Abstract
To inform decision-making around the adoption of the Unified English Braille (UEB) code in the United Kingdom, a suite of research was carried out. This study involved a variety of braille stakeholders – student braille readers (in full time education), adult braille readers, braille teachers, and braille transcribers. Participants were sent samples of literary materials in UEB and asked to read them without training or reference to UEB symbols lists. A total of 27 participants gave feedback about their experiences of reading the UEB samples and discussed their views on UEB through focus groups. Overall, participants were able to read and understand the UEB samples and identified various advantages and disadvantages of the code. Opinions varied about the future of UEB in the United Kingdom, with some participants resisting the change and others in favour of adoption.
Introduction
This is the second of the two articles presenting some of the research in the United Kingdom which informed the decision on whether and how to adopt the Unified English Braille (UEB) code (see Cryer, Home, & Morley Wilkins, 2013).
Suggested changes to braille coding can be a controversial issue (Gerber & Smith, 2006). In 2011, the UK Association for Accessible Formats (UKAAF) felt the time had come to revisit the issue of UEB with UK braille stakeholders.
The United Kingdom has been involved in the development of UEB since the early nineties. By 2011, the member countries of the International Council on English Braille (ICEB) were at varying stages with UEB, with the majority making positive moves towards adopting the code. For example, Australia had fully implemented UEB, and Canada had adopted UEB as their ‘preferred code’ and was commencing plans for implementation.
Traditionally, UK braille stakeholders have reacted negatively to changes to braille coding and to the UEB code itself. Bogart and Koenig (2005) reported data from the first international evaluation of the proposed UEB code which demonstrated that braille readers, transcribers, teachers, and proofreaders in the United Kingdom were the least supportive of the principles of UEB out of eight countries surveyed.
In 2008, the Braille Authority of the United Kingdom (BAUK 1 ) conducted a UK consultation, in which UEB samples and a questionnaire were distributed to around 4000 braille stakeholders – braille readers, teachers, transcribers, and other stakeholders. 470 responses were received, of which 76% said they would not like to see UEB adopted as the standard braille code in the United Kingdom (24% would), and 66% did not think that the adoption of UEB in the United Kingdom would benefit future braille readers (33% did, 1% did not know) (UKAAF, 2013b).
Following this consultation, BAUK decided not to introduce UEB in the United Kingdom, but to revisit the question in 5 years. Furthermore, they recommended further work to test the viability of UEB for technical braille users to inform future decision-making.
The findings of trials with technical UEB codes are reported elsewhere (Cryer et al., 2013). While BAUK identified technical codes as a key issue, clearly, the majority of those affected by any change to the braille code will be readers of literary material.
This article reports on in-depth qualitative research (carried out by the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) for UKAAF) with a range of braille stakeholders to explore their views and opinions around the potential adoption of UEB for literary materials in the United Kingdom.
Method
A qualitative approach was chosen to elicit detailed feedback on UEB from various braille stakeholders – adult braille readers, braille reading students (still in full time education), braille teachers, and braille transcribers. Participants were recruited in these four categories, although in practice, there was much overlap (see Table 1). Information about the study was circulated on the UKAAF mailing list, asking for input from adult braille readers, transcribers, and braille teachers. Interest in the subject led to information about the study being circulated more widely on discussion lists and email groups resulting in a snowballing effect. Braille reading students were recruited from a specialist school for blind/partially sighted students. Six student braille readers took part in the study. Student participants received an electronic information sheet about the study, including a consent form which they completed and returned prior to the study. Adult participants had the same information read to them over the telephone and gave verbal consent.
Participants.
In total, 32 individuals expressed interest in the study and were given sample materials, of which 27 contributed feedback.
Hard copy braille sample documents in UEB were sent to participants by post. The samples consisted of a one-page extract from a television/radio listings magazine and an anthology of essays about braille. The anthology had an introduction written in Standard English Braille (SEB) which gave an introduction to UEB, outlining the reasoning behind the code. The remaining of the sample documents were in UEB. Intentionally, no UEB symbols list was provided to explain differences between the braille codes. Participants were asked to read the sample documents and contribute their feedback via focus groups. Four focus groups were run. Six participants were unable to attend focus groups, therefore fed back individually.
In total, 21 participants took part in focus groups (adult focus groups being conducted by telephone and the student focus group in person). A focus group schedule was drawn up to guide discussions. The same questions were asked of individual contributors where possible (one participant’s feedback was emailed without reference to these questions). This work was carried out during summer 2011.
The data were analysed using thematic analysis to identify key themes arising. Themes are reported even when raised by a small number of participants, in order to demonstrate the breadth of opinion on this subject.
