IMWA: Handshape Construction and Sequencing Rules

[Charles Butler]

Dear friends,

To add my two cents to the discussion.

I am confused, at least for version 1 of the IMWA.  I
do not wish to be offensive to programmers, but I'm
also looking at the practical usefulness of SW or IMWA
as an actual writing system, for everyday use.

Except for smooth video graphics, I am trying to
understand see why 8 rotations with reflections (96
per shape) won't do for all these figures.  Sign
Writing is, as Valerie has said, "approximate".  Right
now, the only handshape angle I can't show is two
hands at 45 degrees (boat), tilted up 45 degrees,
which I could show with only one extra symbol, the
"slashed shaded circle" which I posted earlier.

Valerie has come up with shading for 45 degree hands
which is possible, but cumbersome, and certainly not
easily translated for anything but flat hands and
still be readable on the size of a computer screen.

We are not showing "stopped motion camera work" in a
writing system, else it has become impossibly dense to
be useful as a writing system.  It may be useful as a
CGI but then it ceases, for me, to be linguistics and
has become an expensive toy.

I could be convinced if you could show me a meaningful
minimal pair, in the same sign language, from even
something as complicated as Balinese dance which could
not be drawn with 45 degree angles (for the hands) on
computer with appropriate arrows for movement and be
transmitted to a person who knows the dance to be
produced.

The shoulder shrugs are something else again, as
shoulders are not hands and have different
recognizable degrees of motion.

I remember working in Brazil, and even attempting to
manipulate a hand on screen was hours and hours of
work to articulate each finger to the manipulating
that the human body does all the time.

With SW (and IMWA) you have reduced those
articulations to a workable subset, not expanded them
to infinity.  We need to have an upward bound of
writing density, or the system will become unwieldy,
even to researchers.

I like SWML as a concept, as, with work, it can define
 outer limits to a "capture set" within its codes (if
that sentence makes any sense), and I guess what I'm
looking for is a "capture set" that "keeps it simple"
..

Sincerely,

Charles Butler



--- Bill Reese <wreese01 at TAMPABAY.RR.COM> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>