RNIB Centre for Accessible Information (CAI)
Research report #14
Unified English Braille (UEB)
Implementation: State of the
Nations
Published by:
RNIB Centre for Accessible Information (CAI), 58-72 John Bright
Street, Birmingham, B1 1BN, UK
Commissioned by:
Sarah Morley Wilkins, Principal Manager, RNIB Centre for
Accessible Information
Authors:
Heather Cryer* – Research Officer
Sarah Home – Accessible Information Development Officer
Pete Osborne – Head of International Partnerships and
Development
* For correspondence
Tel: 0121 665 4211
Email: heather.cryer@rnib.org.uk
Date: 15 April 2011
Document reference: CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
Sensitivity: Internal and full public access
Copyright: RNIB 2011
© RNIB 2011
Citation guidance:
Cryer, H., Home, S., and Osborne, P. (2011). Unified English
Braille (UEB) Implementation: State of the Nations. RNIB Centre
for Accessible Information, Birmingham: Research report #14.
Acknowledgements:
Thanks to all who contributed information and gave feedback on
early drafts of this work.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
2
© RNIB 2011
Unified English Braille (UEB) adoption
and implementation: State of the
Nations report
RNIB Centre for Accessible Information (CAI)
Prepared by:
Heather Cryer (Research Officer, CAI)
Sarah Home (Accessible Information Development Officer, CAI)
Pete Osborne (Head of International Partnerships and
Development, RNIB)
FINAL version
15 April 2011
Table of contents
Executive Summary ................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ............................................................................ 5
2. About UEB ............................................................................. 5
3. The history of UEB ................................................................. 6
3.1 UK and UEB ..................................................................... 6
4. Potential issues with UEB ...................................................... 7
5. Potential benefits of switching to UEB.................................... 8
6. Research ............................................................................... 9
6.1 Opinions on UEB .............................................................. 9
6.2 Experiments with UEB .................................................... 13
6.3 Conclusions of research ................................................. 17
7. Key learning points .............................................................. 17
8. Discussion ........................................................................... 18
References .............................................................................. 21
Appendix 1: Learning from other countries .............................. 25
Appendix 2 UEB resources that have been developed ............ 34
Appendix 3 UEB adoption statements...................................... 35
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
3
© RNIB 2011
Executive Summary
The Unified English Braille code (UEB) has been in development
for nearly twenty years, and the past decade has seen much
activity in various countries preparing for, and implementing the
code. This report aims to draw together knowledge and
experience around UEB. The report covers the history of UEB,
including potential benefits and concerns about the code. A
literature review of existing research outlines findings on
consumers' feelings about UEB as well as experimental research
findings on the effects of UEB on braille reading and production.
An outline is given of the activities of countries who have
implemented UEB, demonstrating good practice in keeping
stakeholders informed and gradually introducing the new code.
Resources that have been developed relating to UEB are also
listed, demonstrating the opportunities for sharing materials
between countries using a common code. In summary, this report
aims to give a comprehensive picture of what is known about UEB
and its implementation around the world, to inform other countries
who may be considering the code.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
4
© RNIB 2011
1. Introduction
This report brings together knowledge and experience of Englishspeaking countries around the world that have a shared interest in
unifying English braille.
It is hoped that the information provided in this report will help to
inform and shape the UK's Unified English Braille (UEB)
development work.
Important lessons can and should be learned from the experiences
of the other countries that have already, or are currently
implementing UEB.
As UEB is the braille code that crosses international boundaries,
any resources that have been developed could be shared,
negating the need to develop country-specific rulebooks, training
materials and resources.
2. About UEB
UEB is a braille code designed for use in nearly all types of
material including novels, poetry, recipe books, magazines,
financial statements, computer manuals, instruction leaflets,
scientific textbooks, mathematics and science. The representation
of braille music is the one exception, as there is already a wellaccepted international code that has been widely adopted.
The current braille codes used within English-speaking countries to
represent literary braille are similar (though not identical)
everywhere, and so substantial preservation of those codes was
one of the original basic goals of UEB. Technical codes can vary
greatly between countries and involve the user or producer
understanding different braille representations that are dependent
on the context of the material.
Braille readers in any English-speaking countries who are already
familiar with contracted (grade 2) literary braille will notice only
small differences in UEB:
 No new contractions have been added
 Nine commonly-used contractions are no longer used ("ble",
"com", "dd", "ation", "ally", "to", "into", "by" and "o'clock")
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
5
© RNIB 2011
 Sequencing is not permitted (i.e. you cannot write "and", "for",
"of", "the", "with", "to", "into", "by" and "a" directly next to the
following word)
 All of the existing 180 contractions, wordsigns and short forms
are unchanged (although there are some new restrictions on
the use of some short form extensions)
 Ambiguity of braille signs has reportedly been eliminated, in that
braille characters no longer have different meanings dependent
on context.
3. The history of UEB
In 1992, the Braille Authority of North America (BANA) began a
project with the aim of creating one braille code which could be
applied across all subject areas (with the exception of music which
already has an internationally accepted braille code). In 1993,
other English-speaking countries became interested in the Unified
English Braille (UEB) project and it was internationalised under the
auspices of the International Council on English Braille (ICEB). The
goals of the project changed from developing a code for North
America to developing a code for the entire English-speaking
world, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Nigeria, South
Africa, UK and the US.
In early 2004 ICEB met and agreed that the UEB code was
sufficiently complete for recognition as an international standard,
which member countries could choose to adopt as their national
braille code if they wished. ICEB recommended that UEB should
be referred to the national braille authorities of member countries
for consideration and possible adoption, after due consideration
with their braille users and other stakeholders.
3.1 UK and UEB
In July 2005 the Braille Authority of the United Kingdom (BAUK)
decided that the UEB code was now sufficiently complete and
stable enough to justify a major consultation of braille users in the
UK.
In 2008 BAUK developed, produced and widely distributed a UEB
consultation pack, which included a number of samples in UEB
and a questionnaire. The pack was sent out to over 4,000 braille
users, producers, intermediaries and other stakeholders in the UK.
470 responses were received.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
6
© RNIB 2011
 76% of respondents would not like to see UEB adopted as the
standard braille code in the UK (24% would)
 66% of respondents did not think that the adoption of UEB as
the standard braille code in the UK would benefit future braille
readers in the UK and worldwide (33% did, 1% didn't know).
In the light of these results, BAUK came to the following
conclusions at its meeting on 1 December 2008:
 BAUK does not recommend that UEB be introduced in the UK
at this time. However, it recommends that the question be
revisited in five years time (i.e. 2013)
 BAUK recommends that work be done to test the viability and
usability of UEB for technical braille (e.g. maths, computing,
science), in order to provide a basis of information in this area
which can be input into future decisions on UEB.
