[sw-l] Improved SignMaker, please review

[Valerie Sutton]

SignWriting List
January 19, 2005

Dear SW Listers!
We are soooo lucky...To have the opportunity to test a program,
SignMaker, on the web, as a group. What an honor, to know that people
are using the IMWA 1.1, within a day after it is completed! I am really
happy with the new SignMaker, which Stephen has worked sooo hard on.
Thank you, Stephen, for your contribution, your time, your designs,
your focus. I look forward now, to teaching everyone, about the new
symbols in the IMWA 1.1, and also some of the new features which
Stephen has added...So here we go! Hang onto your hats!! See the
following messages....Val ;-)

------------------------


On Jan 19, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Stephen Slevinski wrote:

> Hi List,
>
> I've made a few changes to SignMaker.  I would appreciate any
> feedback.  Use
> any SignPuddle on SignBank:
> http://www.signbank.org/signpuddle
>
> SignMaker now uses the IMWA 1.1.  The IMWA 1.1 includes additional
> symbol,
> such as arms.  Val can explain much better.  The IMWA 1.1 is also
> consistent
> with fills and rotations.  This is for easier programming and a
> smaller IMWA
> array key.  I can explain more if any programmers are interested.
>
> The fill and rotation special keys now work properly.  No longer will
> symbols disappear in the SignBox.
>
> I have added the blinking selected symbol, so that you know which
> symbol the
> special keys will affect.  Clicking on a symbol in the SignBox will
> start or
> stop the blinking.
>
> I have centered and boxed the symbol palette (grid of symbol on the
> right
> side of the screen).  I believe this looks and feels much better.
>
> Firefox is the best browser to use.  I have also tested Internet
> Explorer,
> which is slower but usable.
>
> Let me know what you think,
> -Stephen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> [mailto:owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu]On Behalf Of Department of
> Access Services Room 2319
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:19 AM
> To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
> Subject: Re: [sw-l] RE: [DEAFACADEMICS-L] Definition of a Sign Language
> interpreter in your country
>
>
> Thierry,
>
> This is in response to the first message sent. Here is the excerpt to
> which
> I am responding:
>
>
> Furthermore, they are hired as "therapeutic interpreters in visual
> modality"
> (that is what their contract says). That covers Cued Speech, Signed
> French
> and to a lesser extent, Belgian French Sign Language. These people
> have no
> training whatsoever and they are still labelled "interpreters". With a
> few
> colleagues, I am fighting against this. In the Commission, there are a
> few
> people who come from a medical background and they still believe that
> these
> "interpreters" match the definition of a true sign language
> interpreter...
>
>  As I am getting more and more frustrated and filled up with anger, I
> am now
> seeking more information as how to fight their ignorance and
> stubborness.
> Our local interpreters association is powerless in front of the medical
> lobby, because the profession of SL interpreter is not recognised yet.
>
>  I am hoping that some people in this forum might help me find the
> right way
> to submit a clear overview of the current situation in the
> French-speaking
> part of Belgium and to submit new proposals based on scientific facts.
>
> ------------------ end excerpt
>
> Dr. Daniel Burch of the United States may be able to help with defining
> direction. He is a certified interpreter here. I worked extensively
> with him
> while I lived in the state of Louisiana. The Deaf organizations and the
> state Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf worked on establishing the
> state's interpreter law and on other issues facing the Deaf community.
> It is
> just a thought.
>
> Cj
>
>
> On 1/19/05 4:53 AM, "Shane Gilchrist Ó hEorpa"
> <shane.gilchrist.oheorpa at francismaginn.org> wrote:
>
>> Thierry,
>>
>> Good news re: the recognition of LSFB in the Communauté Française - I
>> know
>> Helga Stevens in the Flemish Parliament is working on the recognition
>> of
> VGT
>> there as well - too bad the Belgian Constitution isn't very specific
>> about
>> languages in general use.
>>
>> As long as Deaf sign language users keep shouting "deaf deaf deaf", it
> will
>> be about disability (no clear barriers between people with
>> disabilities
> and
>> people without disabilities) - I think we need to work on the language
>> itself.
>>
>> The most important thing is to find out WHO are LSFB users - rather
>> than
