The discussion paper which follows, "Braille 2000: Meeting the Challenges of a New Millennium", was commissioned in 1998 by the Australian Braille Authority (ABA). A representative and authoritative working party was established to write the paper early in 1999. Its purpose is to give necessary background information and to formulate recommendations to inform discussion and decision-making at the full meeting of the ABA set for April 10 in Melbourne.
I acknowledge the contribution of Bruce Maguire who wrote the paper, with assistance from Gillian Gale, and I thank other people who contributed their views and advice.
Braille appears to be on the decline in Australia. A valid reason may be the choice of accessible formats now available to blind people, which was not the case before the computer age: the availability of talking books, computer-generated speech or print-handicapped radio. On the other hand, braille services in Australia are arguably among the poorest in developed countries - a regrettable fact which must surely hasten the decline in braille usage if left unchecked. Braille is fundamentally important in the education of blind children and it is the primary literacy medium for blind children and adults. Therefore, it is incumbent upon all stakeholders to do everything that can be done to arrest the decline in braille usage, to facilitate its production and availability, and to maximise its useability by blind people.
What can be more important than the actual braille codes to be used? The
time has come for change in Australia: to leave the isolated back water and
enjoy the main stream. We must replace the talk and procrastination with
written specifications and actions. The cost of Australia-specific braille
codes cannot be measured in dollars expended. Rather, the cost accrues as
services not provided, training materials for teachers and students being
non-existent, needs unmet and rights denied. This paper recommends approval
by the Australian Delegation of the Unified Braille Code, to be voted on at
the General Assembly of the International Council on English Braille (ICEB)
in November 1999. Further, it proposes that if the Unified Braille Code is
doomed, then Australia should adopt the US braille Codes. In particular,
this implies no change for computer braille, a small change for literary
braille, and a major change for Mathematics and Science braille codes.
Whether it be the Unified or the US braille Codes that we adopt in
Australia, the change-over cost is estimated at $200,000 and the
implementation time-frame is thought to be three years. Hardly minimal
change with negligible cost! Accordingly, it is important that all
stakeholders read the paper carefully, embrace its recommendations and
commit themselves to harnessing the human and financial resources necessary
to implement the braille codes proposed for Australia in the new millennium.
William Jolley
Convenor,
Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities and
Executive Officer, Blind Citizens Australia
February 1999
"Braille 2000: meeting the challenges of a new millennium" has been written to provide a strategy for making significant changes to the braille codes and practices that are used in Australia. These changes are necessary if Australian braille users are to benefit fully from developments in braille production technology, new mechanisms for providing braille in electronic formats, and international initiatives related to braille.
From the time that braille was introduced into Australia in the 1860's until about fifteen years ago, Australia followed British braille codes, including the code for literary braille as well as the codes for Mathematics and Science. However, from the early 1980's, a number of factors combined to bring about changes in the way braille is written in Australia. These included the increasing demand for vocational material in braille, the introduction of computerised braille production in Australia, and the realisation that braille is a tool that can be adapted to changing circumstances. But probably the single most important factor was the adoption of integration as the preferred way of providing education for blind children. This was the model that was used in the US, whereas Britain still preferred to educate most blind children in special schools. Integration meant that there was a need for braille to provide more accurate information about print formatting and capitalisation, and there was also a need for braille in a broad range of subject areas.
In response to this need, Australia made changes to its braille codes that caused them to diverge more and more from their British origins. As braille production software has continued to develop, and as the information superhighway is making it possible to create online repositories of braille material for the first time, Australia's divergent position from both Britain and the US will lead to significant disadvantages for braille users if action is not taken soon.
The information superhighway and the growing emphasis on globalisation have also created communications mechanisms for dealing at an international level with some of the problems that are inherent in the braille system itself. Under the auspices of the International Council on English Braille (ICEB), the Unified Braille Code (UBC) Research Project is developing proposals for a new braille code that would solve many of these problems. Australia is playing a leadership role in this research project, and in 1998 Australian braille users had the opportunity to participate in a preliminary but detailed evaluation of the proposals. There is considerable support for the proposed braille code, and a recognition of the need for change.
The UBC proposals will be considered at the General Assembly of the ICEB to be held in November 1999. It is not possible to say at present whether other member nations will adopt UBC, but one of the key recommendations in this paper is that Australia vote to accept the new code.
Of course, it is not viable for Australia to "go it alone", and so three other options have been considered in this paper, in case the UBC is not accepted by other ICEB members. Of these alternatives to the adoption of the UBC, the option to change to the codes and practices used in the US is considered the only one that will offer significant advantages to braille users in Australia. These advantages include the availability of a wider range of resources for braille teachers, students, and producers; access to a greater range of material, particularly in subjects such as Mathematics, Science and Computing; and greater compatibility with braille production software.
The eleven recommendations contained in this paper deal with the overall details of the strategy for changing the braille codes and practices used in Australia. A three-year implementation period is proposed, beginning in June 2000.
Direct costs associated with the changes proposed in this paper are difficult to quantify at this stage, but are likely to be about $200,000, spread over three years. The costs of not making these changes are to be measured in poor services, inadequate resources for training teachers to teach braille, lower standards of literacy among blind people, and increasing isolation of Australia from international developments related to braille. The final recommendations in the paper therefore call upon the blindness sector in Australia to secure the necessary funding, and to make public and tangible commitments of support.
ABA Australian Braille Authority ABLA Australian Braille Literacy Action BANA Braille Authority of North America BCA Blind Citizens Australia BUOC "Braille User-Oriented" Code ICEB International Council on English Braille RNIB Royal National Institute for the Blind SPEVI South Pacific Educators in Vision Impairment UBC Unified Braille Code
Recommendation 1 (Section 3.5)
That, at its meeting to be held in Melbourne on April 10, 1999, the ABA resolve as follows:
That, since the ABA believes that the introduction of the Unified Braille Code (UBC) will be in the best interests of all braille users, it therefore directs Australia's delegation to vote in favour of the endorsement of the UBC proposals at the General Assembly of the ICEB to be held in November 1999, unless there are compelling reasons that, in the opinion of the delegation, require otherwise.
Recommendation 2 (Section 3.5)
That, at its meeting to be held in Melbourne on April 10, 1999, the ABA resolve as follows:
That, in the event that the Unified Braille Code (UBC) is endorsed by the General Assembly of the ICEB at its meeting in November 1999, and provided that the UBC is adopted by BANA, the ABA adopt UBC as the only official code approved for use in Australia.
