[Sw-l] [SPAM] Re: Placement of Signs in Space
00000002a18e4451-dmarc-request at LISTSERV.VALENCIACOLLEGE.EDU
Tue Apr 27 23:50:00 EDT 2021
Hello Adam, Andre, Cherie, Kacio, Steve, Val and everyone -
It's interesting to see so many ways to do things and the combination of
viewpoints that is different than the usual way of reading it.
I personally prefer the sizes. As it feels clear, and the way I would
write it on paper if I didn't have a movement, or maybe even if I did,
just to emphasize the depth.
I really like the symbol sizes, and I've included as part of my
SignWriting programs which was in 2005, and has been able to write it
to FSW since Steve and I collaborated on the styling. If my memory
serves me right, it was concluded that symbol size wasn't necessary to
write everyday signwriting. And it was also much harder to size the
PNGs nicely than it is to size the SVGs and Fonts we have today.
I agree with you Steve, that it's good to have a separation between text
and styling. And if we change all the symbols by the same % then that
is more of a styling than anything else, as if they are all a different
size, or if the size isn't changed, it all means the same. However I do
think that we should support different symbols sizes within a sign and
for the meaning to depend on the size of the symbols to be able to write
what Adam is signing or more exactly, similar examples which do not have
movement. Not that we would use different sizes in the all the signs
but that some we can change their size to denote depth when we want to.
And it would be part of the sign and not the styling because removing
the size would change the meaning of those signs. My programs have a
separate data structure with can record the size of each individual
symbol, which was always lost going to FSW until we got the styling.
But is still lost on some of the other software which doesn't always
permit importing some of the styling like the older SignMaker 2015.
Of course, for the current common encodings like FSW, etc to record
which symbols are not at their default size within the sign part instead
of the styling, would require extending the current specifications. Or
we could agree on a basic JSON representation which is a much more
flexible data structure and is the common way of sharing and storing
data in almost every programming language and in many modern databases.
I knew a deaf who wrote his notes, either expressive viewpoint from the
back or expressive from the side. I never saw him draw any from the
top. With just those two views, you could write everything without even
having different types of arrows. But it requires, stating in each sign
which viewpoint is drawn. He would change from one to the other with a
quick body manikin in each sign. We see other signers more often from
the side than from the top, so I think it's an easier transition to
write oneself from the side than from the top. I'm not advocating we
all write like he did, but I believe that in the case that when depth
isn't clear with the expressive view, like in this special case Adam is
mentioning, I believe it would prefer to read it from the side view than
from the expressive back view.
When we can easily write everything we sign the way we normally sign and
read it back and sign it the same again, and not feeling that we should
sign something just a bit differently so that we can write it without
too much trouble, then that would be a perfect writing system. And I
believe that that has been and should be the goal of great sign writing
systems like SignWriting. If we can write things simply and intuitively
with different size symbols instead of having to switch views to write
some signs, then I believe it is improving the ease of use and the ease
of adoption of SignWriting.
But in the case of writing with software that doesn't do symbol by
symbol sizes, I prefer the side view.
Thanks for letting me share my 2cents
On 4/22/2021 11:13 AM, Valerie Sutton wrote:
> SignWrting List
> April 22, 2021
> Hello Adam, Andre, Cherie, Kacio, Steve, Jonathan and everyone -
> As you know, the Top View can be mixed with the Front View. The Head
> in Top View establishes the “depth” but the rest of the sign .. the
> hands, the movements … can be written in the Front View, placed either
> near or far from the Head & body. It sounds crazy, but this
> combination of viewpoints seems to be working for readers.
> And looking at the above diagram I can see other ways to write it too.
> So there are a variety of choices. For me, the Movement Arrow gives me
> the depth information, but if you do not want to use an arrow, then
> the old “sizes” work very well.
> Originally SignWriting was designed to keep the writing ALL Front
> View, using "size of symbols" to write the depth perspective of “far
> away”. Smaller symbols represented “far away”.
> I am aware of the point, that Rich Text is great for individual
> documents or signs that can be captured in graphics so the information
> is not lost, but in an actual symbolset, the information of “small” vs
> “large” would be lost if it is just plain text.
> Nonetheless, I am glad to know I can access the smaller symbols in the
> two programs and I plan to use it for some demonstrations.
> SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION
> Valerie Sutton SignWriting List moderator sutton at signwriting.org
> <mailto:sutton at signwriting.org>
> Post Messages to the SignWriting List:
> sw-l at listserv.valenciacollege.edu
> <mailto:sw-l at listserv.valenciacollege.edu>
> SignWriting List Archives & Home Page
> Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages
SIGNWRITING LIST INFORMATION
SignWriting List moderator
sutton at signwriting.org
Post Messages to the SignWriting List:
sw-l at listserv.valenciacollege.edu
SignWriting List Archives & Home Page
Join, Leave or Change How You Receive SW List Messages
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5093 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Sw-l