>> their hearing status - many of our best NISL users here happens to be
>> 'non-deaf' - and for me, it is about encouraging racism if we are
>> obsessed
>> with whether one is Deaf, HoH or non-deaf. Do Finns really give a damn
> about
>> this? I don¹t think so as I get to hear stories about how people with
> little
>> hearing get to be very fluent in SVK etc - and there's Australians
>> (one
> cant
>> really tell if one is deaf or not) and of course, there's the Flanders
> (the
>> Vlaams region) where VGT users are much involved in the VGT
>> development
>> therefore more respect for both sides.
>>
>> You speak of 30 people on the LSFB Commission - how many of them are
> fluent
>> in LSFB? And do they really use LSFB in the Commission?
>>
>> I think Paddy Ladd himself is being a bit unfair - we don't know if
>> he is
> an
>> Alkerist or not - as Alkerism focus on the exemption of non-deaf BSL
>> users
>> from the development of BSL, playing on the anti-hearing racism etc -
>> the
>> sad fact is that there are people who focus on who r the owners of BSL
> when
>> the most important thing is to ensure that the language will survive,
>> continue on and GROW (that was the aim of the Welsh language
>> community) -
>> and to ensure that the quality of the language is kept at a high level
> (also
>> the aim of the Welsh language community) - away from the influence of
>> English on the language itself - and accommodating (again, the aim of
>> the
>> Welsh language community - most of their best Welsh language
>> activists are
>> the ones who learned Welsh as their 2nd language!) Many people in
>> England
>> have forgotten that it was thousands of BSL students who learned the
>> language that prompted the UK Government to do something about it.
>>
>> The number of fluent BSL users is fast shrinking in England (do anyone
>> really wonder why many of the best BSL signers are from Scotland?)
>>
>> The Northern Ireland Office, last year, have asked the Department of
>> Culture, Arts and Leisure for Northern Ireland to run a wee commission
> made
>> up of deaf organizations (a big mistake here) - and it turned out to
>> be a
>> farce, a real play on disability etc - and the RNID kept going on
>> about
>> health issues (which is totally unbelievable) - and what is even
>> worse,
> the
>> non-deaf NISL users on the group won't use NISL - they'll revert to
>> using
>> English instead - therefore it was more a disability consultation
>> rather
>> than a sign language issues discussion.
>>
>> (For this reason SLCB, my organization, have left - and Hands That
>> Talk,
> the
>> most strong grass-root Deaf organization here with real fluent
>> signers,
> also
>> has left)
>>
>> Until we separate deafness from our national sign language, we will
> continue
>> getting this shit.
>>
>> Shane Gilchrist Ó hEorpa
>> Sign Language Centre Belfast
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Deaf Academics [mailto:DEAFACADEMICS-L at LIST.UNM.EDU] On Behalf
>> Of
>> Thierry Haesenne
>> Sent: 19 January 2005 09:16
>> To: DEAFACADEMICS-L at LIST.UNM.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [DEAFACADEMICS-L] Definition of a Sign Language
>> interpreter
> in
>> your country
>>
>> Please find below Paddy's reply (he wasn't able to post this to the
>> list).
>>
>> Here is my reply:
>>
>> LSFB was recognised following a research from two major
>> French-speaking
>> universities (4 experts - 2 linguists and 2 psycholinguists - were
>> asked
> to
>> draw an overview of the situation in French-speaking Belgium. I was
>> part
> of
>> that team and I am the only one in that team to have been selected to
>> join
>> the SL Commission).
>>
>> The SL Commission has 30 members, of which 15 are effective. Our
> government
>> has decided to select members from different backgrounds. However, I
>> am
>> still not happy with the number of Deaf people represented :
>> - General Deaf associations : 4 members (2 Deaf and 2 HoH)
>> - Association of parents : 2 members (hearing)
>> - Cultural, Sport or Leisure Associations : 4 members (2 Deaf and 2
> hearing)
>> - Deaf schools : 8 members (hearing)
>> - social services for Deaf people : 2 members (1 CODA and 1 hearing)
>> - housing services for Deaf people : 2 members (hearing)
>> - sign language teachers : 2 members (1 Deaf, 1 hearing)
>> - sign language interpreters : 2 members (hearing)
>> - sign language experts : 4 members (1 Deaf - myself-, 1 HoH, 2
>> hearing)
>>
>> The members were selected by the Government on basis of their CV
>> (resume)
>> and their motivations.
>>
>> The main problem in our Commission comes from a few people who
>> supported
>> oralism in the past (and who still do nowadays), and those who