Recommendation 3 (Section 3.5)
That, at its meeting to be held in Melbourne on April 10, 1999, the ABA resolve as follows:
That, in the event that BANA does not adopt, or does not appear likely to adopt the UBC following the conclusion of the General Assembly of the ICEB to be held in November 1999, then the ABA:
Recommendation 4 (Section 3.5)
That, at its meeting to be held in Melbourne on April 10, 1999, the ABA resolve as follows:
That the ABA hold a special meeting immediately following the conclusion of the General Assembly of the ICEB, the sole purposes of which will be to:
Recommendation 5 (Section 4)
That the implementation of the new codes and practices be co-ordinated by a Project Officer supported by an "Implementation Team" comprising the four members of Australia's delegation to the 1999 General Assembly of the ICEB, a representative of Blind Citizens Australia, and a representative of South Pacific Educators in Vision Impairment (SPEVI).
Recommendation 6 (Section 4)
That the changes to braille codes and practices used in Australia be introduced on an incremental basis beginning on January 1, 2001, and that, prior to this date, thorough training and familiarisation be provided for all users.
Recommendation 7 (Section 4)
That the timetable for implementation of the new codes and practices be as follows, noting, however, that there may be a need for some flexibility because of differences in curricula between states and also because of different curricular requirements in different subject areas:
Recommendation 8 (Section 4)
That the ABA offer to have discussions with relevant braille producers and users in New Guinea aimed at exploring ways in which Australia can assist New Guinea in implementing the changes that are made to braille codes and practices in Australia.
Recommendation 9 (Section 4)
That the ABA, in co-operation with other appropriate bodies, explore sources of funding for the implementation of the new braille codes and practices.
Recommendation 10 (Section 4)
That, prior to the special meeting of the ABA to be held in November 1999, all organisations identified as constituting the blindness sector be contacted seeking tangible and public declarations of support for, and financial commitment to the implementation of the new braille codes and practices.
Recommendation 11 (Section 4)
That, at the special meeting of the ABA to be held in November 1999, each member be called upon to table their organisation's statement of commitment and support, and that these statements become part of the public record through their inclusion in the Minutes of this special meeting.
"Braille 2000: Meeting the challenges of a new millennium" is the result of a process that began during the teleconference meeting of the Executive of the Australian Braille Authority (ABA), held on September 15, 1998. It was agreed that, while the ABA has been a supporter of, and remains committed to, the Unified Braille Code (UBC) Research Project, it cannot discount the possibility that the UBC will not be adopted by members of the ICEB. As a result of discussions that took place during the ensuing weeks, it became clear that the members of the ABA Executive were unanimous in their view that, irrespective of the outcome of the UBC Research Project, fundamental decisions need to be made in the near future about the direction that braille in Australia will take in the coming years. A submission was prepared outlining the Executive's proposals for the establishment of a Working Party to develop the discussion paper outlining the reasons for and consequences of such decisions, as well as recommending implementation strategies. This submission was presented to the Administration Group of the Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities Inc. (since the ABA is a Subcommittee of the Round Table), and at its meeting on November 30, 1998, the Administration Group accepted the rationale and substance of the proposals made in this submission. Consequently, the Working Party was established, and had its first meeting in Sydney on December 17, 1998.
The Working Party comprises the Executive of the ABA, Australia's delegation to the ICEB General Assembly to be held in November, 1999, all Australia's representatives on the various international committees associated with the UBC Research Project, and a representative from Blind Citizens Australia. Noting that there is some overlap between these positions, the members of the Working Party are as follows:
At its December meeting, the Working Party determined the structure and general content of the discussion paper, and asked Gillian Gale and Bruce Maguire to produce an initial working draft. This draft was circulated to all Working Party Members, who have had the opportunity to provide input into the final version of the paper. The paper is now being distributed throughout Australia, and it is our expectation that it will form the major topic of discussion at the ABA meeting to be held in Melbourne on April 10, 1999. At this meeting, the Working Party will seek a commitment from the ABA to support and implement the recommendations contained in this paper.
In commending this paper to the Australian community of braille users on behalf of the Working Party, I cannot stress too strongly that the recommendations that it contains are of critical importance for the future of braille in Australia. It is, moreover, the Working Party's unanimous belief that unless these recommendations are comprehensively implemented by the Australian blindness sector, braille in Australia will not maintain its place as the primary literacy medium for people who are blind.
This paper comprises over 12,000 words. Compared with the articles that are published regularly in academic journals in the Social Sciences, this is not particularly long. However, it probably does represent a more lengthy and closely-reasoned discussion than is usual in relation to braille. The Working Party believes that the issues, options and strategies discussed in this paper are sufficiently important to warrant such a discussion, particularly because the decisions that are made in 1999 with respect to braille, either through action or inaction, will have a long-lasting effect on the lives of future generations of braille users. As we approach the end of the 20th century, we can reflect with pride on the commitment that has been shown by those who have promoted and produced braille in Australia over the past hundred years. It should never be forgotten that many of these people have served in a voluntary capacity. If future generations of braille users are to look back with pride on the legacy that we, at millennium's end, bequeath to them, then we must approach the challenges and opportunities that face braille in the same spirit of commitment, dedication and service.
May I urge all members of the community of braille users in Australia to read this paper carefully. We welcome comments, discussion and debate, and assure you of our unswerving commitment to ensuring that braille remains a vital, enabling and empowering literacy and communications medium for its users.
Braille was invented by Louis Braille in the 1820's. It was immediately seen by most blind people as an effective medium for reading and writing, although it was not until early in the twentieth century that braille had become a universal means of communication among blind people, partly because of the opposition of some sighted people who felt that blind people should be taught using raised print rather than a separate system such as braille.
Today, braille is used by blind people throughout the world as a medium of literacy and communication. Braille gives readers the opportunity to participate actively in the reading process by making it possible to review what has been read, reflect on subtleties of meaning and expression, easily obtain accurate information about spelling and punctuation, skip quickly to specific paragraphs or pages, and vary the speed of reading according to the subject and interest level. In this way, reading braille is an active process that is much closer to reading print than are alternatives such as listening to tapes or synthetic speech, which are passive forms of reading.
Braille can also be used in almost every aspect of life: accessing computers and the Internet, reading educational and vocational material, studying Mathematics, writing shopping lists, playing games such as Scrabble, Monopoly and cards, labelling CD's, tapes, household appliances and clothing. Research has shown that blind people who are literate in braille have higher employment rates and educational levels, are financially more self-sufficient, and spend more time reading (Ryles, 1996).