BAUK merged with two other organisations in January 2009 to
form the UK Association for Accessible Formats (UKAAF). All
braille-related work is now managed through the Braille Section of
UKAAF.
At UKAAF's AGM in 2010, a motion that "UEB be adopted as the
preferred code to be implemented in the UK" was tabled.
Discussions took place and concluded that the "AGM remit the
motion back to the Board". In September 2010 the UKAAF Board
formally approved that "Unified English Braille be permitted as an
experimental code in the UK so that evaluation of the technical
features of the code may take place."
4. Potential issues with UEB
A number of areas have been identified as issues/sticking points
with UEB by braille readers across the English-speaking countries:
 People simply don't like change
 Braille users are very protective of "their" braille code that they
are familiar with (even though most of them are able to read
legacy braille materials with old codes and materials from a
number of different sources and do so without any problems)
 UEB is perceived as a code that was developed by technical
experts to help braille producers rather than braille users
 Many braille users have only seen very early UEB samples and
still remember the over-use of what they perceive as
unimportant information and excessive coding (such as what
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
7
© RNIB 2011






font the original print document was produced in) - braille users
don't forget!
Numbering in UEB, although not an issue for current British
Braille users who are already familiar with the numeral indicator
and upper number signs (other countries use lower-case
numbers and Nemeth is particularly prevalent in the US)
Abolition of sequencing in UEB (being able to write "and", "for",
"of", "the", "with", "to", "into", "by" and "a" directly next to the
following word)
Abolition of nine commonly-used contractions in UEB ("ble",
"com", "dd", "ation", "ally", "to", "into", "by" and "o'clock")
Increased size of documents in UEB - roughly 1 page per 50
pages for literary braille
Perception that increased size of documents in UEB may slow
down reading speeds
Having to un-learn braille contractions to read UEB.
5. Potential benefits of switching to UEB
There are many benefits that switching to UEB could bring to
English-speaking countries. The following list has been drawn from
the experiences of other countries who have implemented UEB or
who are in the process of doing so:
 UEB has been well-researched and developed by braille
experts over many years. The code is simpler to learn than
British Braille, with no sequencing to remember and there are
no new braille signs for existing readers to learn
 Unification of literary and technical codes means there is no
need to learn additional codes for technical materials
 Ambiguity of braille signs is reportedly eliminated, meaning
braille characters no longer mean different things in different
contexts. This is a benefit for people learning braille and
existing braille readers
 Harmonisation of numerous braille codes across Englishspeaking countries would bring the opportunity to share
resources, saving time and cost in transcription and resulting in
more braille material available to readers
 The greater opportunities for sharing material between
countries who have implemented UEB is of particular benefit to
developing countries who may not have budget to produce their
own braille and rely on donations from a range of other
countries
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
8
© RNIB 2011
 The opportunity to develop and share resources internationally
would mean less country-specific code development and
maintenance costs. Braille teaching resources can also be
shared across countries using the same code
 Countries can learn from each others' experience of
implementing the code
 Translation software developments would benefit more
producers
 Ability to accurately translate print-to-braille and braille-to-print,
making it easier for print readers to translate braille accurately
(for example, useful for sighted teachers marking braille work).
6. Research
Over the years, various researchers have attempted to answer
some of the questions raised about UEB through formal research.
Some of this research has focussed on opinions and feelings
about the code, giving insight into the barriers to adoption of UEB.
Other research has been experimental, aiming to determine the
effects of UEB on the size of documents and braille reading
speeds. The following review of the literature aims to summarise
research findings in these areas.
6.1 Opinions on UEB
The views of braille users and practitioners have been sought
throughout the development of UEB. Bogart and Koenig (2005)
report key findings from the first international evaluation of the draft
UEB code (carried out by the International Braille Research
Center). This evaluation invited English-speaking braille readers,
proofreaders, educators and transcribers from around the world to
complete a questionnaire based on sample material produced in
UEB. Respondents were asked to indicate their support for the
general principles of UEB, proposed additions (such as
capitalisation and print passage indicators) and proposed
omissions of specific contractions. Overall, the majority of
respondents supported the idea of a unified braille code (although
in the UK, less than half - 37% - supported the idea). Support
was generally high for additions such as capitals and print
indicators, whereas there was more variation and generally less
support for changes to spacing or omission of existing
contractions.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
9
© RNIB 2011
Canadian research has explored students' and teachers' views on
UEB through focus groups (Gerber and Smith, 2006). All
participants were given an outline of UEB and samples of literary
and technical materials in UEB to familiarise themselves with the
code before the discussions. Respondents expressed a range of
concerns about UEB, but also recognised some positive aspects of
the code.
Positive views on UEB raised by both teachers and students:
 the reduction in ambiguity of braille characters in different
contexts
 the ability to share resources internationally
 UEB may be easier for new braille readers to learn
 specific features of the code including capitalisation, and
changes to spacing (such as the abolition of sequencing).
Positive aspects of UEB raised only by students:
 some students felt the technical element of the UEB code was
an improvement on existing codes and may encourage more
take-up of technical subjects among braille readers through not
having to learn additional codes
 UEB may be easier for sighted teachers to teach, potentially
improving integration in mainstream education
 inclusion of print indicators.
Positive aspects of UEB raised only by teachers:
 one braille code for all materials (literary, maths, computing)
 UEB may be more straightforward to transcribe, potentially
increasing availability of braille materials.
Negative views on UEB raised by teachers and students:
 the complexity of the transition process to UEB
 the potential for UEB to make documents larger which could
slow down reading and writing and increase the size and cost of
documents
 the relevance of print indicators.
Negative aspects of UEB raised only by students:
 the need to relearn a new code.
Negative aspects of UEB raised only by teachers:
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
10
© RNIB 2011
 how users would access older/historical material if they had
never learned the old code
 that older braille readers or transcribers may feel it's not worth
learning a new code and so give up on braille.
The researchers noted that many responses from students who
were braille readers were quite emotional and reflected the
personal investment they had made in learning the existing braille
code. Teachers were a little more removed, suggesting they would
be willing to make the change so long as UEB was shown to
benefit braille users. Overall, the researchers felt respondents'
views on UEB were dependent on individuals' openness to
change, experience with braille and familiarity with the rationale
behind UEB. On this basis, they suggest that clearer
communication about the purpose of UEB may improve people's
perceptions.
Further qualitative research explored potential implications of
implementing UEB in America (Wetzel and Knowlton, 2006a).
Focus groups were carried out with existing groups of transcribers,
proofreaders, braille teachers and professional braille users.
Respondents answered questions on the subject of
implementation of UEB (specifically, what impact implementation
would have on their work, how long it would take to learn the new
code, how they felt the transition should be managed and so on).
Overall, the consensus was that respondents would be willing to
move to UEB if it would benefit braille users. Respondents
highlighted that the effect of the change on literary braille would be
minimal, although would have more impact on mathematics texts
particularly, increasing their size.
