Re: [AI] Digital Braille Versus Paper Braille

[Bhavya shah]

Hi,
Could the article's source link be shared?
Thanks.

On 5/13/15, sanjay sanjaylpra...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
 taken from the Braille monitor, February 2015.

 Digital Braille Versus Paper Braille
 by Christian Coudert

   From the Editor: Christian Coudert is the editor in chief of the
 Louis Braille magazine (Paris, France). He has done some interesting
 research about the reading of Braille from paper and from refreshable
 Braille displays. Some of the findings from his study are surprising and
 may provide helpful guidance for those considering whether to purchase a
 refreshable display or a Braille notetaker and how many cells it should
 have. We have removed parts of the article that describe how to simulate
 the tests done in reaching these results and have tried to smooth a few
 rough edges that resulted from translation of this article from French to
 English. Here is what he says:

   Let me recount how I came up with the idea of writing this article:
 since I have had a Braille notetaker, I have gradually given up reading on
 paper, preferring electronic Braille. However, without taking the trouble
 to check it, I have always been convinced that reading on paper must
 unquestionably be much more effective. Indeed, whereas both hands can be
 used for reading on paper (the left hand reading the next line while the
 right hand ends the current line), this method cannot be applied to
 paperless Braille because you have to press a navigation button on the
 device to display the text below once you have finished reading the content
 of the Braille display. Another preconception has always led me to think
 that the more Braille cells we have (up to a point), the faster our reading
 speed will be.
   In order to check the validity of these assumptions, I decided to
 perform an experiment with a panel of volunteer readers. This study does
 not claim to be scientific. To have true scientific validity, it would have
 been necessary to select a group of readers and have each of them read the
 same texts during several timed sessions, assign everyone the same
 electronic equipment, and refine the results, taking into account each
 reader's age and length of Braille experience. However, the number of
 readers involved and the number of reading sessions undertaken enable us to
 draw what we believe to be objective conclusions that would likely be
 confirmed by other studies.
   Before getting into the details of the study, let me make it clear
 that I do not write with the purpose of promoting one reading mode over
 another. All reading systems are complementary; each person chooses the
 system that suits him or her, based on factors such as fixed location or
 travelling, the availability of various formats for a given title,
 budgetary constraints, and so on. It is also true that a large majority of
 sighted readers who use digital tablets do not use them exclusively, seeing
 no need to give up paper and generally seeing no need to decide which
 method is better-they let the content and other factors determine how they
 will read.
   There is no doubt that a Braille reader must first master reading on
 paper to understand fully the concepts of pages and paragraphs and enjoy
 the benefits of the various layouts used in this medium (title centering,
 line breaks, paragraphs, lists, and poetry layout). On a Braille display,
 where text blocks of eighteen, twenty, or thirty-two cells follow each
 other, most of these markers disappear. Hence, learning Braille, like
 learning to write, is best done with a solid background in paper Braille.
   For our tests we chose to use Braille notetakers rather than
 standalone Braille displays because the notetakers are designed for reading
 text, whereas standalone Braille displays are designed for displaying the
 contents of computer screens and contain more Braille cells. Readers used
 their own equipment, and, when they wished, equipment was lent to them.
   When we crunched the numbers after each reader went through several
 sessions reading from paper, an eighteen-cell display, and a thirty-two-
 cell display, we were a little surprised by what the numbers revealed. Half
 of the readers had a slightly faster reading speed on paper than on a
 Braille display, but the difference was very small, almost to the point of
 insignificance. The difference in reading speed for each individual reader
 between his or her fastest and slowest speed was rather low, with the
 exception of one reader, who had a difference of thirty-four words per
 minute between his fastest and slowest speeds. This indicates that the
 reading pace is not fundamentally altered by using a device instead of
 paper Braille.

 Strengths of Paper
   One achieves a high reading speed and comprehension when reading with
 both hands because of the ability to begin reading the next line. Blank
 lines can be easily skipped, and knowing 

[AI] Digital Braille Versus Paper Braille

[sanjay]

taken from the Braille monitor, February 2015.

Digital Braille Versus Paper Braille
by Christian Coudert

  From the Editor: Christian Coudert is the editor in chief of the
Louis Braille magazine (Paris, France). He has done some interesting
research about the reading of Braille from paper and from refreshable
Braille displays. Some of the findings from his study are surprising and
may provide helpful guidance for those considering whether to purchase a
refreshable display or a Braille notetaker and how many cells it should
have. We have removed parts of the article that describe how to simulate
the tests done in reaching these results and have tried to smooth a few
rough edges that resulted from translation of this article from French to
English. Here is what he says:

  Let me recount how I came up with the idea of writing this article:
since I have had a Braille notetaker, I have gradually given up reading on
paper, preferring electronic Braille. However, without taking the trouble
to check it, I have always been convinced that reading on paper must
unquestionably be much more effective. Indeed, whereas both hands can be
used for reading on paper (the left hand reading the next line while the
right hand ends the current line), this method cannot be applied to
paperless Braille because you have to press a navigation button on the
device to display the text below once you have finished reading the content
of the Braille display. Another preconception has always led me to think
that the more Braille cells we have (up to a point), the faster our reading
speed will be.
  In order to check the validity of these assumptions, I decided to
perform an experiment with a panel of volunteer readers. This study does
not claim to be scientific. To have true scientific validity, it would have
been necessary to select a group of readers and have each of them read the
same texts during several timed sessions, assign everyone the same
electronic equipment, and refine the results, taking into account each
reader's age and length of Braille experience. However, the number of
readers involved and the number of reading sessions undertaken enable us to
draw what we believe to be objective conclusions that would likely be
confirmed by other studies.
  Before getting into the details of the study, let me make it clear
that I do not write with the purpose of promoting one reading mode over
another. All reading systems are complementary; each person chooses the
system that suits him or her, based on factors such as fixed location or
travelling, the availability of various formats for a given title,
budgetary constraints, and so on. It is also true that a large majority of
sighted readers who use digital tablets do not use them exclusively, seeing
no need to give up paper and generally seeing no need to decide which
method is better-they let the content and other factors determine how they
will read.
  There is no doubt that a Braille reader must first master reading on
paper to understand fully the concepts of pages and paragraphs and enjoy
the benefits of the various layouts used in this medium (title centering,
line breaks, paragraphs, lists, and poetry layout). On a Braille display,
where text blocks of eighteen, twenty, or thirty-two cells follow each
other, most of these markers disappear. Hence, learning Braille, like
learning to write, is best done with a solid background in paper Braille.
  For our tests we chose to use Braille notetakers rather than
standalone Braille displays because the notetakers are designed for reading
text, whereas standalone Braille displays are designed for displaying the
contents of computer screens and contain more Braille cells. Readers used
their own equipment, and, when they wished, equipment was lent to them.
  When we crunched the numbers after each reader went through several
sessions reading from paper, an eighteen-cell display, and a thirty-two-
cell display, we were a little surprised by what the numbers revealed. Half
of the readers had a slightly faster reading speed on paper than on a
Braille display, but the difference was very small, almost to the point of
insignificance. The difference in reading speed for each individual reader
between his or her fastest and slowest speed was rather low, with the
exception of one reader, who had a difference of thirty-four words per
minute between his fastest and slowest speeds. This indicates that the
reading pace is not fundamentally altered by using a device instead of
paper Braille.

Strengths of Paper
  One achieves a high reading speed and comprehension when reading with
both hands because of the ability to begin reading the next line. Blank
lines can be easily skipped, and knowing the boundaries of a page is easy.
The spatial representation of the page communicates the layout and the
importance of empty lines, indented lists, and other formatting is easily