But despite the obvious and demonstrable benefits of braille for people who are blind, its use in Australia continues to raise issues of concern to those who are committed to the promotion of braille. Some informed users believe that braille services in Australia are, arguably, the poorest in the western world, and lag behind those available in some developing countries. There are, for example, no Australian braille magazines, little opportunity for braille users to have specific titles produced for them in braille if they are not considered to be a student, and a fragmented approach to the teaching and learning of braille. If one looks at the history of braille production and use in Australia, one is struck by the fact that the commitment to braille as the literacy medium of choice for blind people seems to have declined in recent years. Although there are a number of reasons for this situation, one factor (or, more precisely, one set of factors) relates to the number and distinctiveness of the braille codes and practices that are used in Australia.
The present paper offers strategies for improving the usage of braille in Australia by making significant changes to Australian braille codes and practices. The implementation of these strategies will, we believe, allow for more cost-effective production of braille by Australian producers, as well as allowing access to a greater quantity of braille produced in other countries. Most importantly, the implementation of these strategies will also increase the availability of resources for teaching and learning braille, and so will benefit not only the current generation of Australians who are blind, but also future generations of braille users.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
This paper contains proposals that will bring about significant and far- reaching changes to the braille codes and practices that are used in Australia. It is important to have some understanding of the history that has shaped the development of braille in Australia if proper consideration is to be given to these proposals. This section provides a brief overview of the main aspects of that history.
For more than a century until the late 1970's, braille usage in Australia was governed by codes, rules and formats developed in Britain. This is not surprising, given the historical, socio-cultural and political connections that existed between Australia and Britain. Indeed, for many braille users in Australia, the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) was akin to a cultural icon, and a visit to Britain was not complete without a tour of the RNIB's London offices (in fact, blind people often visited Britain solely for that purpose). The imperial connections between the two countries worked to the advantage of braille users, too, since braille books produced in Britain were sold at heavily subsidised prices to Australia, and there was little reason to look elsewhere for braille-writing equipment when it, also, was subsidised. There were few calls for the establishment of an Australian braille authority, and even though many consumers felt that a national braille press would be an advantage, it was generally felt that the market was too small in Australia to make such a venture viable.
The introduction of the American Perkins Brailler in the late 1950's is perhaps the first sign of the break with British braille customs, because Australia began to look for the first time to the US as the source of braille-writing equipment. However, it was not until the late 1970's and early 1980's that six factors began to combine to produce a climate in which Australia was able to develop its own approach to braille codes. These factors were:
Each of these factors is now considered in more detail.
Firstly, the introduction of computerised braille production into Australia by the Royal NSW Institute for Deaf and Blind Children in 1978. The "Instran Computer Braille Facility", as it was known, was Australia's first and only national braille production facility. Using braille production software developed in the US, the facility was able to produce a greater quantity of braille; additional copies could also be produced quickly. This material was made available for purchase by anyone in Australia. Production of braille material having a national focus, such as the newsletter of the National Federation of Blind Citizens, and the Australian postcode book, was also undertaken. the facility thus achieved a penetration into the braille-using community in Australia that had never before been achieved by any single Australian producer.
In 1984, the facility's hardware and software were upgraded, and, in the process, the decision was taken to introduce capitalisation into braille that it produced. This decision signalled the first major divergence between British and Australian codes of braille usage. As such, it was a defining moment in the history of braille production and usage in Australia. Although not all braille producers followed Instran's lead immediately, the break with tradition had been made-and the world had not ended.
Probably the major stimulus for the decision to introduce capitalisation into braille in Australia was the growing prevalence of mainstreaming. Since the mid-1970's, this had been the philosophy on which the education of blind children in Australia was based. Both teachers and braille users were becoming increasingly aware of the need for blind children to have a greater understanding of print conventions in order to make it easier for them to interact with sighted peers and teachers. And it was not just capitalisation that was at issue: the traditional approach to braille formatting was based on the philosophy that braille is an "autonomous script" (Poole, 1982), and the resulting practices did not seem to be appropriate for a mainstream education environment. Braille had to provide information to blind students about how things were done in print, and so it could not afford to remain autonomous.
Responding to the needs of mainstreaming, Australian braille producers turned to the US for guidance. Braille produced in the US had long used capitalisation, and there was a well-developed and detailed set of rules and guidelines for dealing with a wide variety of formats-all having a closer relationship to print conventions than their British counterparts, such as they were. The US was also the source for much technical material available in braille, such as Mathematics, Statistics and Science texts. With the greater participation by Australian blind people in vocational and professional activities, the availability of such material was imperative.
A third factor that contributed to the development of a distinctively Australian approach to braille codes was the emergence of computer-based technology that incorporated braille. The VersaBraille and other braille terminals all originated in the US, and, therefore, used the US braille computer code. Software for braille translation such as the Duxbury Braille Translator was also based on US braille codes and practices, and although Duxbury and (later) other software developers did add support for British braille, the main focus was still on the US market.
A fourth factor that helped promote a distinctive approach to braille in Australia was the development of what may best be termed a national braille consciousness. There were actually three elements that contributed to this development, the first being the establishment of the Australian Braille Authority. Australia's first national braille seminar was held in 1980, and one of its recommendations called for the establishment of an Australian Braille Authority that would have responsibility for the administration of braille codes and practice in Australia. The Australian Braille Authority (ABA) was duly formed, and held its first meeting in Sydney in November 1982. At that time, the ABA was, technically at least, a subcommittee of the Australian National Council of and for the Blind (ANCB). However, the formation, in 1981, of the organisation now known as the Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities Inc. provided an opportunity for the ABA to become part of a national body with a focus on the development of standards. So, in 1984, the ABA became a subcommittee of the Round Table, in which capacity it functions today.
A second element that contributed to the development of a national braille consciousness was the increasing number of blind students throughout Australia who were expecting material to be made available in braille. From about the mid-1970's, the number of blind students pursuing post-Secondary education began to grow. Although some of these students preferred audio tapes as their main study medium, many others found that braille was more effective, and for subjects such as Mathematics, Statistics, Computing and Phonetics, braille was-and still is-the only way of gaining access to study material. With this increase in demand for braille came a growing emphasis on the need for national standards to ensure acceptable levels of quality in the braille that was produced, and producers also were anxious to find more effective ways of producing braille. The result was a greater focus on braille.