Key issues raised by braille users included the relevance of print
indicators, which some respondents felt were a waste of space and
did not add any useful information. Overall, braille users felt they
would be able to master changes to the literary code within six
months and changes to technical codes within a year.
Key issues raised by braille transcribers included there still being
some ambiguity in transcription to UEB, with some symbols still
being context dependent. Other concerns included there being no
back-translation package available yet and concern that aging
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
11
© RNIB 2011
volunteer transcribers may choose to give up rather than learn a
new code.
Key issues raised by braille teachers included that braille users
complete work much more slowly than their print reading peers,
therefore any further reduction in productivity (due to longer
materials) would be undesirable. They also felt that any increase
in the complexity of the code may reduce the number of braille
readers. Another concern was that introducing a new code would
make all existing braille materials obsolete, requiring huge
resources of time and money to replace. Teachers felt they would
need at least five years to become fully competent and comfortable
with the new code, and that it would take a minimum of five years
to prepare appropriate teaching materials. Overall, braille teachers
felt the transition period would be huge, taking 20-40 years for full
transition.
These findings highlight that whilst overall respondents were open
to UEB, there were many practical concerns, particularly in regard
to the transition process.
Another study investigated the views of professional users of
technical braille codes in fields such as mathematics, science and
computer science (Holbrook and MacCuspie, 2010). Before
having any instruction in UEB, participants read high school texts
on technical subjects. They then had a UEB tutorial, before
reading documents from their own workplace in UEB. A focus
group discussion followed. Overall, the technical users were very
positive about UEB, as follows:
 The UEB code: makes sense regardless of context; represents
technical information as well as other codes; may be better able
to convey information spatially (important in technical subjects);
is as easy to learn as existing braille codes, and without the
extra effort needed to learn additional technical codes.
 UEB in education: less ambiguity of the code will help learners;
ease of translation and back-translation aids integration in
mainstream education and may enhance access to technical
fields for braille readers; UEB would benefit students by giving
them greater access to technical materials in braille; maths is
easier in UEB, which may improve student and teacher
confidence and interest in the subject
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
12
© RNIB 2011
 Implementation of UEB: the competence and confidence of
teachers with UEB should be investigated; need to justify the
cost of implementation – to simplify the learning process is a
good reason; whilst people can see the benefits they are
resistant to change.
In summary, technical users were open to UEB and even enjoyed
the challenge of learning a new code. The positive attitude of
these users is of interest as other research has suggested that
technical users would be most affected by the changes. These
findings suggest that despite the upheaval, technical users can
see benefits to making the change. It must be noted however that
this study used a very small sample of five technical users. It is
hoped that this research will be replicated in the UK to gather
further evidence.
Overall, research findings into consumers' opinions and feelings
about UEB demonstrate that changes to braille coding can be an
emotional issue. Of key importance to many – end users and
braille practitioners – is the effect UEB would have on braille users.
In particular, there is concern about how the transition to a new
code would work practically, and how this might affect braille
readers currently in the education system. Despite these
concerns, throughout the research, positive aspects to UEB were
acknowledged, showing that despite some resistance to change,
end users and practitioners can see benefits to the unification of
the braille codes.
6.2 Experiments with UEB
Experimental research into UEB has aimed to clarify the difference
that UEB makes, to reading braille (such as reading speeds and
accuracy) and to producing braille (such as size and cost of
materials).
Steinman, Kimbrough, Johnson and LeJeune (2004)
investigated the reading rates and errors of experienced braille
readers reading UEB. They filmed participants reading aloud their
existing braille code (English Braille American Edition – EBAE), to
measure reading time in seconds, miscues (such as
additions/omissions or other mistakes) and regressions (stopping
to go back). There was a one month break in which participants
were given a UEB sampler and asked to familiarise themselves
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
13
© RNIB 2011
with the code. Then a second test session filmed them reading
UEB aloud recording the same measurements.
A significant difference was found in reading rates, with UEB being
slower to read. Also, significantly more regressions (stopping to go
back) were made when reading UEB. However, more miscues
(errors) were made when reading EBAE.
The researchers concluded that slower reading with UEB was
likely to be due to unfamiliarity, as well as the slowing down due to
increased regressions. This slow and careful approach with the
new code may explain why fewer miscues were made with UEB
than with the familiar EBAE code. Overall the researchers
conclude that the changes in UEB are easily integrated
(demonstrated by the fact that not all changes led to miscues).
They believe that whilst initial learning of UEB may slow readers
down, the code should not have a detrimental effect on reading
braille in general. (Note: some limitations to this study include that
it used a fairly small sample of eight respondents, and they did not
control for how much respondents' practised with UEB between
the two testing sessions).
Further research into reading rates was carried out by Wetzel and
Knowlton (2006b). They tested how a variety of changes
proposed in UEB would affect reading rates in braille. For literary
braille, they measured in turn the effects of spacing changes,
removing whole word contractions, removing part word
contractions and removing multiple part word contractions. Whilst
additional spaces in UEB had no effect on reading rate (measured
in cells per second), some significant effects were found when
removing common contractions, showing that removing some
contractions may slow reading rates. As this study tested effects
of various changes in turn, the researchers suggest further
research may be required to investigate the impact of multiple
contraction removals within one passage. It must be noted that the
participants in this study were experienced braille readers used to
reading EBAE, therefore some of the slowing with removal of
contractions could have been due to unfamiliarity.
Overall, findings relating to the effects of UEB on reading rates and
accuracy suggest that the change to a new code may initially have
some effect on reading speed, as readers get used to the new
code. However, further research may be required to determine
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
14
© RNIB 2011
whether the UEB code is slower for experienced braille readers to
use once they are familiar with it.
Experimental research has also considered the impact of UEB on
producing braille. One area of concern has been the use of 'upper
numbers' in UEB. Upper numbers depict numbers using the
'upper' part of the braille cell, matching the dot configurations of the
letters a-j. Upper numbers are commonly used in literary braille
codes. However, in technical codes (such as the Nemeth
mathematics code), the lower part of the braille cell is commonly
used for numbers, thus matching the dot configurations of various
punctuation marks (comma, semi-colon, colon etc). As each
system uses existing braille coding to denote numbers, each
requires use of some indicators to make clear when numbers
are/are not being used. For example, if upper numbers are
followed by letters a-j, a letter indicator is required, whereas if
lower numbers are followed by punctuation, a punctuation indicator
is required. Research has investigated the occurrence of
number/letter and number/punctuation combinations in literary and
technical texts to explore the impact of the different numbering
systems.
Bogart, D'Andrea and Koenig (2004) studied samples of 16
textbooks (8429 pages in total) to identify instances of
number/letter combinations and number/punctuation combinations.
