AW: how would you like to improve the SignWriting List?

[Erika Hoffmann]

I would also love to see more posts in SW (ideally from as many
different sign languages as possible - it would be fun an interesting
if posts from sign languages unfamiliar to all list members could come
with a gloss or translation, so that we could take advantage of this
multilingual group to learn things about how other sign languages
work).
I also like the idea that interested list members could post and
compare their SW versions of video clips. Partly because, as Stefan
said, even if it is an unfamiliar SL we can write what we see and
learn about spelling. But also, people don't always see the same
things in a clip (some people notice mouth movements, some people pay
more attention to other aspects). So it will be interesting for
everyone to see the many ways in which a given sign can be represented
(especially if everyone respects each other's visions).
As for the forum option, I totally understand Lucy's interest. But to
me it remains the most important thing that the archives continue to
be added to and accessible. The discussions on this list are, to me,
of historical significance!
So, I've really added nothing new here - but just chiming in support
of some other comments.
Best,
Erika

On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Bill Reese <wreese01 at tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Lucy,
> I didn't mean to discourage you, just to point out that it should be done
> with thought to the future.   Kids, teenagers, young adults chatting away on
> web 2.0 rarely think about saving posts - most probably would be shocked by
> the idea.  They want to be funny, silly even stupid and have it "here today,
> gone tomorrow."   Signwriting should progress to that in it's use, but not
> in it's development.
>
> Personally, if what you want to do is actually use Signwriting in web 2.0, I
> think that's a great idea.  But if it's to be for development, then it needs
> to tie in somehow with the listserv to send and receive posts to and from
> the listserv - and to be archived.
>
> One last example:  look at what's happened to MySpace.  Years ago it was
> popular but now I'm seeing most young people saying they don't use it
> anymore, they use FaceBook.   So if you had set up a group on MySpace years
> ago, the members there would be saying, "We don't want to use it anymore, we
> prefer FaceBook."  Then what happens when FaceBook becomes unpopular?
> Jumping from popular web forum to popular web forum would eventually destroy
> any archives.
>
> And even web 1.0 has problems maintaining archives - especially when they
> get younger people managing them who think they should run like web 2.0 and,
> oops, years of archives are lost.  Ultimately, the only way to securely keep
> archives is a set of private archival servers that's well maintained through
> the years and ported over to new media from time to time.  What is that ...
> Web 0.0 or Web 3.0?  ;-)
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> On 1/3/2011 3:57 AM, Lucy wrote:
>>
>> Your argument is that a new web forum would be too complicated etc. - I
>> understand this very well as I can imagine that people (especially young
>> people, web 2.0 generation) new to SW may think that a mailing list must be
>> a complicated and outdated thing.
>> So, I see that none of you are interested in a web forum and I don't feel
>> encouraged enough to set up one :-/.
>>
>> Lucy
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Erika Hoffmann-Dilloway
Assistant Professor of Anthropology
Oberlin College