A third element that is worth mentioning in this discussion is the study that was conducted by Beverley Johnson into patterns and trends in Australian braille usage (Johnson 1986). This research and development project was funded by the National Library of Australia, and it both contributed to, and resulted from, the emergence of a national braille consciousness in Australia. The study found that braille reading in Australia was increasing, but that braille readers were significantly under- served. Its fifteen recommendations included the establishment of a unified national braille library service; the creation of a national register of braille readers; the employment by braille libraries of librarians with a knowledge of braille; the production of Australian braille magazines; and the extension of braille library collections to cater for the vocational, informational and educational needs of readers, rather than just their need for recreational fiction. Beverley Johnson's study served as a focal point for debate about braille in Australia, even though not all of the recommendations have ever been implemented. It helped to foster an awareness among braille readers that their access to timely, quality braille is a right, not a privilege. It helped, too, to strengthen the growing conviction that braille readers are the ultimate custodians of the braille codes and practices that are used by producers, and that these can be adapted to changing circumstances.
A fifth factor that contributed to the development of a distinctively Australian approach to braille was the influence of proposals for braille reform. During the 1980's, a number of such proposals were introduced. Probably the most significant from Australia's point of view was the "Braille User-Oriented" code proposed by Rebecca Maxwell (Maxwell, 1982). BUOC, as it is known, was designed as an extension of Grade 2 braille, and aimed at making braille more concise and flexible by introducing more contractions and relaxing some of the rigid rules governing the writing of braille. BUOC has not been accepted by the mainstream braille-using community for a number of reasons, but it is still used in personal writing by a few people, especially the members of the Melbourne-based group known as Australian Braille Literacy Action (ABLA). The significance of BUOC for the present discussion is that it encouraged braille users to regard braille as a tool that could be changed and moulded to meets their needs, rather than as a rigid code that shaped its users.
Finally, the development in Australia of a national, articulate, consumer movement, prepared to question established customs and traditions, also played a part in the re-evaluation of the reliance on British braille codes. The leaders of this movement were themselves negotiating the vocational and professional world, and they required braille to cater effectively for new subjects such as Computing, and to provide greater information about print conventions in more traditional subjects such as Mathematics. Participants in this consumer movement were also to bring a variety of perspectives to discussions relating to braille, particularly in view of the fact that some of them were also involved at a managerial and policy level in braille production. As a result, there was an increasing focus on the needs and wishes of braille users, and the goal of production was seen as the satisfaction of these needs.
The interplay of these factors created a new way of thinking that emphasised braille's role as the key to literacy for people who are blind, and stressed that braille is an empowering communication medium, rather than simply a code. Probably the most significant manifestation of this change was the establishment by the ABA of a technical subcommittee in 1982, whose main task was to investigate the need for a revision of the Mathematics code as it applied to Australia. The British Mathematics code was based on the assumptions that transcribers would have a good knowledge of Mathematics, and that students did not need to know very much about print conventions for formatting and writing Mathematics. In Australia, neither of these assumptions was true, and there was a general feeling that a new code was needed that was more reflective of print, and which was easier to teach, learn and use.
The new code was introduced in 1987, and although it was based on the British code, there were significant differences. And once it had begun, the drift away from British braille codes continued: the introduction of the Australian Braille Mathematics Notation meant that certain aspects of the literary code had to be modified as well, if the two codes were to be in harmony, for example, the rules for writing abbreviations for weights and measures, and the braille representation of the percent sign. There were further modifications as a result of decisions that were taken at the international braille conference held in London in 1988. Then, in 1989, the ABA approved the US braille computer code. In 1992, the ABA published rules for the use of the capital sign in Australia (the American rules could not be adopted because they conflicted with parts of the British literary code used in Australia, and so would have required even more change). Most recently, a "Codes Update Bulletin" and a revised notation for Chemistry were issued in 1995.
In developing modifications to existing braille codes and practices in the Australian context, the Australian Braille Authority's paramount concern was to minimise disruption and inconvenience to users, while maximising the benefits. This is why, for example, the Nemeth (US) Mathematics code was not introduced. The introduction of this code would have meant major re- education of braille producers, teachers and readers in Australia, and would have required the introduction of other US codes. At the time, such dislocation was not seen as desirable, because there was no translation software available to produce Mathematics using the Nemeth code, and because it was very expensive to purchase braille material from the US, since little if any of this material was available in electronic form. In any case, the introduction of US codes would not address one of the most fundamental difficulties with the braille system itself: the lack of uniformity within the various codes. The most significant attempt to address this problem has been the Unified Braille Code (UBC) Research Project, which is discussed in the next section.
1.2 Unified Braille Code (UBC) Research Project
There is no question that braille has shown itself to be remarkably resilient and flexible in responding to the changing needs of its users. Codes have been developed to allow the literature of almost every conceivable subject to be rendered in braille: Chemistry, Chess, Computing, Electronics, Genetics, Linguistics, Mathematics, Music, Phonetics, and Physics have all been studied using braille.
However, this adaptability has come at a price-or, rather, two complementary costs: lack of consistency between codes used in different countries; and lack of consistency with the codes used in individual countries.
Firstly, there has been little co-ordination in the development of specialist braille codes in different countries. Thus, while the braille symbols for the letters of the alphabet, numbers, and punctuation are well- nigh universal, the codes used for subjects like Computing and Mathematics are not (an exception is the braille Music code, which is used by nearly all countries). A braille reader using the American Nemeth Mathematics code cannot read a braille Mathematics book produced in Britain or Australia without considerable study. This situation is also true of Chemistry, Computing, Electronics, and Physics. As we have already seen, there are sufficient differences between the Australian and British codes for Mathematics to cause practical limitations on the interchange of material between the two countries.
Even if the literary code is considered, there are still differences between British and American codes, mainly in the rules governing the usage of braille contractions. For example, in British braille the contraction for "of" is allowed in words like "professor", while in American braille it is not; following pronunciation, British braille does not allow the "ea" contraction in "Seattle" whereas-curiously it is allowed in American braille. Australian braille has, as has already been noted, adopted the American practice of showing capitalisation in braille, but we have retained adherence to British contraction rules. Although these differences are not as great as those in other codes, they are sufficient to invalidate the use of American braille-teaching resources by users of British braille, and vice versa.
Secondly, braille has developed in a fairly ad hoc manner, even within individual countries. In this respect, braille is like natural languages, whose spelling and grammar systems are generally full of inconsistencies and ambiguities. For braille, the most obvious effect is that there is often little consistency in the way symbols are used in different codes.