Findings showed that number/punctuation combinations were
significantly more common. This means that when using lower
numbers, punctuation indicators would be needed more often,
increasing the size of materials. These findings support the use of
upper numbers for all materials in UEB.
Another study by Knowlton and Wetzel (2006) looked at the
difference between UEB and existing American braille codes in
terms of the space taken to produce the same materials. Their
comparisons included literary braille (extracts from children's
books in EBAE and UEB), mathematics (arithmetic and algebra
samples in Nemeth code and UEB) and computing (two computer
programs in Computer Braille Code and UEB). The measures of
space taken included cell count, number of lines and number of
line wraps (where an expression ran over more than one line).
The effect of UEB on size of materials varied greatly depending on
the type of material. For literary materials, UEB increased cell
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
15
© RNIB 2011
count by 4-7%, although there was no increase in number of lines.
For computing materials, results varied with one text having fewer
cells but more lines and the other having more cells but the same
number of lines.
For mathematical materials, again results varied. UEB rules allow
transcribers to choose whether or not to include spaces around
signs of operation. Where spaces were included, this increased
the difference in size between UEB and Nemeth code. Size
differences also varied depending on the type of mathematical
material. Spatial arithmetic texts were longer in UEB (21.9%
longer in UEB with spaces, 17.1% without spaces), whereas the
effect on linear arithmetic was negligible (1.1% longer with spaces,
<0.5% longer without spaces). Size of algebra texts was most
affected by the change of code, being 46-54% longer in UEB with
spaces and 20-35% longer without spaces.
A key point to consider regarding the size of materials is the cost of
production. Knowlton and Wetzel (2006) raise concern over an
algebra textbook which at 25% longer in UEB than Nemeth code,
had a corresponding 25% increase in production cost.
An informal study carried out in the UK studied the effect UEB had
on the size of different types of materials (Cryer and Home, 2008).
For literary materials, comparisons were made between UEB and
both capitalised and non-capitalised Standard English Braille
(SEB) both of which are used in the UK. A greater difference was
found between UEB and non-capitalised SEB (average increase in
pages of 5.5%) than between UEB and capitalised SEB (average
increase in pages of 1.97%). These findings suggest that the
majority of increase in space taken by UEB is accounted for by
capitalisation. Compared to capitalised SEB, UEB increased the
number of pages by just 1 page in every 50 pages. For technical
materials, results varied (between 4-12% increase in lines)
depending on the complexity of the material and the amount of
non-technical text included in the samples.
In summary, the findings suggest that whilst for some materials the
size difference of UEB is insignificant, there are cases – such as
algebra – in which UEB significantly increases the size of
documents. This may have implications for the cost of materials.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
16
© RNIB 2011
6.3 Conclusions of research
Overall, research findings inform the UEB debate by offering
evidence around some of the key issues. Whilst many consumers
may be reluctant to make the change to UEB, it seems they can
acknowledge some benefits of the code. Concerns around how
UEB may affect reading are partially dispelled through findings that
UEB changes are easily integrated and should not cause too many
reading errors. However, for some materials the size increase of
UEB may affect the material cost of production.
7. Key learning points
The appendices of this report contain information on other
countries' adoption/implementation of UEB (Appendix 1),
resources developed for UEB (Appendix 2) and adoption
statements from various countries (Appendix 3). Drawing on the
experience of the countries who have already implemented UEB,
there are a number of common themes which can be learned from.
 Exposure to UEB materials - such as sample documents in
UEB - helps users to familiarise themselves with the code and
understand the proposed changes (demonstrated by Australia,
New Zealand, Canada, South Africa)
 Informing stakeholders (braille readers, educators, and
transcribers) about the proposed changes allows people to ask
questions and become engaged in the process. This can be
done through sharing information (such as Australia's 'UEB in a
nutshell') or through engaging stakeholders in workshops and
committees to discuss the issues around implementation (as in
Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Nigeria). Other specific
approaches to stakeholder engagement include conducting
research to identify stakeholders' concerns (as in Canada),
offering training sessions to introduce the code (as in South
Africa), and offering email lists for stakeholders to ask questions
and discuss issues around UEB (as in Australia)
 Gradual implementation of UEB in education helps to
minimise the impact on students who are trying to keep up with
academic work whilst getting used to the new code. Many
countries have taken a gradual approach, introducing new
braille readers to UEB whilst continuing existing codes for older
students (as in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa)
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
17
© RNIB 2011
 Including symbols lists in UEB materials helps users as they
become familiar with the changes (as in Australia, New
Zealand, Nigeria).
8. Discussion
Any changes to braille coding are an issue which can cause a lot
of concern for both braille readers and professionals working with
them. Research findings (discussed in section 6) demonstrate
some of the emotions and concerns that the introduction of the
UEB code has raised in various countries, and highlight that many
people are – and may continue to be – resistant to such changes.
Despite these feelings, a number of countries have successfully
implemented the UEB code, and have reported benefits of doing
so. Key benefits include: being able to work together with other
countries and share resources; having less ambiguity in braille
codes (making things easier for braille learners), and some
reported increases in uptake of braille.
The aim of this document has been to draw together information
about UEB implementation from around the world, to inform
decision making around UEB and to make it possible to learn from
those who have gone before.
Key learning points identified above from countries who have
implemented UEB include:
 Giving stakeholders examples of UEB materials to become
familiar with the code so that they are fully informed to
understand the proposed changes
 Keeping stakeholders informed about UEB and the rationale
behind it, and allowing them to ask questions and discuss any
issues so that they can be involved in the decision process
 Implementing UEB gradually, particularly in educational settings
to minimise disruption to students
 Providing 'cheat sheets' of new symbols for reference to help
users become familiar with the code.
The issue of giving people sample documents is particularly
pertinent in the UK. Some UK braille readers who took part in
early evaluations of the UEB code were put off by the many print
passage indicators presented in sample UEB materials (some of
which were later removed). This has led to some negative feeling
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
18
© RNIB 2011
towards UEB as being overly complicated and too print-orientated.
Furthermore, when a UK consultation was run on UEB in 2008,
sample documents provided included various technical materials
which many literary braille readers may not usually come across.
This further fuelled concerns about the complexity of the code.
Anecdotal reports from other countries confirm that care needs to
be taken over sample material provided, making sure that samples
are relevant to users representing the type of information they
would normally read. In order for UK braille readers to have a
clearer idea of what UEB is like, it would be beneficial to produce
more everyday sample documents.
Keeping stakeholders informed about UEB is important. Research
findings (Gerber and Smith, 2006) suggest that greater
understanding of the rationale behind the changes may improve
people's perceptions of UEB and their likely acceptance of it.
Implementing UEB gradually is likely to be a necessity, particularly
in education, in order to minimise disruption to those trying to keep
up academically whilst taking on changes in the braille code.
