<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1479" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=893571223-10022005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Stuart,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=893571223-10022005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=893571223-10022005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Flagging signs without build files has been needed for a long time.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=893571223-10022005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=893571223-10022005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>How
about I make them bold and/or italic on the search screen?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=893571223-10022005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=893571223-10022005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>-Stephen</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
owner-sw-l@majordomo.valenciacc.edu
[mailto:owner-sw-l@majordomo.valenciacc.edu]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Stuart
Thiessen<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, February 10, 2005 6:02 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
sw-l@majordomo.valenciacc.edu<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [sw-l] Signs in living
color<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>That makes sense, since you have no build data on
those signs. I wonder if it would help the editors of those dictionaries if
there was a way to quickly identify signs that are still image-only? Then when
we are browsing the dictionary and notice a sign that is marked as image only,
we could edit it as we notice it?<BR><BR>Am I correct in assuming that you do
a filename search when you prepare a sign listing? If so, could you modify the
sign listing script such that for all matching signs, it does a quick check to
see if an equivalent build file is present? Then it could mark signs without a
build file with an asterisk (*) or some other symbol to indicate an image-only
sign. That may be helpful anyway if for example a build file for some reason
gets deleted or something, then you'd have a way to know that a new build file
is needed for that sign?<BR><BR>What do you think?<BR><BR>Stuart<BR><BR>On Feb
10, 2005, at 16:44, Stephen Slevinski wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE><?fontfamily><?param Arial><?color><?param 0000,0000,FFFF><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>Hi
Stuart,<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/color><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param Arial><?color><?param 0000,0000,FFFF><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>The
short answer is yes. Signs could be colored when pulling from the
dictionary. I would only need some rules to apply.<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/color><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param Arial><?color><?param 0000,0000,FFFF><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>However,
2 dictionaries still have many signs that are images only: sgn-US
(ASL) and sgn-DE. Image only signs can not be loaded into
SignMaker. Neither could image only signed be colored.<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/color><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR><?fontfamily><?param Arial><?color><?param 0000,0000,FFFF><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>-Stephen<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/color><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><?fontfamily><?param Tahoma><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>-----Original
Message-----<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param Tahoma><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>From:<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></B><?fontfamily><?param Tahoma><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>
owner-sw-l@majordomo.valenciacc.edu
[mailto:owner-sw-l@majordomo.valenciacc.edu]<?/x-tad-smaller><B><?x-tad-smaller>On
Behalf Of <?/x-tad-smaller></B><?x-tad-smaller>Stuart Thiessen<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param Tahoma><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>Sent:<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></B><?fontfamily><?param Tahoma><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>
Thursday, February 10, 2005 5:29 PM<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param Tahoma><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>To:<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></B><?fontfamily><?param Tahoma><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>
sw-l@majordomo.valenciacc.edu<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><B><?fontfamily><?param Tahoma><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>Subject:<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></B><?fontfamily><?param Tahoma><?smaller><?x-tad-smaller>
Re: [sw-l] Signs in living
color<?/x-tad-smaller><?/smaller><?/fontfamily></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Cool!<BR><BR>Could it be possible, instead of saving
color to the dictionary, to apply color to the sign when pulling from the
dictionary? Or alternatively, for teaching purposes, could it be possible to
have a way to assign colors to different categories of symbols (i.e.,
handshapes, contact, face, etc.) and then it would color the sign
appropriately? That might be a handy tool for teachers or people developing
teaching materials?<BR><BR>Just some thoughts.<BR><BR>Stuart<BR>On Feb 10,
2005, at 16:14, Stephen Slevinski wrote:<BR><BR><BR>Hi
list,<BR><BR> <BR>Trying to solve a problem with transparency, I found
out how to color symbols.<BR><BR> <BR>I put this into SignMaker for
international signs. You can play around and tell me what you
think. <BR><BR>http://www.signbank.org/signpuddle/sgn-WO/create.php<BR><BR> <BR>Pressing
the Color special command will popup a window where you can pick a color for
the selected symbol.<BR><BR> <BR>NOTE: <BR><BR>The symbols loose
their color when saving to the dictionary. However, if people find
this usefull, I can update the script that saves the sign to the dictionary
so that the signs include
color.<BR><BR> <BR>-Stephen<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>