Symbol consistancy?

[Ingvild Roald]

Val,
Thank you for clearing this up  - and I completely understand that having 
all 10 hand facings would make the total faaaaar to much.


Ingvild




>From: "Valerie Sutton" <signwriting at MAC.COM>
>Reply-To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>Subject: Re: [sw-l] Symbol consistancy?
>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:31:48 -0700
>
>Hello Ingvild -
>My goodness. This is not a glitch! I am fully aware of this and would  not 
>change it. The choice has to do with software limitations, so I  was 
>consistent completely within the two groups of handshapes...there  are two 
>groups of hands...those with square bases and those that are  C and Angled 
>and those two groups are completely consistent within  their own 
>rules...all of them need 10 palm facings, but since I could  only use 6 of 
>those 10 palm facings, I had to choose which ones were  used more and the 
>choice I made is more consistent with usage...But  technically you can just 
>flop the C-hand or angle-hand if you want  one of the other 10 palm 
>facings...and Stefan and Steve wrote their  books based on the some of the 
>other 10 palm facings...But I feel the  C hand flopped, which is one of the 
>10 palm facings, looks weird and  is not used as much when we write by 
>hand, so I chose to have it  going into the center of the body as the more 
>used of the 10 palm  facings...
>
>So I guess writing by hand is the only solution...there will never be  a 
>computer program that people are happy with...why? because it is  very 
>costly to develop software and machines are just dumb  machines...but the 
>writing system itself is so flexible by hand that  it is sad that computer 
>issues always have to take our time...as it  is, I am barely able to even 
>add a new symbol into the IMWA...just  doing the 96 positions on the 6-palm 
>facing grid is exhausting...if  we extended it to 10 palm facings it would 
>be what? 160 positions for  each symbol? did I count that right?
>
>so use the flop button everyone!
>
>Val ;-)
>
>---------------
>
>
>On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:13 AM, Ingvild Roald wrote:
>
>>Have to agree with Adam - but then, working by yourself as Val is  doing, 
>>and knowing what you are doing, you do miss those things  easily. As Val 
>>just told me: everyone needs an editor - and we on  the list are hers. 
>>This tremendous job with all the symbols - not  strange that there are 
>>some glitches,
>>
>>
>>Ingvild
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: "Charles Butler" <chazzer3332000 at YAHOO.COM>
>>>Reply-To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>>>To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>>>Subject: Re: [sw-l] Symbol consistancy?
>>>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
>>>
>>>Now I understand what Adam is talking about.  The third and sixth  column 
>>>are inconsistent on this handshape as the index finger  should be on the 
>>>left of the lower c handshape to be consistent  with the index finger for 
>>>the "1" handshape and the "D" handshape.
>>>
>>>   Charles
>>>
>>>Adam Frost <adam at frostvillage.com> wrote:
>>>     I think I was a little vague with words because I am talking  about 
>>>the next level of order. Since I am now at a desktop  computer, I can 
>>>sceen copy what I meant.
>>>
>>>   This screen shot from SignText first shows the set of symbols  that I 
>>>was refering to, and the second is the base symbol that I  was 
>>>compareing. Notice that the third and sixth columns are  ordered 
>>>differently.
>>>
>>>   Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   On 8/22/06, Valerie Sutton <signwriting at mac.com > wrote:    
>>>SignWriting List
>>>August 22, 2006
>>>
>>>Adam Frost wrote:
>>>
>>> > I was doing some symbol work (for my website) and I noticed that
>>> > some symbols aren't ordered consistantly. The one that I caught was
>>> > 01-01-003-01-03 compared to 01-01-001-01-03. I went to SignText and
>>> > it looks as if 01-01-004, 01-01-005, and 01-01-006 have the same
>>> > difference. Is this supposed to be different?
>>>
>>>Hello Adam!
>>>Thanks for this message. Attached is a screen capture of the symbols
>>>you mention and they correct and consistent. Is it possible that your
>>>browser's cache is overloaded and needs to be cleared? yesterday I
>>>received a phone call from someone who said that the symbols looked
>>>weird in Firefox and when she cleared the cache and cleared the
>>>history in Firefox, presto, everything looked good again! So to test
>>>this, try accessing the same symbols in another browser to see if
>>>they look the same in the other browser...
>>>
>>>Looking at the attached diagram, each index-finger handshape has a
>>>different shape for the base of the handshape...circle for D hand,
>>>open-C, oval, angle and so forth, make the handshapes different from
>>>each other...
>>>
>>>Does this help?  Val ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>><< INCONSISTENT.JPG >>
>>
>>
>