Braillists, Braille Technology, Braille Readers and Braille

#AUTHOR: Evenson, Richard H.

#TITLE: Braillists, Braille Technology, Braille Readers and Braille

#ORGANIZATION: Library of Congress, National Library Service

#CATEGORY: Braille

#PUBLICATION: NBA Bulletin, Winter 1978-1979

#ABSTRACT: Discusses the effects of technology on the production of braille; the current projects of the National Library Service and the possibility of future code changes.

Braillists, Braille Technology, Braille Readers, and Braille

By Richard H. Evensen

Mr. Evensen is Program Analyst for the Library of Congress, National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

The following article is adapted from a speech given by Mr. Evensen at the NBA Fall Regional Meeting in Freder icksburg, Virginia, October 23, 1978

Volunteers and professionals: it sounds like a dichotomy, but it is not and it should not be so. I have observed professional performance, approach and attitude among volunteers, and the negatives of these in persons purporting to be professionals. This distinction is meaningless, and another related to it, pay or no pay, is in a few instances confusing.

I do not propose to dwell at length on the similarities and differences between volunteers and professionals, but rather to share some thoughts on the present and future for volunteers in the technological world of today and, in particular, the technological sphere at the Library of Congress.

I have been at the National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped for five years. My own involvement in service for and to handicapped persons is quite short, but my personal involvement with blindness and blind people stretches over most of my life since I lost most of my sight at the age of two.

My career with the Library of Congress began when the position of Braille Advisor became vacant due to Earl Scharry's stroke. I applied and was selected. My job consisted of talking or writing to volunteer transcribers about interpretations of rules, problems with transcriptions or with those rules. etc. It all changed very quickly when I was appointed to fill the position of Program Analyst, essentially a project coordinator in research, development and evaluation; program planning and surveys. I am now involved or have been involved as a project monitor with a variety of planning and experimental programs: determining user acceptance of four-track cassettes; assessing the operational efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and user acceptance of distribution of talking book material via cable television, or the display of large-print books on a machine especially designed for sighted readers with severe physical handicaps.

Effects of technology

I personally and professionally, and we at NLS organizationally, have been greatly concerned that the fruits of technology, so noticeable in our talking book program, have represented a poor crop in the braille program. Production costs for mass-produced braille books and magazines have shot up faster than the national inflation rate, and usually faster than the rates for other parts of the Library of Congress reading program. Now I understand fully that I am at this very point touching a tender nerve with NBA and other volunteers. You may be saying that all this technology, if it is successful, means phasing out the volunteer. I doubt the truth of that statement, certainly not for the near future, not from what we know right now.

Current NLS projects

In March, 1976 we issued a request for a proposal whose main purpose was to discover what design or system changes in press braille production would provide quality braille more efficiently and, presumably, more cheaply than with present methods. The successful bidder was Triformation Systems of Stuart, Florida. Their modified page embosser, called the PED-30 Plate Embosser, was completed in about a year and has been in the production line at Clovernook Printing House for the Blind since last February. It is part of Clovernook's computer translation and production facility. Its success has been so great that the second one will soon be part of the production line at National Braille Press in Boston. The net increase in speed of plate preparation is five to six times what is possible with a human Stereograph operator. This improvement does not mean displacing present operators. In fact, there are too few trained operators today. The effect of this technological breakthrough is likely to be that more press braille can be turned out in a more timely fashion and at more competitive rates. Of course other changes in press braille production will be needed; this will be discussed below.

The volunteer's individual and collective concerns arise from developments such as the Triformation Embosser. Volunteer braillists are providing specialized, individualized materials on demand. How does technology then intrude here? Does it intrude? Yes, it does. For many handicapped persons the Kurzweil Reading Machine - and the promised one from Telesensory Systems -- can mean obtaining the desired reading materials instantaneously. One places the print book on the reading machine; it "talks back" within seconds. Under a contract with LC, Kurzweil's machine will provide a braille output if desired. It sounds great but - and pardon the pun - that synthesized speech does not sound great to everyone. Consider also the price of either machine in the immediate future, their sizes, etc. I am not likely to have one at home for years to come, if ever. Then there is the Optacon - and there may be other developments that will provide instant reading for blind people - but we all know Optacon's promise and limitations.

The new cassette braille devices are also causing concern among volunteers. We are wondering about them, too. Their appearance is recent - barely two years old - but we now have on the market the ELINFA Digicassette with its twelve-space or twenty-character display, the Braillocord with its thirty-two character display and soon we will have the TSI device with a twenty-character display. All three have various additional features: writing braille as well as reading, editing what one is writing, indexing and searching, etc. Some braille-writing methods suggest machine input rather than human input, the computer rather than the paid or volunteer transcriber. Other methods allow for either approach. We are at the very early stages of device introduction. The prices are high. Some possibilities are startling; others unsettling.

