Ingvild Roald iroald at HOTMAIL.COM
Mon Jan 22 18:44:49 UTC 2007

Agree that no 3 is ok too - easy to use


>From: "Stuart Thiessen" <sw at passitonservices.org>
>Reply-To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>To: sw-l at majordomo.valenciacc.edu
>Subject: Re: [sw-l] Eye-Blinks
>Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:17:59 -0600
>:) I haven't had a chance to reply yet. :)
>Personally, I like #3 also. While I agree with Ingvild and Stefan that the 
>arrows could be used, I think that blinks are common enough that it may be 
>nice just to have a symbol for that event that is simple. With so much that 
>can happen in the face, I would prefer to limit the number of symbols that 
>need to appear in the face area. But if I were doing a phonetic 
>transcription, I might go ahead and use the arrows if I was trying to 
>specify one blink vs. multiple blinks. But for everyday use, I think #3 
>would work well.
>Just my thoughts,
>On Jan 22, 2007, at 11:52, Valerie Sutton wrote:
>>SignWriting List
>>January 22, 2007
>>Dear Kim, Stefan, and Ingvild!
>>Thank you for your comments about Eye-Blinks...all good points. Go right 
>>ahead and write as you feel is best.
>>Meanwhile I might add some of the new symbols to the IMWA someday, just in 
>>case they will be useful to someone in the future...
>>I personally found writing eye-blinks in the past, a little difficult at 
>>times, because sometimes the little arrows would take up a lot of room 
>>inside the face, or sometimes if we placed the little arrows on the side 
>>of the face, they could be confused with finger motion, if there was a 
>>hand near the side of the face while the blinking was occurring, so that 
>>is why I thought maybe a symbol like number 3 might be helpful in those 
>>rare cases...but that was just a suggestion...and not mandatory at 
>>And Stefan, if you prefer writing the eyelid open instead of closed with 
>>the arrows, that is fine too...I was concerned it could be confused with 
>>eyegaze, if the arrows were near an open-eyelid...that is why I closed the 
>>eyelid...so that readers who are unfamiliar with SignWriting would not 
>>think we meant eyegaze...but you do whatever feels best to you...no 
>>Thanks very much for your input...If I ever add this to the IMWA I will 
>>tell you!  Val ;-)

More information about the Sw-l mailing list