To illustrate, we will consider the braille symbol "("
It is not difficult to produce any number of similar examples, where one braille symbol has many meanings, depending on the code that is being used. While experienced braille readers may negotiate this labyrinth of meaning with ease, many teachers and users believe that the complexities of the braille system impose an unacceptable burden on those just learning braille, particularly if such learning is taking place in a mainstream school environment. For example, a braille-reading student studying French or Italian has to learn new meanings for the ( and other symbols, and often has to rely on the context to decide which meaning is being used. Sighted readers do not have to do this: an a-acute is always different from an a- grave, which is always different from an opening parenthesis, which is always different from an opening square bracket.
A further-albeit secondary-consideration is that such variations in the meaning of braille symbols makes it more difficult to produce braille using computerised methods.
In 1991, the Braille Authority of North America (BANA) asked Drs Tim Cranmer and Abraham Nemeth-two of America's leading authorities on braille-to comment on the desirability and feasibility of developing a more unified braille system. The resulting article (Cranmer & Nemeth, 1991) is an articulate and well-reasoned plea for a more uniform braille code, and acted as the primary stimulus for BANA's establishment of a research project to develop proposals for such a code. The Objective II Committee was responsible for formulating proposals relating to the extension of the literary code to include other subject areas, and this committee produced a report in October 1992 (BANA 1992).
It soon became apparent that the project BANA was undertaking had international ramifications, even though it was initially envisaged as only a national initiative. Since the first international English braille conference in 1982, there had been a growing recognition that the general decline in levels of braille literacy and the erosion of the status of braille as the primary communication medium for blind people were, at least in part, attributable to the inconsistencies and complexities of the braille system itself.
At its Executive meeting held in Sydney in June 1993, the International Council on English Braille (ICEB) agreed to assume responsibility for the BANA-initiated project, and it was renamed to the Unified Braille Code (UBC) Research Project. The various activities relating to the project were organised into seven key areas, each under the direction of a separate committee. Each member country of ICEB was entitled to one representative on each of these seven committees, with the addition that many of the original members of the BANA project were also included.
Australia has been an active and enthusiastic participating country in the UBC Research Project from its inception, with representation on each of the seven committees associated with the project. It was recognised by the ABA that a successful outcome would bring many benefits to Australian braille users. Moreover, without the entrenched ideological position with respect to braille that is evident in some other countries, Australia has been able to focus more on the benefits and opportunities offered by the UBC than the forsaking of traditions and practices that its adoption would entail.
It was also recognised that consultation with braille users would be crucial for the success of the project, and so the ABA sought and obtained funding from the Commonwealth Government to allow workshops to be held in each state and territory of Australia in order to introduce braille users (consumers, transcribers and teachers) to the unfolding UBC proposals, and to provide feedback and guidance for Australia's representatives on the various committees responsible for developing the proposals. As a result, Australian braille users have, we believe, been better and earlier informed about the proposals, and have had greater opportunities to provide input into the code-development process.
The aim of the UBC Research Project can be simply and briefly stated: to develop a single, unified braille code that will encompass all subject areas with the exception of Music, while preserving the basic symbology and structure of standard English braille. The original time-frame for the project envisaged its completion by 1996. However, it has proved to be much easier to write about the UBC Research Project than to bring it to fruition: even with extensive use of the Internet as a medium of communication, international projects underwritten by limited budgets generally proceed slowly; consultation and familiarisation always take time, and all participants in the project have been especially mindful of the importance of legitimising each stage by reference to the view of braille users; and, finally, most of those participating in the project are doing so on an entirely voluntary basis, interpolating their work with their many other activities.
In June 1995, the committee responsible for developing the base code and its extensions into other subject areas (Objective II Committee) submitted a detailed report of its progress (ICEB 1995). At the General Assembly of the ICEB held in October of that year, it was felt that the UBC proposals were sufficiently developed for an initial evaluation to be conducted. Unfortunately, it took some time to prepare and distribute the evaluation questionnaires and sample materials, and it was not until 1998 that the evaluation was conducted. 134 Australian braille users (teachers, transcribers and braille readers) indicated their willingness to participate, and over 50% completed the questionnaires that formed part of the evaluation package. Users in Britain, the US, Canada, Nigeria, New Zealand, South Africa, and Japan, also participated in this evaluation of the UBC. The results have been made available to the Executive of the ICEB, and an official summary is expected in the near future. In the meantime, it does seem that the proposals have met with general approval, although certain elements of the proposals will require some adjustment, and so the committees associated with the project are continuing their work.
And there is much work yet to be done. Although the basic structure, symbology and mechanism of the UBC have been developed to a considerable extent by Committee II (which is responsible for developing the base code and its extension into other subject areas), the other committees still have the majority of their tasks to accomplish, including the development of rules governing the use of the code, rules relating to the formatting of braille material produced in the UBC, development of mechanisms that will allow the UBC to interface with foreign-language braille codes, and recommendations for changes (if any) to the system of contractions used in the UBC.
At the time of writing this paper (February 1999) it is unclear whether sufficient work will have been done to enable the General Assembly of the ICEB to reach a final decision about the future of the UBC at its meeting in November 1999. Certainly, the UBC will form the major topic of discussion at this meeting. It is not easy to see how the required momentum and enthusiasm could be maintained if a final decision is not made in November, in view of the limited resources available as well as the amount of time the project has so far taken.
The Working Party remains firm in its belief that the UBC will, if adopted by a significant proportion of the countries participating in the project, bring many benefits and opportunities to all braille users, including those in Australia. We are, however, aware that there are a number of factors operating within the Australian braille environment that can no longer be ignored, and which call for prompt and substantial action in order to preserve the place of braille as the primary literacy and communication medium for people who are blind. An analysis of the current situation relating to braille usage in Australia will lead to an identification of these factors, and prepare the way for a discussion of the various options that are available.
Having provided a brief sketch of the genealogy of braille in Australia, and having traced the development of the UBC Research Project, it is now possible to reach some conclusions about the status of braille in Australia in 1999.
Firstly, on the positive side, it is clear that the developments that have taken place over the past 20 years have resulted in braille practices that reflect the requirements and wishes of the Australian community of braille users. In an educational environment dominated by the philosophy of mainstreaming, in an age where most braille is produced by computer, and in a society where consumers have sought to embrace the benefits and responsibilities of active citizenship, the ABA has encouraged those processes and strategies that have resulted in a distinctively Australian approach to braille.
