IMWA: Handshape Construction and Sequencing Rules

[Bill Reese]

I was thinking about the freezing of numbers aspect and it occurred to
me, as it did to Bart, that it may become a problem in the future - no
matter how much the person coding the numbers tries to accomodate future
additions and changes.

Bart, can you explain how the categories and sub-categories would be
coded without using numbers?

Bill


Bart Braem wrote:

>>The problem, in the past, was that the different symbolsets, such as
>>the SSS-1995 in SignWriter DOS, the SSS-1999 in the current version of
>>SignWriter Java, and the SSS-2002 in SignBank 2002....all had different
>>numbers...so the poor programmers had to write conversion programs from
>>one symbolset to the other...
>>
>>
>
>We wrote one of those programs and it's a large problem for sure, it's a very
>good idea to solve it now.
>
>
>
>>I am sure this has tortured many
>>programmers, and I am trying now, to put a final stop to this problem,
>>by freezing the numbers of the IMWA in the next two days...
>>
>>
>
>May we suggest not using numbers? Current computers have no problems
>whatsoever to use your categories, it's a lot easier to program and most
>importantly: when new symbols are added they don't have strange numbers: they
>just belong in their category!
>That would just be the ultimate way for programmers and users: when you get a
>specific symbol it's always identified by it's categories and subcategories,
>one never has to change the code again...
>
>One other thing we would like to ask: please make all symbols turn in the same
>direction, so all counter-clockwise for example. Currently some symbols do
>turn the other way round and that's pretty irritating when programming: if
>you want to display a mirrored or rotated symbol you always need to check the
>category. When you just specify one rotation programmers can always be
>confident that when the format reads "turn 45 degrees" it will always be the
>same direction.
>
>A last issue there is the rotation degree: it would be very good if that were
>specified in degrees instead of just arbritary numbers without any
>significance: eg the current symbols involving shoulders, like number 243 and
>244 have at number 1 symbols which are rotated 15 degrees, a regular hand has
>at number 1 a rotation of 45 degrees. When you specify the rotation as
>degrees it will also be very easy and straightforward to add new rotations in
>the future, as they just fit in. (This is about the same solution as we
>suggest for the symbol numbers)
>
>These are just a couple suggestions but it would help future projects so much
>because rendering signs is so much easier then, it could save us lots of
>time.
>
>Greetings from Belgium
>Bart & Steven
>--
>Woordenboek Vlaamse Gebarentaal
>http://gebaren.ugent.be
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20040602/d670dafa/attachment.html>