Results
Reading the samples
Despite being given the UEB samples without reference to a symbols list, participants reported that they were able to read and understand the UEB materials. There were some caveats to this, including being slowed down by the changes and using context clues to understand unfamiliar coding. Opinions varied, from those who felt they would improve with practice, to those who thought the increase in space taken up by UEB contributed to slower reading speeds or that removal of contractions made the text harder to understand:
I could read it and understand it but not at the same speed. (Student reader) I had no problem reading it, some of it looked a bit alien at first. I think it’s just a case of getting used to it. (Transcriber)
Opinion varied on how different UEB was to SEB, with some participants finding the differences ‘too much’ and others barely noticing them:
The UEB does look very different. (Reader/teacher) There weren’t actually that many changes and I think that we could get used to them. (Student reader)
One issue which divided opinion was capital letters. As capital letters are optional in SEB, some participants were used to them while others were not (in practice, in the United Kingdom, capitals are rarely used in braille, except in educational materials). Some (5) felt that capital letters in braille were irrelevant and were simply ‘clutter’ while others (9) felt it was important for braille readers to understand the use of capitals to help them when communicating with print users (e.g. in the workplace).
Another difference noted by participants was the removal of certain contractions (specifically ble, to, com, by, dd, ally, and ation). The majority of participants were disappointed by the loss of these contractions, thinking it made the braille messy, took up more space, and took longer to read. Another feature of UEB which participants felt increased the bulk of documents was the abolition of sequencing (the joining of specific words such as and/the/of), which was generally unpopular.
Queries about UEB
Participants felt it was important that more information was available about UEB to help braille stakeholders make informed decisions about whether or not UEB should be adopted in the United Kingdom. Concerns were raised that braille users and professionals working with braille may not even be aware of the code. Key areas where participants wanted to know more included seeing examples of technical coding, being able to trial new transcription software, and having clear explanation of the benefits of the code.
Who benefits from UEB?
Participants questioned who UEB was for, in terms of who stood to benefit from changes to the code. They felt that the interests of braille readers were paramount, and that changes should not be made simply to make things easier for teachers or transcribers:
It’s what suits the people reading it that really matters. (Reader/transcriber)
Participants identified some groups who could benefit from UEB – specifically new braille learners (easier/less to learn), former print readers who lose their sight (as UEB more closely reflects print), and those using technical codes (not having to use separate codes). However, they also felt some groups could suffer from a move to UEB, specifically those part way through learning braille (who may get confused), students in education (whose education could be disrupted), older people learning braille (who may find UEB difficult), existing braille users (who are used to the current code), and small developers of transcription software (for whom the change would be costly).
Is UEB needed?
A number of participants (9) questioned the need for UEB. Queries raised included that the code was not different enough to SEB to justify the difficulty of changing, that print was not changing so why should braille, and that as English-speaking countries differ in their use of the language, why try to unite their braille?:
How many ways are we going to write the word ‘centre’? If we can’t co-ordinate a language spelled in the same way, how can we do it for braille? (Reader/teacher)
Some participants expressed the view that some of the issues UEB is purported to address are not issues at all. These included making braille easier (3), improving transcription (1), and unification giving access to more resources (2):
Making it easier for people to read books from other countries is rather curious because the differences in ordinary literary braille are fairly minimal. (Reader/transcriber)
Views on UEB
Participants discussed the various advantages and disadvantages of the UEB code.
Advantages
The following are the advantages of the UEB code as discussed by participants.
UEB is easier
Participants identified various ways in which UEB would be easier than SEB. These included the code being easier to learn (with fewer contractions and less ambiguity), easier to teach, and easier to produce:
It’s got to be easier to learn, because if one sign only has one meaning, you’re not learning four different things and getting confused as to what’s what. (Reader/teacher) Because it’s a unified code, the symbols aren’t reused. It’s not ambiguous, so it should be much simpler to write the software. (Transcriber/teacher)
Participants saw further benefits to easier transcription, such as more automation – saving time and resources.
UEB unites
The idea of sharing a braille code with other countries appealed to many, particularly in terms of being able to share resources. As other countries have already implemented the code, UEB teaching materials are already available:
Clearly the international sharing of files, especially specific schemes for learners, will be of benefit in widening the breadth of resources available for young children learning to read by touch. (Teacher)
Participants also liked the idea of uniting literary and technical codes, particularly not having to learn extra codes and knowing what a symbol means regardless of context:
There’s a very complicated system for computer braille, there’s another very complicated system for maths and science. If this could encompass three braille codes that would be very very nice. (Student reader)
UEB reflects print
Some participants liked the addition of print indicators making it easier for braille to accurately reflect print documents. However, this was a controversial issue with others feeling this was unnecessary.