On the other hand, the increasing divergence of braille practices in Australia from those in Britain, coupled with a disinclination to adopt the American system, are placing an increasing burden on the ABA insofar as the maintenance of braille codes and the production of reference and teaching materials are concerned. Producers are finding that they must spend time adjusting the output of computerised braille translation programs so that it complies with the codes and practices approved by the ABA for use in Australia. Furthermore, although these codes and practices are thoroughly documented, the documentation is not well-consolidated, which often makes it difficult for new users (whether they be producers, teachers or consumers) to learn braille in an effective and stress-free way.
There are further problems, caused by the incompatibility between the mathematics and computer codes. When the US computer code was introduced in 1989, there were relatively few cases where complex mathematical expressions were contained in computing material. Thus, it did not matter that the Australian Mathematics code was derived from the British one, while the computer code was written to be compatible with the Nemeth code. However, over the past few years the mismatch between the two codes has become an increasing problem, as blind university students study topics such as software engineering, where there is often a need to write complex mathematical expressions in the midst of computer material. In many cases, the only way that these can be rendered in braille using current Australian codes is by the extensive use of "transcriber's notes", which disrupt the flow of the text and add significantly to production time.
It must also be borne in mind that Australia's participation in the UBC Research Project has left few resources available to be channelled into code maintenance. In any case, it has not seemed appropriate to undertake substantial code revision, only to find that it is soon rendered obsolete by the introduction of the UBC.
The time has come, however, to recognise that the difficulties and disadvantages inherent in the Australian braille system will continue to isolate Australia from the rest of the braille-using world, and will inevitably become more noticeable in the next few years if fundamental changes are not made in the near future. The coming-together of a number of factors now provides unassailable support for such change:
THE OPTIONS
Although it may be overstating the gravity of the situation to summarise by saying that, as we approach the dawn of a new millennium, braille is in crisis, it is, nevertheless, true that the position of braille in Australia is far from secure. It is also apparent that this position will become ever more precarious in the coming years if the factors discussed in the previous section are allowed to operate unchecked. As the national body responsible for the maintenance and promotion of braille in Australia, the ABA must therefore show leadership by outlining the various options that are available to respond to the challenges, and by providing recommendations on the specific choices that will best serve braille users.
There are four options from which to choose in planning the future direction of braille in Australia:
At the outset, it is to be emphasised that, in the Working Party's view, only the first two options offer sufficient advantages to Australian braille users to merit serious consideration. All four are, however, presented here so that comparisons can be made.
It will also be noticed that these four options are exhaustive and mutually exclusive; in other words, one, and only one, option can be chosen from among the four. The decision to formulate the options in this way was deliberate, and two important consequences flow from it. First, the Working Party rejects the historical and current approach of selecting elements from a number of codes and synthesising them into what may best be termed a hybrid Australian code. The literary code used in Australia is an example of this approach: the use of capitals has been introduced into an otherwise British code, and further changes have been made to bring it into conformity with the Australian braille Mathematics notation. Although the aim has been to optimise braille codes and practices for Australian requirements, the continuation of this strategy will lead to greater code divergence between Australia and other countries. This, in turn, will lead to greater isolation of Australia from the rest of the braille-using world. In view of Australia's small population of braille users, combined with its relatively scarce and sparsely-distributed expertise in braille, this strategy can therefore no longer be supported.
A second consequence of the formulation of mutually exclusive options is that in assessing their relative merits, the focus should be on each option as a whole, rather than on the minute details. No braille code is perfect, and there will, inevitably, be elements of any proposal that will be unacceptable or unsatisfactory to some users. One user might, for example, want to change a particular symbol assignment in the UBC, while another might want to modify one or other of the rules. Again, such an approach is not in the interests of braille users because it leads to greater code divergence. With this in mind, the Working Party did not analyse each of the braille codes symbol by symbol and rule by rule: rather, it considered them in terms of the advantages and disadvantages that each option represents as a total package. We urge others to do the same, as they reach their own conclusions about the options that are presented here.
The Working Party believes that the UBC proposals, judged on the basis of their current state of development, provide a secure framework for the continuation and development of braille as a vital, robust medium in the years to come. As such, the adoption of the UBC is the preferred option. However, the Working Party does not believe that it would be in the best interests of braille users for Australia to adopt the UBC unilaterally, and so this option will only be viable if the UBC is adopted by a significant proportion of the member countries of ICEB, including the US. Should the US decide not to adopt the UBC, the Working Party believes that it would be foolish for Australia to act alone, or even in concert with one or a number of other ICEB members, in adopting the UBC.
Assuming that this condition is met, the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the UBC are as follows:
This is the Working Party's second choice, and may be labelled the "Fallback Option". It will no doubt become clearer as the November ICEB General Assembly approaches whether the UBC is likely to be adopted by the US and other ICEB members. The Working Party believes that if the UBC is not adopted by the US, then Australia should replace its current codes and practices with those used in the US, including the US literary braille code (BANA 1994), the US braille Mathematics and Science code (Nemeth, 1972), the US braille Chemistry code (BANA 1998), and the code for textbook formatting (BANA 1995).
The adoption of this option would lead to a number of advantages for braille users in Australia; however, as with the other options, there would also be some potential disadvantages, perhaps the most serious of which is that there would still be inherent complexities in the braille system itself.
It is also possible that the US may not adopt the UBC in November 1999 (or soon thereafter), but might adopt it some time in the future. If, then, Australia were to adopt the US braille system in 2001, it might be faced with further change within a few years. It is impossible, at present, to assess the likelihood of this scenario, and the Working Party believes that the risks involved in changing to the US codes are far outweighed by the advantages that would result, and by the harmful consequences of doing nothing. In any case, Australia would be assisted in this second wave of change by the training resources that would almost certainly be developed by the US as part of its changeover to the UBC.
It has only been in the last fifteen years or so that significant differences have emerged between braille usage in Australia and that in Britain. For the most part, braille books imported into Australia still come from Britain, and most braille magazines also originate in Britain. Australian braille readers thus have exposure to, and familiarity with, the British literary braille code.
On the other hand, there are comparatively few teaching and learning resources available from Britain, although there are some useful programmes for teaching braille to very young children (Fitzsimons 1988; RNIB 1994). In addition, the computer code is completely different from the American code (which is the one used in Australia); little braille translation software is developed in Britain; the use of capitalisation in British literary braille is only just beginning, and British braille codes do not feature in online braille repositories.
Thus, while it would be possible for Australia to replace its current braille codes and practices with those used in Britain, the Working Party does not believe that such replacement would be in the long-term interests of Australian braille users.