Countries who have already implemented UEB have successfully
transitioned within 5 years (e.g. Australia). However, research
findings suggest that some stakeholders feel it will take a whole
generation to fully transition (20-40 years) (Wetzel and Knowlton,
2006a). The length of transition will be an important decision for
countries yet to implement, as there are cost implications in terms
of maintaining existing braille codes if the transition period is long.
The continuing issue of maintaining braille codes is a key
consideration for the remaining English-speaking countries who
have not implemented UEB. A key benefit of UEB is shared
resources and therefore shared costs, but if some countries
choose not to adopt the code they will need to take on full
responsibility for maintaining the braille code used in their country.
As the number of countries adopting UEB grows, the change may
gain momentum until it is more costly not to adopt than to do so.
As a key purpose of UEB is unity between countries, the benefit of
moving to UEB will be diluted for those who have adopted if other
countries do not follow suit.
Overall, there are many issues for countries to consider in their
decision whether or not to adopt UEB. It is hoped that this paper
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
19
© RNIB 2011
will offer useful background information to those making such
decisions.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
20
© RNIB 2011
References
Blind SA Braille Committee (2010). Annual report by the braille
committee for the year 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010. [online]
Available from https://www.givengain.com/cgibin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news_item&news_id=94827&cause_i
d=1137 accessed 21 February 2011 12:03 GMT.
Bogart, D., D'Andrea, F.M., and Koenig, A. (2004). A comparison
of the frequency of number/punctuation and number/letter
combinations in literary and technical materials. Presented at ICEB
General Assembly 2004, Toronto, Canada, March 29 – April 2,
2004.
Bogart, D., and Koenig, A.J. (2005). Selected findings from the first
international evaluation of the proposed Unified English Braille
Code. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 99 (4), 233 –
238.
Braille Authority of New Zealand (2005). Minutes of the 16th
Annual General meeting of the Braille Authority of New Zealand.
Braille Authority of New Zealand (2010). Braille Authority of New
Zealand Country Report from New Zealand to Mid Term Meeting of
Executive International Council on English Braille.
Braille South Africa (2004) UEB in South Africa. [online] Available
from http://www.ebility.com/roundtable/aba/ueb.php accessed 21
February 2011 11:23 GMT
Canadian Braille Authority (not dated). The Unified English Braille
Code: Background [online] Available from
http://www.canadianbrailleauthority.ca/en/UEB.php accessed 18
February 2011 11:52 GMT.
Cryer, H., and Home, S. (2008). Comparing Standard English
Braille and Unified English Braille codes. RNIB Centre for
Accessible Information, Birmingham: Research note #1.
Gerber, E., and Smith, B.C. (2006). Literacy and controversy:
Focus-group data from Canada on proposed changes to the braille
code. Journal of Visual impairment and blindness, 100 (8), 459 –
470.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
21
© RNIB 2011
Holbrook, M.C., and MacCuspie, P.A. (2010). The Unified English
Braille Code: Examination by science, mathematics and computer
science technical expert braille readers. Journal of Visual
Impairment and Blindness, 104 (9), 533 – 541.
Howse, J., Gentle, F., Stobbs, K., and Reynolds, J. (2010).
Transition to Unified Englsih Braille (UEB) in the ICEVI Pacific
region. Presented at Think Globally, Act Locally conference of the
Round Table on Information Access for People with Print
Disabilities. 23-25 May 2010, Auckland, New Zealand. [online]
Available from http://roundtable2010.wordpress.com/conferenceproceedings/7b-transition-to-unified-english-braille-ueb-in-the-icevipacific-region-by-josie-howse-frances-gentle-karen-stobbs-janetreynolds/ accessed 8 March 2011 14:27 GMT.
Jolley, W. (2009a). Unified English Braille in Australia: the why,
how and results. Presented at CNIB Braille Conference 'A braille
Odyssey: 2009 and beyond'. Toronto, Canada, 29-30 October
2009.
Jolley, W. (2009b). Braille today for tomorrow: joining the dots to
cover the world. Keynote presentation at CNIB Braille Conference
'A braille Odyssey: 2009 and beyond'. Toronto, Canada, 29-30
October 2009.
Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness (2006). From the field:
New Zealand adopts Unified English Braille Code. Journal of
Visual Impairment and Blindness, 100 (1), 56.
Knowlton, M. and Wetzel, R. (2006). Analysis of the length of
braille texts in English Braille American Edition, the Nemeth Code,
and Computer Braille Code versus the Unified English Braille
Code. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 100 (5), 267 –
274
Lee, P. (2009). Interview with Peter Lee, Production facility team
leader. [online] Available from http://bnobel.wordpress.com/
accessed 17 February 2011 14:22 GMT
National Braille Council of Nigeria (NABRACON) (2005). The
National Braille Council of Nigeria votes to accept the Unified
English Braille Code (UEB) for future implementation in Nigeria.
[online] Available from
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
22
© RNIB 2011
http://www.ebility.com/roundtable/aba/ueb.php accessed 21
February 2011 12:45 GMT
Nobel, B. (2010). CBA Newsletter: Presidents Message. [online]
Available from
http://www.canadianbrailleauthority.ca/en/newsletter.php accessed
18 February 2011 13:55 GMT.
Nobel, B., and MacCuspie, A. (2009). Implementation of Unified
Englsih Braille (UEB) in Australia and New Zealand. AER Bulletin,
Winter 2009.
Round Table on Information Access for people with print
disabilities (2010a). Unified English Braille: the rules of unified
English braille. [online] Available from
http://www.ebility.com/roundtable/aba/ueb.php accessed 18
February 2011 10:29 GMT.
Round Table on Information Access for people with print
disabilities (2010b). Australian Braille Authority: What we do.
[online] Available from http://www.ebility.com/roundtable/aba/
accessed 18 February 2011 10:33 GMT
Round Table on Information Access for people with print
disabilities (2010c). Publications and activities: Ozbrl listserve
[online] Available from http://www.ebility.com/roundtable/aba/publications.php accessed 18 February
2011 10:57 GMT
Shanaghan, M. (2009). Interview with Marg Shanaghan, adult
braille reader. [online] Available from http://bnobel.wordpress.com/
accessed 17 February 2011 14:29 GMT.
Steinman, B.A., Kimbrough, B.T., Johnson, F., and LeJeune, B.J.
(2004). Transferring Standard English Braille Skills to the Unified
English Braille Code: a pilot study. Re:view, 36 (3), 103 – 111.
Wetzel, R., and Knowlton, M. (2006a). Focus group research on
the implications of adopting the Unified English braille code.
Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 100 (4), 203 – 211.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
23
© RNIB 2011
Wetzel, R., and Knowlton, M. (2006b). Studies of braille reading
rates and implications for the Unified English Braille code. Journal
of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 100 (5) 275 – 284.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
24
© RNIB 2011
Appendix 1: Learning from other countries
The following English-speaking countries have been involved in
the development of UEB:
 Australia
 Canada
 New Zealand
 Nigeria
 South Africa
 UK
 USA
Of these, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Nigeria and South
Africa have adopted UEB, and are in various stages of
implementing the code. Australia were early adopters of UEB and
have now completed their implementation. For this reason, a great
deal more information is available from Australia than the other
countries involved in the project. The following sections outline
UEB activity in the individual countries.
1. Australia
Key organisations
 Round table on information access for people with print
disabilities: Committee of organisations aiming to improve
accessible format provision across Australia
 Australian Braille Authority: A sub-committee of the Round
table, which oversees development and maintenance of braille
codes in Australia
 Vision Australia: The largest non governmental braille producer
in Australia.
Braille usage
 Exact figures unknown – thought to be in the low thousands for
braille reading adults with some hundreds of students learning
braille (Jolley, 2009a).
Timeline
From Jolley (2009a); Howse, Gentle, Stobbs and Reynolds
(2010); Round Table on Information Access for people with
print disabilities (2010a; 2010b)
 1984: Having previously used British Braille, Australia adopt the
use of capital indicators and use a hybrid system of British and
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
25
© RNIB 2011











US codes. This proves difficult to keep up-to-date and costly to
provide training materials
1995: The Australian Braille Authority (ABA) receive
government funding to run UEB workshops. This gives
Australian braille readers an early introduction to UEB, allowing
them opportunity to input into development
1998: Australian braille readers take part in the ICEB
evaluation of UEB
2000: The Australian braille community are ready for a change
with their options being to adopt either UK codes, US code or
UEB, or to continue with a hybrid approach either with or
without the Australian variations
April 2004: ICEB decide that UEB is sufficiently complete to be
considered for adoption
May 2004: ABA decide they will adopt UEB the following year.
In the meantime, they produce sample documents in UEB to
both familiarise stakeholders with the code and to request
feedback. An action plan is developed to take account of the
needs of key groups affected by transition, such as students
May 2005: UEB adopted as the national standard for braille in
Australia. Members of the ABA are encouraged to implement
UEB within five years. Five year transition period agreed to
enable people to learn the new code.
2006: State based government education agencies begin
production of UEB for educational materials
May 2006: Unified English Braille Primer: Australian Edition is
published, the first UEB reference/training document
July 2006: Vision Australia start full scale production of UEB for
all types of braille material (though other codes are still
produced on a case by case basis)
June 2010: UEB Rulebook published by the Round Table on
Information Access for People with Print Disabilities: 'The Rules
of Unified English Braille'.
2010: Successful transition to UEB complete.
Implementation process
 Education: For new braille learners (kindergarten to year 2) all
new and existing materials were produced in UEB to avoid any
confusion in exposure to old coding. New literary materials for
kindergarten to year 11 were produced in UEB as well as new
and existing mathematics for kindergarten to year 6. Final year
students were not switched to UEB to avoid disruption to their
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
26
© RNIB 2011
examinations (Howse et al, 2010). It was left to teachers'
discretion as to when students should move to UEB, with some
pupils in higher grades being given UEB materials with a key to
the code. Many students chose to make the move to UEB
having had a few texts using the code (Nobel and MacCuspie,
2009)
 Adult braille readers: Community workshops and information
sessions were held in public libraries to inform people about
UEB and give them opportunity to learn the code. From 2006,
the national braille library started to produce all new materials in
UEB (although stock in previous codes was still available to
borrow) (Nobel and MacCuspie, 2009). Library books were
provided with a list of UEB symbols in the font for reference
(Shanaghan, 2009). An email discussion list was set up to give
people the opportunity to ask questions and discuss issues
around UEB (Round Table on Information Access for people
with print disabilities, 2010c)
 Transcribers: Formal training was given to transcribers using
the Australian UEB primer (Nobel and MacCuspie, 2009).
Most transcribers picked up the changes quickly, needing only
one day of training (Lee, 2009). Transcribers could also
contribute to the 'ozbrl' email list (Round Table on Information
Access for people with print disabilities, 2010c). Transition
to UEB production has gone well, due to good support/training
and developments in translation software (Duxbury Braille
Translator) (Howse et al, 2010).
Consultation
From Jolley (2009a)
 Australian braille users were introduced to UEB early in its
development through workshops run as early as 1995. This
meant users were well informed and had opportunity to input in
the development process
 Overall, the views of different groups varied, with educators
strongly in favour of UEB, transcribers generally supportive, and
users somewhat supportive, although with some concerns.
 Whilst users has opportunity to comment on UEB, ultimately it
was member organisations of the ABA who voted on
implementation.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
27
© RNIB 2011
Outcomes
 Ability to share materials with New Zealand which wasn't
previously possible (Jolley, 2009a)
 Worked with Braille Authority of New Zealand Aotearoa Trust
(BANZAT) to produce Trans-Tasman proficiency certificate in
UEB (Jolley, 2009a; 2009b)
 Ability to share resources and offer more co-ordinated support
to the Pacific Disability Forum (Jolley, 2009b)
 Increased awareness of braille and it's importance (Howse et
al, 2010)
 Anecdotally, increase in braille users, among children in
particular (Reported at ICEB Executive meeting, 15-17 July
2010).
2. Canada
Key organisations
 Canadian Braille Authority (CBA): Organisation promoting
braille throughout Canada
 Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB): Non-profit
organisation providing services to blind and partially sighted
Canadians
 Braille Authority of North America (BANA): Standards body for
braille and tactile graphics across North America.
Braille usage
 Not known.
Timeline
(From D. Bogart Personal Communication, April 2011)
 2004: Canadian Braille Authority indicates its intention to move
towards UEB
 2005: CBA fund research into teacher and student impressions
of UEB and the views of technical braille users. CNIB begins to
produce titles in UEB for circulation to library readers,
requesting feedback
 2006: CNIB begins to produce one article in its monthly
magazine in UEB, then entire issues of the magazine in UEB
 2008: CNIB braille transcriber instructors update to UEB, all
internal braille produced by CNIB is in UEB
 2009: CBA fund some titles in UEB for users to borrow from the
CNIB library, and provide materials for teachers to introduce to
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
28
© RNIB 2011
braille students (Nobel, 2010). CNIB begins to produce texts in
UEB for Nigeria.
 2010: In April, CBA adopt UEB as the 'preferred code to be
implemented in Canada'. Pilots for updates for rehabilitation
teachers and braille transcribers are initiated with the intent to
put them on the website. Revision of the instruction manual is
underway.
 2011: CNIB developing UEB implementation plan.
Implementation process
From Canadian Braille Authority (not dated)
Note: Whilst Canada have adopted UEB as a preferred code it has
not yet been implemented.
