Automatic, converted, and human prepared files will have different levels of quality and expectations

I am a braille user and my expectations for the quality of file I am receiving will vary based on whether the file was prepared by a transcriber, an automatic process, or converted from a braille file in an older format.

*Detail*
The best braille files will be those prepared by a human and within that subset they will be those prepared by a certified braille transcriber. Next will likely be those converted from an automatic process. Finally, there will be files prepared by converting a braille file in an older format.

*Proposal*
Metadata should indicate whether the file was prepared by a human, an automatic process, or converted from an older braille file. If a human, it would be good if it indicated the person's level of braille competence (professional vs amateur- though this aspect needs more thought). If an automatic process, it would be good if it indicated the file type of the source file as each will have strengths and weaknesses. The program used for the automatic process would also be good to indicate. Finally, files converted from a braille file in an older format should indicate the file type of the source file and what program did the conversion.

With this information, schools, libraries, and braille users could better understand the quality of the files that they receive and could make informed decisions about what processes, programs, and starting files work best for them and their needs.