UEB could promote braille
Participants discussed declining braille readership and the idea that a move to UEB may be an opportunity to promote braille further:
If and when we adopt [UEB] there will be a lot of opportunity to talk about it in mainstream media perhaps [ . . . ] I wondered if that would be a bit of an opportunity for a resurgence? (Reader/transcriber)
Disadvantages
The following are the disadvantages of the UEB code as discussed by participants.
UEB is longer
A key complaint about UEB was the additional space it takes up. Braille materials are already bulky, and some participants felt additional space in UEB – accounted for by loss of some contractions, abolition of sequencing, and additional print indicators – was unacceptable. Related issues participants identified were that this could be off putting to readers, make it difficult to store large braille documents, increase the time it takes to read and write braille, and increase production costs:
Bulk is one of the reasons discouraging people from using [braille]. UEB would only make this worse. (Reader) The fact that UEB would take up more paper means it may also cost more to produce. (Reader)
Transition to UEB
Many participants (13) expressed concern that the adoption of UEB would involve a difficult transition process. In particular, many were concerned about how the transition would affect students, and whether a change in code could disrupt their education:
‘Kids coming up to GCSE [General Certificate of Secondary Education qualifications] have such a huge workload anyway, I don’t think you could possibly contemplate changing them across to a different code at any point’. (Transcriber/teacher)
Retraining in technical codes was another concern, as teacher expertise and braille resources are scarce already. Ensuring sufficient materials were available in the new code was also raised, as well as concern over what would happen to all the existing braille material. The change of code would also require changes to technology, such as transcription software and hardware, and braille devices. An implication of many of these resources was the cost involved:
Expense of resources, upgrading software, all that sort of thing, it’s not always easy to find the money. (Transcriber/teacher) Everybody who has a refreshable braille display will have to send it off to be updated. Who is going to fund that? (Reader/teacher)
Finally, participants were concerned about the relearning needed for existing readers to switch to a new braille code:
You’ve got to learn it all over again, a different system, it’s going to be very hard. (Reader)
UEB coding issues
There were some aspects of UEB coding which participants were uncomfortable with, or which they thought made the code more difficult. These included capital letter indicators (8), changes to punctuation (3), print indicators (3), and new signs to learn for technical coding (2).
UEB name
One participant felt the name Unified English Braille was confusing as English people were likely to think they already used it.
Impact of UEB
Participants were asked what they felt the impact would be if UEB were adopted in the United Kingdom.
Some participants (4) felt the impact would be minimal, with people simply retraining, replacing software and getting on with using the new code:
If we gave this to kids at school they’d be able to read it, they could access and make sense of it. (Teacher)
Some (6) felt UEB would have a positive impact, making braille easier to transcribe and teach and easier for new learners to learn:
Personally, if it makes my life easier in translation and back translation, it’s got to be good. (Reader/teacher)
Others felt the impact could be negative (11). Some transcribers observed the cost of retraining, new equipment, and replacing their stock of braille materials. Of the 20 braille readers involved in the study, six felt that they would find the change frustrating and it could slow down their reading, disrupt education, and increase the bulk of braille materials:
We’d read slower, we’d write slower and ultimately we’d get held back in our education. (Student reader)
Some participants (5) stated that if UEB were adopted, they would not use it. Reasons for this included a dislike for capital letter indicators, feeling braille is already too bulky and they could not accept any further increase in size, and the need to learn a new code was simply putting them off:
We have it, and I shall stop reading braille and that’s it. Because I just don’t like it, I don’t have the space for it. (Reader/transcriber/teacher)
These findings demonstrate that UEB is an emotive issue, with some people feeling very strongly both for and against the code. Participants were aware of negative feeling towards UEB among UK braille readers and felt this resistance to change could be a barrier to adoption:
I think it’s this antipathy of readers that’s going to be a huge problem. (Reader/transcriber) Nobody likes change. (Student reader)
A number of participants volunteered their views on whether or not UEB should be adopted in the United Kingdom. A full range of opinion was revealed, from those who would stop reading braille if it was in UEB (see above), to those who did not mind either way, to those who were in favour of adopting UEB:
I see fundamentally the reasons for [UEB] are quite strong and they make sense . . . I’m up for the challenge! (Reader/transcriber)
Future steps
A key concern for participants was the transition that would be required if UEB were adopted. Various suggestions were made as to how the transition should be managed. Participants discussed the speed of the transition – whether a gradual or total change should be implemented. The majority of participants felt a quick transition would be best, to avoid any confusion between different codes:
I think it needs to be done quickly really. The more time we take over it I think it could be very confusing. (Teacher)
Another area of discussion was whether UEB should be adopted as is, or whether certain aspects may be optional (such as capital letter indicators). Overall, it was felt that accepting the whole code would be preferable for clarity:
It’s either all or nothing. We can’t say ‘we don’t like this bit of it’, because you either accept the whole thing or not at all. (Reader/transcriber)
A number of key issues were raised by participants as areas that would need careful consideration in planning the transition. These are listed in Box 1.