It should be clear from the previous sections of this paper that maintenance of the status quo is not, in the view of the Working Party, a justifiable option. To do nothing to influence the future direction of braille would be an inaction of gross irresponsibility, and would lead to warranted condemnation from current and future generations of braille users in Australia.
There are only disadvantages in maintaining the current situation.
The Working Party makes the following recommendations, which are based on an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the four options presented in the previous subsections. In making these recommendations, the Working Party believes that it is providing a framework the adoption of which will ensure the continuity and primacy of braille in Australia.
Recommendation 1
That, at its meeting to be held in Melbourne on April 10, 1999, the ABA resolve as follows:
That, since The ABA believes that the introduction of the Unified Braille Code (UBC) will be in the best interests of all braille users, it therefore directs Australia's delegation to vote in favour of the endorsement of the UBC proposals at the General Assembly of the ICEB to be held in November 1999, unless there are compelling reasons that, in the opinion of the delegation, require otherwise.
Recommendation 2
That, at its meeting to be held in Melbourne on April 10, 1999, the ABA resolve as follows:
That, in the event that the Unified Braille Code (UBC) is endorsed by the General Assembly of the ICEB at its meeting in November 1999, and provided further that the UBC is adopted by BANA, the ABA adopt UBC as the only official code approved for use in Australia.
Recommendation 3
That, at its meeting to be held in Melbourne on April 10, 1999, the ABA resolve as follows:
That, in the event that BANA does not adopt, or does not appear likely to adopt the UBC following the conclusion of the General Assembly of the ICEB to be held in November 1999, then the ABA:
Recommendation 4
That, at its meeting to be held in Melbourne on April 10, 1999, the ABA resolve as follows:
That the ABA hold a special meeting immediately following the conclusion of the General Assembly of the ICEB, the sole purposes of which will be to:
Any major change, no matter how justified or well-conceived, will ultimately fail if its implementation does not give thorough and sensitive consideration to the needs and concerns of users. This is especially true in the case of the changes to braille usage in Australia that are proposed in this paper. Braille is a key to literacy and empowerment for its users, and past experience has shown that many of these users are, understandably, concerned and alarmed when proposals are made that will have a significant effect on the braille system. Such concern and alarm are likely to develop into antagonism and resistance unless changes are explained thoroughly, and without the opportunity for training and familiarisation. This will especially be the case if the changes are seen as being imposed by those who do not use braille themselves.
There is widespread acceptance of the need for some kind of change to the braille system used in Australia. This acceptance has in large part been brought about by the workshops that were conducted between 1994 and 1997 on various aspects of the UBC. However, it is important to remember that these workshops were designed to familiarise users with proposals that might, eventually, lead to change; they were not designed to provide training in a new code whose introduction was seen as inevitable. The Working Party does believe, however, that these workshops have laid the groundwork for change, and that there is therefore nothing to be gained in delaying the introduction of the changes by incorporating a lengthy discussion period into the implementation timeline.
The recommendations contained in this paper unequivocally imply that there will be definite, significant, and long-lasting changes to braille codes and practices in Australia. Therefore, the implementation strategy is crucial to the ultimate success of these changes. Such a strategy must include a number of key elements:
It should also be noted that the implementation strategy will, in most respects, be the same whichever option (Preferred or Fallback) is adopted; the main difference is that, with the Fallback option (adoption of codes and practices used in the US), there would be a greater range of teaching and other resources that producers and educators could purchase. There would, however, still be a need for the development of training and familiarisation materials that dealt with topics specific to local curricula (for example, each Australian state has its own Mathematics curriculum).
It is also important to remember that Australian braille codes and practices have been adopted by braille producers and teachers in New Guinea, and that some braille used in New Guinea is transcribed in Australia. The Working Party believes that the ABA must be mindful of the effects that the changes made to Australian braille will have on users in New Guinea, and that it must also explore ways in which Australia can assist these users during the implementation period.
Accordingly, the following implementation strategy is proposed:
Recommendation 5
That the implementation of the new codes and practices be co-ordinated by a Project Officer supported by an "Implementation Team" comprising the four members of Australia's delegation to the 1999 General Assembly of the ICEB, a representative of Blind Citizens Australia, and a representative of South Pacific Educators in Vision Impairment (SPEVI).
Recommendation 6
That the changes to braille codes and practices used in Australia be introduced on an incremental basis beginning on January 1, 2001, and that, prior to this date, thorough training and familiarisation be provided for all users.
Recommendation 7
That the timetable for implementation of the new codes and practices be as follows, noting, however, that there may be a need for some flexibility because of differences in curricula between states and also because of different curricular requirements in different subject areas:
Recommendation 8
That the ABA offer to have discussions with relevant braille producers and users in New Guinea aimed at exploring ways in which Australia can assist New Guinea in implementing the changes that are made to braille codes and practices in Australia.
There are, of course, significant resourcing implications of this implementation strategy. The main cost areas will be:
Based on these cost areas, it is reasonable to suppose that the total cost of introducing the changes to braille usage in Australia will be at least $200,000, spread over three years. However, it is not possible at this stage to provide definitive costings.
While the Working Party encourages the Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities Inc. and other appropriate bodies to pursue a variety of funding approaches, it does believe that the primary responsibility for the resourcing of the changes lies with the blindness sector. This sector is here defined to include: agencies that provide services to people who are blind, educational authorities that have direct or indirect responsibility for the education of students who are blind, Australian manufacturers and distributors of braille-related products, and consumer organisations. Because the changes will have long-term and significant implications for future generations of braille users, the Working Party believes that the sector must make definite and public declarations of support and financial commitments to implementation of the changes. The following recommendations give expression to this belief.
Recommendation 9
That the ABA, in co-operation with other appropriate bodies, explore sources of funding for the implementation of the new braille codes and practices.
Recommendation 10
That, prior to the special meeting of the ABA to be held in November 1999, all organisations identified as constituting the blindness sector be contacted seeking tangible and public declarations of support for, and financial commitment to the implementation of the new braille codes and practices.
Recommendation 11
That, at the special meeting of the ABA to be held in November 1999, each member be called upon to table their organisation's statement of commitment and support, and that these statements become part of the public record through their inclusion in the Minutes of this special meeting.
This paper began by charting the development of an Australian approach to braille that was born out of a unique combination of historical traditions, educational practices, production strategies, and consumer expectations. Whilst the resulting braille system is a testimony to the reliance and flexibility of the code itself, and evidence of the innovative spirit and dedication of those who have shaped its development, there is no doubt that the current braille system as used in Australia contains tensions and contradictions that, if left unresolved, will work to the detriment of blind people over the coming years. The options for change have been discussed, and recommendations presented.