If, for example, Roots can be stored on five cassettes in one container instead of in seven large press braille volumes, then the storage space for braille will be greatly reduced. This could be a boon for braille; right now the librarian must and does worry a good deal about the inordinately large amount of storage space for braille materials for a very small number of braille readers. NLS has decided to evaluate existing cassette braille equipment. Eventually we will purchase one hundred devices, from all three companies if possible, and we will test them with braille readers. Will readers like them? Will they use them? Will the equipment function properly? Can NLS contractors prepare masters and copies on tape that will be satisfactory? What will be the eventual production costs? What will be the eventual equipment costs? These are several questions but not all of them. Even if most of the answers are positive, does it mean that all braille will be produced by a machine?

I doubt it; again, this is for the foreseeable future, perhaps even for the longer term. The various technological improvements, if they prove out, seem to be most immediately useful in press braille production where, at least NLS's, major costs are to be found. Some persons have mentioned using volunteers as inputters to one or another system employing computers. Whether that will happen and whether it will work if tried remains to be seen. It seems to me that braillists like the challenge of brailling: the rules of the various codes, the exceptions, the interpretations, the judgments on how to handle an unusual situation. Some braillists have even been heard to complain about the rules, exceptions, etc. I am inclined to believe that volunteers, even when they are railing against "a stupid rule" are delighted to have the challenge presented by this system. It beats stuffing envelopes, typing forms. For some it beats in-person reading or taping although all of these are noble and needed tasks at times.

In fact, brailling may be one of these meaningful jobs for which feminists want to use volunteers. Brailling is a skill; it requires training, intelligence and commitment, as well as dedication. It is professional. Consider, if you will, that NLS specifications for volunteer-produced braille are as much as possible like those for press braille production. One must consider the brailler versus the Stereograph machine, one-sided versus two-sided braille, Thermoform versus paper copies (or cassette copies in the future); but we are demanding professional performance on NLS requested materials.

Readers' needs

I have not touched on the reader demands, about which you know as much as we do. For many years, a large part, perhaps even the bulk of educational texts and materials have been produced in braille or on tape by volunteers, many of whom are NBA members. Reader demands are growing in number and variety, even if the number of requesters - braille readers - is at a plateau. Even this may change with the thrusts of, PL 94-142 in special education, PL 93-112 in rehabilitation, and Section 504 regarding handicapped persons' rights, etc. NBA appears to be ready for such expansion, with its thousands of braillists, tapists, and typists; with its Reader-Transcriber Registry; with its recent call for increased numbers of braillists who can and will accept assignments for special materials for the Braille Book Bank.

Although it is not likely that NLS will need more braillists in the near future to produce books for its collection, there are still braille needs known to one or another of NLS's cooperating libraries that can be met by volunteers. They may include urgent professional needs, e.g., a procedures manual, or urgent personal or intellectual needs such as a book, appliance directions, etc. In other words, all needs are important; they may be rather unusual, they may satisfy the needs of only one or two people, but they are important and the braillist should look at assignments in those terms. It is true that the coordinator making assignments will have to set priorities, but please remember that from the requesters point of view his request is priority.

Future developments

Another change that is exciting but may be disquieting to some is the real possibility of substantial code changes. The Braille Authority of North America passed a resolution at it's April meeting inviting discussions with its counter part organization in Great Britain toward devising a common braille code for English-speaking readers. Again, I am personally and professionally involved, and NLS is encouraging such explorations. As the recently appointed Chairman of the BANA Technical Commitee on Literary Braille, I hope to be part of the team conducting such exploratory talks. If the discussions move forward, we will seek information, ideas and judgments from all involved:

from braillists, production people, computer people, educators, professional workers - but, above all, from braille readers.

Some study has already begun in Great Britain, a study of the frequency of use of various contractions, with an as yet unanswered question: should the number of contractions be diminished at all, slightly, or grammatically to aid braille reading and computer translation? On the broader international plane, some leaders have asserted that in creased braille reading and more efficient braille production will be assured by universal adoption of completely uncontracted braille - so called Grade 1 braille. We must look at these questions and assertions; we cannot afford to avoid them or to dismiss them.

Only time and your comments will tell me whether I have reached you with a message: that braillists are needed and will be needed, and that technology is and will be needed; that both can work together in providing services, most likely of different kinds. Once again, the ultimate readers' needs and use must be considered, but along the way we must also consider available resources: human, technological and financial. It is a team effort, and it is not at all useful to distinguish clearly and absolutely between professionals and volunteers. We are all professionals, and we are all interested in service to the braille reader.