Key points to consider in planning the implementation of UEB (raised by participants)
Decision-making around the timescales of transition (particularly within education)
Clear communication of decisions and keeping stakeholders informed throughout the process
Development of materials to teach UEB
Reference material such as UEB rules
Training for transcribers, teachers, and support staff
Updates to transcription software
Liaison with other bodies producing braille – such as on medicines/packaging – to ensure consistency
Replacing resources currently available in SEB
Discussion
These findings show a wide range of opinion from UK braille stakeholders about the adoption of UEB. One key finding is that overall, participants could read the UEB samples they were sent, despite having no reference material outlining the changes. This finding perhaps demonstrates that for literary material, UEB is not so different to existing codes and can be read without much difficulty.
Although they could read the code, some participants identified various features of UEB that they did not like. Some felt they could get used to changes over time, while others felt so strongly about the differences that they would choose not to read braille at all rather than read UEB. Some participants felt that this resistance to change among some braille readers could be a barrier to the adoption of UEB in the United Kingdom.
This sense of resistance to change has been noted in other research into attitudes towards UEB (Gerber & Smith, 2006), which recommended that awareness raising and educating people about the benefits of UEB could increase their willingness to accept the change. Indeed, participants in this study highlighted the need for further information about UEB, particularly explanation of the benefits of the code. Clear communication with all stakeholders should be a priority throughout the process of transition to UEB.
A key concern for participants was the period of transition involved in implementing a new braille code, particularly how quickly this would happen and the effects on children in education. Again, this concern has been raised in previous research (Gerber & Smith, 2006; Wetzel & Knowlton, 2006). Wetzel and Knowlton (2006) found that teachers expected the transition to take many years, both to prepare for the new code (training teachers and transcribers and preparing a teaching curriculum to teach readers the code) and in implementation (to allow a new generation of braille readers to learn UEB without older readers having to change the code they read). While a slow approach like this may be considered, evidence from countries that have already adopted UEB suggests a quicker transition is possible. Gentle, Steer, and Howse (2012) report on the transition to UEB in Australia, which they argue was successfully carried out over a period of 5 years. A key part of their implementation plan involved prioritising educational materials for the youngest students, so that learning braille for the first time, they only came across UEB. The oldest students – close to final examinations – were not introduced to UEB at school.
The opportunity to learn from other countries and share resources across the world is a key benefit of UEB and will help later adopting countries in making a smooth transition. In particular, the availability of resources such as UEB teaching programmes and rule books could speed the transition.
Post script
This research was carried out as part of a suite of studies to inform the decision on whether or not the United Kingdom should adopt UEB. See Cryer et al. (2013), Cryer, Home, and Osborne (2011), Cryer and Home (2011), White (2011b), and White (2011a) for the full picture of the evidence gathered.
Based on the findings from these studies, in October 2011, the UKAAF board voted in favour of adopting UEB as the preferred code for use in the United Kingdom. Since that time, work has been ongoing raising awareness of UEB across the United Kingdom, through information days, mailing lists, and much information being made available through UKAAF’s website (www.ukaaf.org). Plans for a 5-year transition period have been published by UKAAF (UKAAF, 2013a), with 2012 being a planning year, and work starting in 2013 to produce reference materials and training guidance. There is a focus in these plans on education, prioritising the needs of braille reading students. From 2014, new braille learners in education will be taught UEB, with most schoolchildren using UEB for literary material by the end of the 2015–2016 academic year.
The journey to UEB in the United Kingdom has been rocky at times, and this study shows there are still some opposed to the adoption of the code. However, the response to UKAAF’s information days and increasing subscriptions to the UEB mailing list suggest that people are engaging with the transition and are keen to learn more. Time will tell how UK braille readers respond to the adoption of UEB.
Further information
All enquiries regarding this work should be addressed to Dr Sarah Morley Wilkins.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all those who took part in this research, as well as Pete Osborne and Mandy White of RNIB for their collaboration in this project.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.