The time has now come for the blindness sector, including service-providing agencies, education authorities at all levels, manufacturers and distributors of braille-related products, and consumers, to assemble the resources and summon the commitment necessary to implement these recommendations. The magnitude of the task should not be underestimated, but neither should the harmful consequences of a half-hearted and incomplete response.
In its Draft Policy Statement on the Education of Australians who are blind or vision impaired, Blind Citizens Australia calls upon educators to recognise that braille is the key to literacy for blind people (BCA 1998: §4.10.2). Gayle Lamb, who is one of Australia's foremost authorities on teaching literacy to blind children, adds that: "Children who are learning to read and write using braille need access to teachers who are competent braille users and good advocates for the use of this medium." (Lamb 1998). The Working Party endorses these principles, and, in presenting this paper, summons the blindness sector to demonstrate its support for the unprecedented importance of braille as people who are blind prepare to enter the world of the third millennium.
It is to be emphasised that the changes to braille implicit in the recommendations that have been presented are far-reaching and unprecedented in the history of braille usage in Australia. It must also be acknowledged that, like any attempt to introduce profound change, there are uncertainties inherent in the implementation of these recommendations. However, the Working Party believes that successful implementation of the recommendations contained in this paper will provide braille users with the greatest opportunity to function effectively and be included fully in the Australia of the third millennium.
Future generations of blind people will judge the sector on its response to the challenges and opportunities facing braille at the close of the twentieth century, but such judgement will, we believe, be the harsher should the blindness sector in Australia fail to act with enthusiasm and leadership in assuring the continued primacy of braille as a literacy and communication medium for people who are blind.
Listed below are the eleven documents that document the braille codes and practices used in Australia. The list does not include references to tactual graphics, nor does it contain manuals for braille translation software such as Duxbury or MegaDots.
Australian Braille Authority 1988, Changes to the Literary Braille Code as a Result of the Mathematics Braille Code Changes 1987, Royal Blind Society of NSW, Sydney.
Australian Braille Authority 1992, Rules for the Use of the Capital Sign, NSW Department of Education and Training, Sydney.
Australian Braille Authority 1995a, Guidelines for Formatting of Braille Material, NSW Department of Education and Training, Sydney.
Australian Braille Authority 1995b, Australian Braille Chemistry Notation, NSW Department of Education and Training, Sydney.
Australian Braille Authority 1995c, Braille Codes Update Bulletin #1, NSW Department of Education and Training, Sydney.
BANA 1987, Code for Computer Braille Notation, American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, Kentucky.
Braille Authority of the United Kingdom 1992, British Braille: A Restatement of Standard English Braille, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Peterborough.
Maguire, B. 1977, A Method for the Transcription of Linguistic Material, Brailleways, Sydney.
Merrick, W. P., and Potthoff, W. 1934, A Braille Notation of The International Alphabet (1932) with Key-Words and Specimen Texts, rev. 1979, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Peterborough.
Smith, B. (in Collaboration with the Mathematics, Science and Computer Science Committee of the Australian Braille Authority) 1990, Australian Braille Mathematics Notation 1987, Royal Blind Society of NSW, Sydney.
World Blind Union, Braille Music Subcommittee 1997, New International Manual of Braille Music Notation (Compiled by Bettye Krolick), Studie- en Vakbibliotheek voor Visueel- en Anderszins Gehandicapten (SVB), Amsterdam.
Ashcroft, S. C., Henderson, F., Sandford, L., and Koenig, A. 1991, New Programmed Instruction in Braille, Scalars Publishing Co., Nashville, Tennessee.
BANA 1992, Unified English Braille Code Research Project- Objective II: Extension of the Literary Code. Report by the Objective II Committee October 12, 1992 (Corrected through November 23, 1992), National Braille Press, Boston.
BANA 1994, English Braille American Edition, American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, Kentucky.
BANA 1995, Textbook Braille Format Code, American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, Kentucky.
BANA 1998, Braille Chemical Notation, American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, Kentucky.
BCA 1998, Draft Policy Statement: Education for people who are blind or vision impaired, Blind Citizens Australia, Victoria.
Caton, H., Pester, E. & Bradley, E. 1990, Read Again: a braille program for adventitiously blinded print readers, American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, Kentucky.
Caton, H., Pester, E. & Bradley, E. 1982, Patterns: the primary braille reading program, American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, Kentucky.
Cranmer, T., & Nemeth, A. 1991, 'A Uniform Braille Code', in Braille Monitor: Publication of the National Federation of the Blind, July-August 1991, National Federation of the Blind, Baltimore.
Fitzsimons, S. 1988, Spot the Dot, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Peterborough.
ICEB 1992, Unified Braille Code Research Project, Objective II: Extension of the Base Code: report by the Objective II committee, March 1995 (Corrections through June 22, 1995), International Council on English Braille, archived on the Worldwide Web at www.iceb.org.
Johnson, B. 1986, Braille reading trends in Australia: a report prepared for the National Library of Australia, National Library of Australia, Canberra.
Lamb, G. 1996, Fingerprints: a whole language approach to braille literacy, Homai Vision Education Centre, Auckland.
Lamb, G. 1998, 'Communication', in Towards excellence: effective education for students with vision impairments, eds. P. Kelley & G. Gale, North Rocks Press, North Rocks, NSW.
Lorimer, J., McCall, S., & Lorimer, P. 1993, The Birmingham braille course for those wishing to read and write braille visually: The rulebook (a guide to the rules of British braille), National Library for the Blind, Stockport, Cheshire.
Maxwell, R. 1982, '"Braille-User-Oriented"', in Proceedings of the International Conference on English Braille Grade 2, Ed. Richard Evensen, National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Washington D.C., USA.
Nemeth, A. 1972, The Nemeth Code for Mathematics and Science, 1972 Revision, American Printing House for the Blind, Louisville, Kentucky.
Poole, B. 1982, 'Braille as an Autonomous Script' in Proceedings of the International Conference on English Braille Grade 2, Ed. Richard Evensen, National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped, Washington D.C., USA.
RNIB 1994, Fingerprint, Royal National Institute for the Blind, Peterborough.
Ryles, R. 1996, 'The Impact of Braille Reading Skills on Employment, Income, Education, and Reading Habits', in Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, vol. 90 no. 3, pp. 219-26.