RNIB Centre for Accessible Information (CAI)
Research note #1
Comparing Standard English Braille
and Unified English Braille codes
How does using Unified English Braille affect the
size of braille documents?
Published by:
RNIB Centre for Accessible Information (CAI), 58-72 John Bright Street,
Birmingham, B1 1BN, UK
Commissioned by:
As publisher
Authors:
Heather Cryer*, Sarah Home
* For correspondence
Tel: 0121 665 4211
Email: heather.cryer@rnib.org.uk
Date: 19 May 2008
Document reference: CAI-RN1 [05-2008]
Sensitivity: Internal and full public access
Copyright: RNIB 2008
© RNIB 2008
Citation guidance:
Cryer, H. and Home, S. (2008). Comparing Standard English Braille and
Unified English Braille codes. RNIB Centre for Accessible Information,
Birmingham: Research note #1.
Acknowledgements:
Thanks to Stephen Phippen and George Bell who carried out the
comparisons, and to Sarah Morley Wilkins for editorial input.
CAI-RN1 [05-2008]
2
© RNIB 2008
Comparing Standard English Braille and
Unified English Braille codes
Research note #1
Word count 1026
RNIB Centre for Accessible Information (CAI)
Prepared by: Heather Cryer (Research Officer, CAI)
Prepared for: UEB working group
Based on comparisons carried out by:
George Bell (Managing Director, Technovision)
Stephen Phippen (Standards and Software Implementation Officer,
Technical Development/CAI, RNIB)
FINAL report
© RNIB 19 May 2008
Abstract
Comparisons were carried out to determine to what extent using the
Unified English Braille code (UEB) affects the physical size of a
document when compared to braille currently used in the UK.
Comparisons included both literary braille documents and items using
technical braille notations. Findings suggest that the use of UEB may
increase the size of technical publications, although the extent of this
increase will depend on the complexity of the material. With literary
braille, the majority of the increase in space used by UEB is due to
capitalisation. Compared to capitalised UK braille, the additional
increase in space due to UEB is very small (1 extra page for every 50
pages).
Background
In the early 1990s the International Council on English Braille (ICEB) was
formed, with a view to creating a Unified English Braille code (UEB). The
term "unified" refers to the code design, which represents both literary
and technical information using one code. It can also be thought of as
indicating a union between English speaking countries using the same
code.
CAI-RN1 [05-2008]
3
© RNIB 2008
In proposing changes to the braille code, a likely concern for users is the
effect of any changes on the physical size of documents. This research
note presents results of some initial comparisons of the length of UEB
outputs compared to the literary and technical codes currently used in the
UK.
Part 1 - Literary code
Procedure
A variety of literary publications - from short leaflets to novels - were
produced in 2 forms of Standard English Braille (SEB) (capitalised and
non-capitalised, which are both used in the UK) and in UEB. All
materials were formatted with 40 cells per line and 25 lines per page.
Outputs were compared to determine any differences in space used by
the different braille codes. Two measures were taken - percentage
increase in lines and percentage increase in pages.
Findings in literary publications
Comparing capitalised and non-capitalised SEB:
Using capitalised SEB increased the number of lines by 3.50% on
average
Using capitalised SEB increased the number of pages by 3.46% on
average (or by one extra page every 29 pages)
Comparing UEB and non-capitalised SEB:
Using UEB increased the number of lines by 5.67% on average
Using UEB increased the number of pages by 5.5% on average (or by
one extra page to every 18 pages)
Comparing UEB and capitalised SEB:
Using UEB increased the number of lines by 2.10% on average
Using UEB increased the number of pages by 1.97% on average (or by
one extra page to every 50 pages)
These findings show that the majority of the increase in space used by
UEB is accounted for by capitalisation. In comparison to capitalised
SEB, the further increase of UEB is very small.
CAI-RN1 [05-2008]
4
© RNIB 2008
Part 2 - Technical codes
Procedure
Extracts from two maths textbooks (higher maths and elementary maths),
a computing book and a chemistry textbook were used in this study.
These materials were produced in both SEB (using relevant technical
notations where appropriate) and UEB (which uses the same notation for
literary and technical information).
The materials reviewed contained the following proportions of technical
characters:
Higher maths: 27% maths characters
Elementary maths: 52% maths characters
Chemistry: 18% chemistry characters
Computing: 65% computing characters (including format indicators)
Note: these are the character proportions for SEB versions.
All materials were formatted with 38 cells per line and 28 lines per page.
Outputs were compared to determine any differences in space used by
the different braille codes. Measures taken were the percentage
increase in number of text characters, technical characters, total
characters, and lines.
(Note: These comparisons were carried out in 1995. Though it is thought
that UEB has not undergone any changes likely to significantly affect the
results, this data should be checked under current UEB rules)
Findings in technical publications
Maths
The two maths books varied in terms of the effect UEB had on length of
output. For the higher maths textbook UEB increased the percentage of
maths characters by 21%. For the elementary textbook (which contained
a limited range of basic notation), using UEB decreased the percentage
of maths characters by 6%. This shows that in UEB more complex
maths notation may be depicted using more multi-cell signs.
For both maths books, the percentage increase in text characters was
6%. As both books used large amounts of text as well as technical
characters, this resulted in a 10% increase in total characters for the
higher maths book and no overall increase for the elementary book.
CAI-RN1 [05-2008]
5
© RNIB 2008
Computing
UEB increased the number of computer characters by 25% compared to
the current UK computing code. However, the effect on the physical size
of the document was small, with only a 4% increase in the number of
lines. This is explained by the fact that many lines are short in computer
programs, absorbing the effect of increased numbers of characters.
These findings show that whilst UEB does use more characters to
represent computer notation, the effect on physical space used is small.
Science
UEB increased the percentage of chemistry characters by 47%
compared to the current science notation. However, as the extract was
primarily text, the overall character increase was 12%. This shows that
whilst UEB does increase the space taken by technical science
characters, the effect on the overall physical size of the document will
depend on the proportion of text characters.
Conclusions
The use of UEB may increase the physical size of publications which
include technical information, although the extent of this will depend on
the complexity of the material.
With regards to literary braille, the majority of the increase in space used
by UEB is due to capitalisation. Compared to capitalised SEB, the
additional increase in space due to UEB is very small (1 extra page for
every 50 pages).
CAI-RN1 [05-2008]
6