[sw-l] Signs in living color

[Stuart Thiessen]

That sounds fine to me.  You may want to put a legend on it though, so 
people know the significance of a bolded or italicized sign.

Thanks,

Stuart

On Feb 10, 2005, at 17:20, Stephen Slevinski wrote:

> Stuart,
>  
> Flagging signs without build files has been needed for a long time. 
>   
> How about I make them bold and/or italic on the search screen?
>  
> -Stephen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu 
> [mailto:owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu]On Behalf Of Stuart 
> Thiessen
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 6:02 PM
> To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> Subject: Re: [sw-l] Signs in living color
>
> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> What do you think?
>
> Stuart
>
> On Feb 10, 2005, at 16:44, Stephen Slevinski wrote:
>
>
> Hi Stuart,
>
>  
> The short answer is yes.  Signs could be colored when pulling from the 
> dictionary.  I would only need some rules to apply.
>
>  
> 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.
>
>  
> -Stephen
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu 
> [mailto:owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu]On Behalf Of Stuart 
> Thiessen
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 5:29 PM
>
> To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>
> Subject: Re: [sw-l] Signs in living color
>
>
> Cool!
>
> 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?
>
> Just some thoughts.
>
> Stuart
> On Feb 10, 2005, at 16:14, Stephen Slevinski wrote:
>
>
> Hi list,
>
>  
> Trying to solve a problem with transparency, I found out how to color 
> symbols.
>
>  
> I put this into SignMaker for international signs.  You can play 
> around and tell me what you think. 
>
> http://www.signbank.org/signpuddle/sgn-WO/create.php
>
>  
> Pressing the Color special command will popup a window where you can 
> pick a color for the selected symbol.
>
>  
> NOTE: 
>
> 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.
>
>  
> -Stephen
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5268 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20050210/e22e92d2/attachment.bin>