 Organisation: An implementation committee was established
with representatives of readers, educators, adult educators, and
braille producers
 Users/braille teachers/transcribers: Encouraged to have a go
learning UEB using the Australian UEB primer. CBA produced
answers to the practice exercises to help people to check their
work
 Information: CBA set up a blog giving information about UEB
and interviews with people making the transition in Australia.
 Research: Focus groups were conducted asking
teachers/students how they felt about UEB and any concerns
they had.
Consultation
 Not known.
Outcomes
 UEB has not yet been implemented in Canada.
3. New Zealand
Key organisations
 Braille Authority of New Zealand Aotearoa Trust (BANZAT)
(Note: From August 2010. Formerly Braille Authority of New
Zealand/Braille Literacy Panel) National body for standards
setting and promotion of Braille, accrediting body of braille
proficiency certificate
 Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind (RNZFB): non-profit
organisation, the main provider of vision-related services to
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
29
© RNIB 2011
blind and partially sighted people in New Zealand, New
Zealand's biggest braille producer
 Blind and Low Vision Education Network New Zealand
(BLENNZ): network of educational services for blind and low
vision children, involved in implementation of UEB in schools.
Braille usage
(Reported at ICEB Executive meeting, 15-17 July 2010)
 Around 300 braille users
 Since implementing UEB in 2008 there has been a resurgence
in braille usage.
Timeline
 Mid 1960s: New Zealand takes on English Braille American
Edition
 1997: Braille Authority of New Zealand oversee UEB workshops
which gave New Zealand readers and transcribers of braille an
early introduction to UEB
 1998: New Zealand participate in the ICEB evaluation of UEB
 2005: Further UEB workshops run. In November, New Zealand
adopt UEB (Nobel and MacCuspie, 2009). Suggest
implementation may take 'up to five years'. (Journal of Visual
Impairment and Blindness, 2006)
 January 2008: Young children start using UEB in education
(Nobel and MacCuspie, 2009)
 July 2008: UEB Manual New Zealand Edition published (based
on American training approach). (Braille Authority of New
Zealand, 2010).
Implementation process
 BANZ set up a subcommittee in 2006 to develop a UEB
implementation plan. This focussed on four areas: curriculum
support, teaching of adults, production and library services.
The subcommittee involved representatives from all key
stakeholder groups (braille users, producers, educators,
librarians etc) (Howse et al, 2010).
 Education: Primary students taught UEB, though secondary
students continued to use alternative technical codes (Nobel
and MacCuspie, 2009; Howse et al, 2010). As students made
the transition between primary/secondary, decisions about
transition to UEB technical codes were made on a case by case
basis (Howse et al, 2010)
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
30
© RNIB 2011
 Reading materials: Books produced in UEB contain a symbols
list for reference (Nobel and MacCuspie, 2009). Existing
collection of library materials (in old codes) are retained but new
material is produced in UEB, and over time the old materials will
be phased out (Howse et al, 2010)
 Training: braille producers were trained early to ensure they
could produce materials. Resource Teachers Vision (RTVs)
were trained during a national teachers conference and had
access to ongoing professional development provided
regionally (Howse et al, 2010).
Consultation
 Extensive consultation took place with braille users, teachers,
producers and parents during 2005 before votes to adopt UEB.
(Howse et al, 2010).
 All visual resource centres (supporting education) were
canvassed by email, with 100% supporting the move to UEB.
Some concern was raised around technical codes but overall it
was felt that the majority would benefit. (Braille Authority of
New Zealand, 2005)
 Prior to the decision to implement UEB, four issues of RNZFB's
quarterly magazine were circulated in UEB to give readers
exposure to the code. (M. Schnackenberg, Personal
communication, March 2011).
Outcomes
 Transition to UEB has raised the profile of braille. Links have
been strengthened between Australia and New Zealand, which
has also benefitted other pacific island regions (Howse et al,
2010)
 Anecdotal report that introduction of UEB has increased braille
usage (Reported at ICEB Executive meeting, 15-17 July 2010).
4. Nigeria
Key organisations
 National Braille Council of Nigeria (NABRACON): braille
authority for Nigeria.
Braille Usage
 Not known.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
31
© RNIB 2011
Timeline
From NABRACON (2005)
 February 2005: NABRACON hold a workshop on UEB to inform
educators, transcribers, producers and braille users with UEB.
The NABRACON AGM follows this workshop at which they vote
to adopt UEB in Nigeria.
Implementation process
 Workshop run to familiarise stakeholders with the UEB code
 Decision taken that UEB would not be taught in schools until
teaching materials were finalised and readily available
(NABRACON, 2005)
 Books produced in UEB with a summary of changes in the code
(Reported at ICEB Executive meeting, 15-17 July 2010).
Consultation
From NABRACON (2005)
 Over 90 participants from around Nigeria attended the UEB
workshop in February 2005, representing end users, teachers
and transcribers.
Outcomes
 Not known.
5. South Africa
Key organisations
 Blind SA: a non-profit organisation empowering blind people in
South Africa
 South Africa Department of Arts and Culture.
Braille usage
 Approximately 6000 braille readers. This figure is based on
readers registered with Braille Services of Blind SA and the
South African Library for the Blind, as well as braille learners in
schools for the blind. (C. de Klerk, Personal communication,
March 2011).
Timeline
From Braille South Africa (2004)
 May 2004: Braille South Africa adopt UEB and set out to modify
their existing codes
 2005: Start printing monthly magazines in UEB
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
32
© RNIB 2011
 Early 2007: start implementing UEB in school grade one
 2009: implement UEB for all literary materials in schools,
technical codes to be phased in.
Implementation process
From Blind SA braille committee (2010)
 UEB training sessions run on request at schools and blind
societies
 Producing new materials in UEB
 Rewriting existing braille materials (tutorials/reference
manuals/teaching schemes) in UEB (In English and Afrikaans)
 A UEB rule book for beginners is being written
 The Department for Arts and Culture is conducting research into
braille production to find ways to rationalise braille production
making it quicker and more affordable.
Consultation
 Not known.
Outcomes
 Not known.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
33
© RNIB 2011
Appendix 2 UEB resources that have been
developed
UEB reference materials
 The Rules of Unified English Braille. [Australia]
 UEB symbols list – a list of new symbols in UEB [Australia]
 UEB in a nutshell – a brief outline of the UEB code and the
reasoning behind it [Australia]
 The Hitchhikers Guide to UEB – quick reference information
and examples of changes, aimed at teachers [New Zealand]
 Guidelines for technical material – information and examples to
allow transcribers to produce technical material in UEB
[produced by the Maths Focus Group, a subgroup of the ICEB
UEB Rules Committee].
