[sw-l] Improved SignMaker, please review
Stephen Slevinski
slevinski at SIGNWRITING.ORG
Wed Jan 19 22:42:31 UTC 2005
Hi Bill,
There are over 25,000 symbols in the IMWA 1.1. Finding the symbol you want
can be tricky. It takes time to explore and remember where all of the
symbols are located. Val will be explaining how the IMWA is arranged which
will help.
The following tries to explain how SignMaker works with the IMWA, but it has
detailed information so some may want to skip it...
SignMaker displays all of the symbols of the IMWA in 3 pages. Each page can
have up to 96 symbols at a time. Selecting a symbol on the first page,
leads to the second. Selecting a symbol on the second page, leads to the
third.
There are 6 characteristics for each symbol:
Category - Group - Symbol - Variation - Fill - Rotation
Examle: 01-02-003-04-05-06
01 - Category
02 - Group
003 - Symbol
04 - Variation
05 - Fill
06 - Rotation
Each page of SignMaker takes 2 characteristics at a time.
The first page displays all unique Category-Group combinations. This is the
50 groups of the IMWA. The first symbol on the first page is
01-01-001-01-01-01. The second symbol is 01-02-001-01-01-01.
The second page displays all unique Symbol-Variations for the selected
Category-Group. If the first symbol was selected on the first page, this
page will display symbols 01-01-001-01-01-01, 01-01-002-01-01-01,
01-01-003-01-01-01, ...
The third page displays all Fill-Rotations for the selected
Symbol-Variation.
The special keys work directly on the characteristics of the symbol. The
variation key cycles through the variations of a symbol. The arrows use
variations most. The variation key will change the size of the arrow. The
fill key cycles through the fill values for a symbol. The rotation key
cycles from 1 thru 8, or 9 thru 16.
The mirror key changes the rotation value by adding or subtracting 8. This
works great for hands. Rotation values 1-8 are the right hand. Rotation
values 9-16 are the left hand. However, not all symbols have 16 rotations.
For symbols with 8 or less rotations, a special table is used. 1<>1, 2<>8,
3<>7, 4<>6.
So SignMaker follows a small set of rules for handling the symbol
characteristics. The shape of the IMWA determines how SignMaker behaves.
Hope that answered your question without too much details.
-Stephen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
[mailto:owner-sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu]On Behalf Of Bill Reese
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:13 AM
To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
Subject: Re: [sw-l] Improved SignMaker, please review
Great work, Stephen!
What I see so far is that it's difficult to see what symbol is on top of
another. I'm not sure how you and Val are visualizing that.
Also, when selecting face symbols, the Mirror, Fill, Rotate CCW, Rotate CW
commands all provide variations whereas the Variation command does nothing.
I'm sure this has to way these are encoded. Perhaps they need a separate
subroutine to handle their specific encoding? I did notice that while some
symbols have a mirror component (a face with only the left eye, could be
mirrored as a face with only the right eye) there are no rotations or fills
for these - although you could say that the head can be slightly rotated
either left or right for some signs.
Bill
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/sw-l/attachments/20050119/4a512b91/attachment.htm>
More information about the Sw-l
mailing list