[sw-l] Frustrations of SignWriter DOS users...

[Tini Pel]

Hi Stefan, Congratulations !!!!!! and I agree with you 100 % with SW. 4.4
One can write, express and communicate with others in a simple way
Puddle seems fantastic and a great help, specially with the dictionary but
I do hope, we won't loose SW. 4.4. ever. !!!!!!!.

Tini.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Woehrmann" <stefanwoehrmann at GEBAERDENSCHRIFT.DE>
To: <sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 6:54 PM
Subject: AW: [sw-l] Frustrations of SignWriter DOS users...


> Hi Valerie and everyone,
>
> Good news from Germany ;-))
>
> Can you imagine - all of my nine deaf students age 10 - 12 (and 16 )
sitting
> at a computer. They got a picture story - and they found their individual
> solution to type their first story in GebaerdenSchrift.
> Well - they decided what to focus on. They decided what kind of style (SL
or
> signed Spoken Language) . In order to copy the signs from the dictionary
> they asked again and again for the translation of the signs which came to
> their mind. I remember the discussion about the importance of a dictionary
> in the SW4.4 program. (smile)
>  I never before had the chance to see something like this before. DEAF
> children at fourth grade are writing what they want to express. It is
almost
> the same like hearing children are able to do. Young hearing children come
> to school and write just the way they feel - and yes you can understand
> their written documents even if they do not care about the correct
spelling
> ...
>
> I am able to read the written documents of the children without any
problem.
> I translated their documents to German. So now we can discuss, compare and
> learn. I felt so happy- and yes they felt very, very happy.
>
> Now my students demonstrated pride and competence. They worked on two days
> for about 45 minutes each day. I am so impressed. So we are definitely on
> our way to improve literacy in deaf students with the support of SW..
> Without SW.4.4 with the wonderful option to choose between so many
> variations in the dictionary that would not be able.
>
> At school we need a program like the gold old SW 4.4 DOS  so badly!!  At
my
> classroom I refused to update to XP - so all our computers run under Win
98
>
> Unfortunately I have almost no knowledge and insight in software -
> programming.  There is hope that some day we will get a program that can
be
> compared to the SW 4.4 Program - with a dictionary that is not restricted
to
> a special number of entries, print - options and keyboard-design that can
be
> compared to the good old  SignWriter - keyboard. ;-)))
>
> Please do not misunderstand. I am impressed by all the programmer -
> achievements of the last few months and I can imagine that it takes a lot
of
> knowledge and time and energy and love to create all these new
> technologies -  and yes we need a different software due to XP -
> development - hm -
>
> but we need a program that allows to work with SW in this good old
procedure
> ;-))
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> [mailto:owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu]Im Auftrag von Sandy Fleming
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2004 22:51
> An: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> Betreff: RE: [sw-l] Frustrations of SignWriter DOS users...
>
> Hi Val!
>
> > Will there be a day, when Stefan will be able to type full documents
> > directly in the visual symbols of SignWriting, like we do in SignWriter
> > DOS? We can type directly without ever seeing one word or letter in a
> > spoken language...pure SignWriting documents that can go for pages and
> > pages...that kind of typing, in a sign-processor program, that can also
> > save signs into a dictionary and paste signs from the dictionary while
> > typing...and then be able to print both documents and dictionaries in
> > multiple print formats...those features have never been done in another
> > computer program...SignBank gives us some of that, but does not have
> > the typing element...
>
> I thought I'd try to explain a few things to put this in perspective.
>
> The real pity about SW-DOS is not that it's dying but that it lived so
long.
> It would have been better if SW-Java had worked out and we had had a
modern
> version of it. No matter how much anyone may have come to love SW-DOS, or
> how useful people have found it, there is probably no longer any practical
> way to expand it beyond the 10,000 limit, or make the screen as attractive
> as a modern word processor (say, by offering better layout, colours and so
> on), or achieve any sort of advancement at all. It's not just Bill Gates
> doing things, it's that modern software development processes really are
> better and programmers quite rightly think twice about trying to bring a
DOS
> program up to date - there comes a point where it starts to get easier to
> write a new thing from scratch than to try to keep improving the old one.
>
> The question was asked of whether the current suite of Web-based programs
> would ever be used to create large documetns, and the answer is no, not
any
> more than anyone would try to use a browser connection to implement a
> powerful word processor. Browser connections are slow and really have very
> litle - almost nothing - in the way of memory. This lack of memory is a
> deliberate feature of HTTP design, and so the answer is no, the Web is not
> really suitable for creating large offline documents.
>
> So you might ask why Stephen uses Web-based development for these things.
> Part of the answer is that his aim is mainly to enable everyone all over
the
> world to build dictionaries (not write documants) and for this a Web
server
> with a database is ideal. Another part of the answer is that browsers and
> servers supply a lot of programming power and very good database and user
> interfacing software just by default. This makes it possible for Stephen
to
> respond to requests for improvement very quickly: he can add new features
> without having to ask everyone to download and reinstall anything. A
> programmer writing a word processor for offline use would have to wait and
> save all his changes in a new issue, which he would have to test very
> heavily to make sure there were no errors before asking everyone to
> reinstall the new version. Web development, however, enables Stephen to
> interact with us an respond to our ideas quickly. He can experiment
without
> having to worry about wasting peoples time with downloads and
installations.
> In fact I think he added a new search feature this morning while I was
> working on the BSL dictionary, and I didn't even have to stop work for a
> moment, never mind download and reinstall everything again!
>
> This is all very valuable because as we've seen Stephen has been
developing
> at the very heart of SW technology, trying out our ideas, and these
> developments can be used in future word processors when programmers do
> develop them. The SW word processors of the future are bound to be much
> better than they otherwise would have been, due to the sort of work
Stephen
> is doing now.
>
> I would also emphasise the importance of developing good XML (ie SWML)
> applications. XML is not only very easy for programs to read and write,
but
> is also very easy to transform (or operate on). This means that it doesn't
> matter that we have different dialects of SWML - it's easy to transform
one
> dialect into another. It's easy to upgrade because if we add new features
or
> remove old ones, we can write an XSLT stylesheet to transform all out old
> data into the new form. This means our data will last forever even if we
> keep wanting to keep improving on the way it's stored, unlike the old .sgn
> data which was a fixed format and difficult to change without some serious
> programming effort. If this is too technical, I could just wrap it up by
> saying that the whole idea of using XML (ie SWML) is to make sure that
once
> a sign is in a dictionary, or once a document is written, it can be used
> again and again and changed again and again by as many different
> applications as programmers care to write.
>
> So to summarise, the web-based development currently taking place is a
very
> VERY good thing indeed, but don't expect it to end up by giving you a
> full-featured word processor. That's a separate programming concern and
> involves much longer-term development. But the new breed of SW word
> processors will be all the better for their workings and data having been
> poineered in these Web applications.
>
> Phew! And I thought I'd get an early night tonight!  :)
>
> Sandy
>
>
>