UEB teaching materials
 UEB Primer – based on the British Braille primer [Australia]
 Answers to exercises from the UEB primer (Australian edition)
[Canada]
 UEB manual New Zealand Edition (based on American training
approach) [New Zealand]
 Primary and secondary mathematics UEB training documents
[Australia]
 Simply Touch and Read (STAR): Adult braille teaching course
in UEB [New Zealand].
UEB courses
 Trans-Tasman Braille Proficiency Examination: Unified English
Braille (jointly developed by Australia and New Zealand).
Other UEB resources
 UEB Duxbury instructions – practical advice on using Duxbury
braille translation software to produce UEB [Australia].
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
34
© RNIB 2011
Appendix 3 UEB adoption statements
1. South Africa, May 2004
UEB in South Africa
South Africa made the decision to adopt UEB in May 2004:
"Braille South Africa adopted a unified code for Braille in South
Africa based on the UEBC and their existing codes will be modified
where necessary. They are identifying a process for
implementation in consultation with consumers, relevant national
and provincial organizations, standard setting institutions and
related organizations."
In March 2006, Braille South Africa's President Christo De Klerk
reported:
"We have adopted the UEBC as the standard for English braille in
South Africa and as the basis for the codes of our other ten
languages. For about the past year we have been printing two
monthly English magazines in the UEBC, one has a circulation of
about 1500 readers. We had to do some work on our other
languages, especially as far as diacritics are concerned, in
preparation for the implementation of unified codes for them and
have completed the process.
"As soon as funding can be obtained, we can start work on
creating Duxbury translation tables for unified codes for our other
ten languages. Our braille authority, Braille SA, has decided to
implement the UEBC in grade one in schools as from the
beginning of 2007. Towards the end of this year we are planning
UEBC training sessions for braille teachers and producers. In the
meantime, we will work on UEBC awareness."
At its meeting in May 2008, Braille SA resolved:
To implement UEB for all literary materials in schools in 2009, and
to phase in the use for technical materials such as mathematics as
the younger children move on to higher grades.
2. Nigeria February 2005
The National Braille Council of Nigeria votes to accept the
Unified English Braille Code (UEB) for future implementation
in Nigeria.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
35
© RNIB 2011
National Braille Council of Nigeria (NABRACON)
At the AGM of the National Braille Council of Nigeria
(NABRACON), held in February 2005, a motion was moved to
formally accept the UEB code for implementation in Nigeria. An
overwhelming majority of delegates voted to adopt the UEB in
Nigeria: 49 voted in favour, 1 against and 2 abstained. The motion
to adopt the UEB in Nigeria was therefore carried and the logistics
for its implementation in the country will be worked out in due
course.
The AGM followed a workshop on the UEB which was held in
February 2005. The workshop was to acquaint educators,
transcribers, producers and end-users with the Unified English
Braille (UEB) Code.
Over 90 participants from all parts of Nigeria, representing endusers, teachers and producers, attended the workshop.
Neighbouring countries were invited to send representatives in an
effort to introduce them to UEB and to encourage them to establish
braille authorities in their respective countries, in line with
resolutions passed at the General Assembly of ICEB in Toronto,
April 2004. Only one country, Ghana, responded positively to this
invitation. Two staff of the Ghana Braille Printing Press
participated in the workshop (one visually impaired and the other
sighted) and both also observed the AGM on the following day.
The Ghanians went back enthusiastic about the UEB code and
keen to explore the establishment of a braille authority in Ghana.
A communiqué was issued at the end of the workshop which
included the following resolutions:
Resolutions
1.
2.
We acknowledge the efforts of the International Council on
English Braille in the formulation of this new code. We expect
that they expedite action on finalizing the code as this will
make Braille textbooks cheaper, more readily available and
reflect even technological advancement.
Training Institutions, Braille Production Units or Centres and
Individual Transcribers should meet periodically to further
acquaint themselves with the new code.
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
36
© RNIB 2011
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
We advise that the Unified English Braille Code should not
be taught in schools until the materials for introducing the
code to users are finalized and readily available.
We enjoin other English-speaking countries to form Braille
Authorities so that there will be a formidable African
presence on the International Council on English Braille
(ICEB).
NABRACON observed with dismay, the absence of some
States, Institutions and Examination Bodies connected with
Braille usage at a workshop of this nature. We advise such
bodies to avail themselves of such opportunities in view of
the immense benefit accruable.
We have observed a few areas needing clarification in the
UEB and therefore recommend them to ICEB for further
observation and consideration.
NABRACON re-iterates the need for greater emphasis on
the teaching of Braille in all Tertiary level institutions of
Special Education in Nigeria.
We adopt the UEB code for future use. A schedule is to be
drawn up for implementing the adoption of the code in
Nigeria.
3. Australia May 2005
Resolution regarding Unified English Braille passed by the
Australian Braille Authority May 2005
Confirming that Unified English Braille (UEB) was accredited as an
international standard for Braille by the International Council on
English Braille in April 2004; and
Recognising that Unified English Braille has substantial
advantages over currently used Braille codes; and
Acknowledging that some elements of UEB are yet to be finalised,
and that reference documentation and training materials for
teachers and transcribers are not currently available,
This general meeting of the Australian Braille Authority, held on 14
May 2005 in Sydney, resolves:
(a) that Unified English Braille is hereby adopted as the national
standard for Braille in Australia; and
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
37
© RNIB 2011
(b) that organisations responsible for the teaching, production or
promotion of Braille are encouraged to implement Unified English
Braille within 5 years:
(i) when there are reference and training resources available to
enable a smooth and efficient transition; and
(ii) at a time when, and in a manner in which, the benefits of the
change will be maximised for their Braille readers and any adverse
effects will be minimised.
4. New Zealand November 2005
New Zealand resolution unanimously adopted on 29 November
2005 reads:
That the Braille Authority of New Zealand adopts the Unified
English Braille Code, with the intention that by the end of 2006 an
implementation plan, including funding, transition, training and
timetable for the production, teaching and learning of braille be
developed with all stakeholders involved with braille.
5. Canada April 2010
Resolution of the Canadian Braille Authority
Adopted 24 April 2010
 Whereas UEB has been adopted as a code for international use
by the International Council on English Braille, and
 Whereas UEB has been adopted and implemented in other
English-speaking countries thereby increasing the braille
materials available in the same English braille code to people
who are blind in the developed and developing world, and
 Whereas UEB is one code for literary and technical material
which encourages a seamless approach to the instruction of
technical subjects, and
 Whereas training materials are available,
 Therefore be it resolved that the Canadian Braille Authority
adopt UEB as the preferred code to be implemented in Canada.
 To this end, CBA will provide the necessary leadership to bring
provincial ministries on side with implementation and will help
develop strategies to achieve successful outcomes for all
stakeholders.
Note: These adoption statements are available online at
http://www.e-bility.com/roundtable/aba/ueb.php
CAI-RR14 [04-2011]
38