibility for teaching or producing braille to implement UEB within five years as reference and training resources become available. Implementation is a choice for individual organizations, not a dictate of the ABA, so the ABA is encouraging organizations to implement UEB at a time when, and in a manner in which, the benefits of the change will be maximized for their braille readers and any adverse effects will be minimized. The decision was made in the expectation that Canada, Nigeria, New Zealand, and South Africa will be early adopters of UEB and with awareness of the strength of support for UEB in the United States and the United Kingdom—although early adoption in these countries was not anticipated.

Australia has 20 million people, among whom are approximately 2,000 braille readers. It is a federation of six states and two territories, each of which has its own educational system. There is no national service for people who are blind, although Vision Australia (led by its braille and Talking Book library service) covers 80% of the population and aims to be a national holistic service delivery agency as soon as it is practicable to be so.

Australia inherited British braille, and for many years children who were blind were educated at special schools. During the 1980s, as integration prevailed, it was deemed necessary to promulgate the use of capital signs in literary braille. The different treatment of capital signs (their common use in the United States and their deprecation, until recently, in the United Kingdom) is the main difference between the literary braille codes that are used on either side of the Atlantic. Following Australia's introduction of capital signs, some other changes were made: minor changes in the literary code, changes in the mathematics code, changes in the chemistry code, and adoption of the U.S. computer code. As a result of these changes (all made for good reason), Australia had a hybrid system of braille codes with local flavors as well. There was a paucity of suitable teaching and reference materials, and braille production software often did not accommodate the specific differences that were inherent in Australia's braille codes. There were 12 reference documents for braille codes, many of which needed revising. Therefore, in regard to a variety of factors, it had become apparent to experts with various perspectives that Australia's hybrid system of braille codes with local flavors was unsustainable.

Australia welcomed the initiatives of the Braille Authority of North America and later the International Council on English Braille (ICEB) in developing a UEB code. Accordingly, it has been a willing contributor to this work over the past 12 years, giving careful consideration to the fundamental issues underlying UEB (such as the use of upper, rather than lower, numbers and the abolition of sequencing) and carefully assessing the opinions and perspectives of various stakeholders, including experienced braille readers, educators, trainers, and producers.

The ABA's decision to adopt UEB was made by a vote of 26 in favor to 1 against. The organizations that voted were educational and production agencies, some other service providers, two consumer organizations of people who are blind, and representatives of the eight state and territory ABA branches. The dissenting voice came from a representative of one of the ABA branches.

During 1995–1997, workshops were held throughout Australia to inform braille readers and other stakeholders about the proposed new code and to get their feedback on its major elements. During 2004–2005, more workshops were held to update people on UEB, paying particular attention to why specific decisions had been made and explaining the basic elements of the code. UEB received strong support from educators, who recognized that it will be an easier code for students to learn and that it has many features that will promote better understanding between blind students and their sighted peers and teachers. Some braille readers were opposed to the changes inherent in UEB—they mostly wanted more, rather than fewer, contractions and resented the additional clutter from font indicators and capital signs. Less ambiguity in UEB, making it easier to produce certain braille documents with reduced manual intervention and improving the reliability of back translation, were perceived as strong arguments for change by transcribers and educators.

As a starting point for implementing UEB in Australia, two documents are being prepared. The first is an advisory note for transcribers who use the Duxbury Braille Translator. The second is a braille primer for tertiary students who are taking braille as an elective, but more generally for transcribers and teachers who are learning braille. We are looking to ICEB to codify and document the rules of UEB, and we anticipate that these rules will be refined as experience is gained from using UEB in real life, rather than in experimental (workshop) environments.

I expect to see UEB being produced starting in 2006, first for literary braille of short-term value (magazines and newsletters) and, over the next couple of years, for the full range of braille materials. I have started to use UEB in the braille I produce for my personal needs and have already noticed the improved treatment of dashes, bullets, and font indicators. Educators are keen to implement UEB as soon as is practicable, seeing it as a superior braille code. The most complex implementation issue concerns the changeover to UEB for students. The ABA has started work on an analysis of UEB and school curricula to map the introduction of UEB symbols as a student progresses through K–12. This is fundamentally important work that will inform the braille-learning curriculum and the design of reference materials for teachers of braille to students who are blind. Although the ABA resolution allowed for a five-year transition, we expect that the bulk of the transition will be completed much earlier and that the transition to UEB for literary braille by adult readers will be straightforward.

One argument against the adoption of UEB was that Australia may be left in the lurch if other countries decide not to adopt UEB. We considered this risk and decided that it was worth taking. We concluded that UEB is a superior braille code and that, on balance, its implementation throughout Australia will be beneficial to braille readers now and in the future. We are confident that other countries will follow our lead.

As the leader of the ABA, I consider myself the custodian of a special treasure—braille, the unique bearer of the gift of literacy to people who are blind. I have no right to tinker frivolously with braille used in Australia, but I do have a responsibility to guide the development of braille codes—as written language conventions change, as study materials become more diverse and visual, and as scientific notations evolve. English is a living worldwide language, and braille is its tactile representation, so braille's utility and relevance depend on its dynamism and flexibility. I have long argued that as leaders of the braille community, we cannot be unaware of our changing environment, but must maximize the utility of braille for all blind people who learn it and want to use it. I am satisfied that, through the adoption and implementation of UEB in Australia, we have helped to ensure that braille's utility remains high and that we have blazed a trail for others to follow.

William Jolley, chair, Australian Braille Authority; e-mail <wjolley@bigpond.com>.

Previous Article | Next Article | Table of Contents

Search JVIB | JVIB Policies | Contact JVIB | Subscriptions | JVIB Home

If you would like to give us feedback, please contact us at jvib@afb.net.