In a message to All dated 05 Jun 97 02:09, Richard Webb writes:
 RW> My gripe with the six key entry
 RW> systems is  that you still must have
 RW> trained transcriptionists, therefore,
 RW> it doesn't speed the availability of
 RW> material in accessible (braille)
 RW> formats.  That's the whole idea behind
 RW> computer translation software in my book.
I beg to differ with you. Although many computer enthusiasts 
envisioned computers as being able to produce good quality Braille 
under a wide variety of circumstances at the touch of a button, in 
practice (except for the simplest of materials), id doesn't work 
that way and will not for quite some time. IMHO it still takes a 
trained Braillist to know how things should look and make the 
appropriate adjustments to make the Braille decent. Yes, simple 
ASCII sentence-by-sentence Braille can be translated fairly 
automatically. More and more stuff, however, isn't formatted that 
way. I can't count the number of times I've received absolutely 
crappy Braille which was "automatically" translated from the print 
without regard to formatting. I had to throw away a whole 
Government personnel manual because it was unreadable.
[Material deleted]
 RW> I hear that, and more importantly, we
 RW> need one that nls will finally
 RW> certify foro use by braillists.  This
In the opinion of this curmudgeon, it's a way off.
Mike Freeman; Internet: mikef@pacifier.com; Amateur Radio Callsign: K7UIJ
President, National Federation of the Blind of Washington
/* PGP2.6.2 Public Key available via my ".plan" file */
... 0x20 -- the final frontier.
___ PCRR QWK 1.60
--- Maximus/2 2.02
---------------