>> support a
>> standardised "official" sign language (which I am totally against,
>> just be
>> aware that an official sign language is being imposed in many deaf
>> schools
>> and in most sign language classes, and that is not the language used
>> by
> the
>> majority of Deaf people here). Overall, the number of effective
>> members
> who
>> might cause a problem and who might not respect the Deaf community's
>> point
>> of view and wishes is about 5.
>>
>> Thierry
>>
>>> From: Paddy Ladd <pad.ladd at bris.ac.uk>
>>> To: thaesenne at hotmail.com
>>> Subject: Fwd: Rejected posting to DEAFACADEMICS-L at LIST.UNM.EDU
>>> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:05:49 +0000
>>>
>>>>
>>>> well done !
>>>>
>>>> Yor govenrment puts our crappy mob to shame :-(
>>>>
>>>> 4 working groups !!
>>>>
>>>> mind u, the whole point is that the ONLY parties to the debate
>>>> shud be the Govt and the Deaf communitys own officially elected
>>>> body.
>>>>
>>>> all the other organisations have to queue up at the door for that
>>>> joint
>>>> group to consider
>>>>
>>>> when they recognised welsh language they didnt talk to the ENGLISH
>>>> about how to draft a law.. that was for the govt and the welsh
>>>> people
>>>> jointly
>>>>
>>>> and thus same for us { well thats the aim !]
>>>>
>>>> Paddy
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, Jan 19, 2005, at 01:32 Europe/London, Thierry Haesenne
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> As you may know, Belgian French Sign Language was recognised in
>>>>> October 2003
>>>>> by the French-speaking parliament of Belgium (Communauté Française
>>>>> de
>>>>> Belgique). Several deaf and hearing experts have been appointed to
>>>>> represent
>>>>> Deaf people's interests in a Commission which meets every two
>>>>> months.
>>>>> That
>>>>> Commission has to submit proposals on various topics related to
>>>>> Deaf
>>>>> issues
>>>>> to the Government and these proposals may become legal some day...
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently, four working groups have been set up: interpreting,
>>>>> education,
>>>>> baby care and information. I am responsible for the "interpreting"
>>>>> group.
>>>>> Now my task is to find out more about the definition of a "sign
>>>>> language
>>>>> interpreter" in various countries around the world. This is because
>>>>> there is
>>>>> still a big confusion when it comes to defining an "interpreter"
>>>>> here.
>>>>> Most
>>>>> "interpreters" work in mainstream schools and are part of a
>>>>> therapeutic team
>>>>> (speech therapists, psychologists, social workers, doctors, etc.)
>>>>> thus, they
>>>>> are not neutral and do not respect confidentiality as they must
>>>>> report
>>>>> any
>>>>> incident that might have happened in class. Moreover, such
>>>>> "interpreters"
>>>>> work on their own 8 hours a day in a class (they have to translate
>>>>> everything that is being said, but as you know, interpreters cannot
>>>>> work
>>>>> efficiently more than 20 minutes in a row; their brain needs to
>>>>> rest
>>>>> from
>>>>> time to time; which has never been the case in mainstream schools.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, they are hired as "therapeutic interpreters in visual
>>>>> modality"
>>>>> (that is what their contract says). That covers Cued Speech, Signed
>>>>> French
>>>>> and to a lesser extent, Belgian French Sign Language. These people
>>>>> have no
>>>>> training whatsoever and they are still labelled "interpreters".
>>>>> With a
>>>>> few
>>>>> colleagues, I am fighting against this. In the Commission, there
>>>>> are a
>>>>> few
>>>>> people who come from a medical background and they still believe
>>>>> that
>>>>> these
>>>>> "interpreters" match the definition of a true sign language
>>>>> interpreter...
>>>>> As I am getting more and more frustrated and filled up with anger,
>>>>> I
>>>>> am now
>>>>> seeking more information as how to fight their ignorance and
>>>>> stubborness.
>>>>> Our local interpreters association is powerless in front of the
>>>>> medical
>>>>> lobby, because the profession of SL interpreter is not recognised
>>>>> yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am hoping that some people in this forum might help me find the
>>>>> right way
>>>>> to submit a clear overview of the current situation in the
>>>>> French-speaking
>>>>> part of Belgium and to submit new proposals based on scientific
>>>>> facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you very much in advance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thierry HAESENNE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>