W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: controlled use of language

From: jonathan chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:28:34 +0100
Message-ID: <043a01c21dde$8cd63930$0500a8c0@RJCHETWYND>
To: "lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>, "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>

I'm not sure about all the cross posting, but training cds have used symbols
for decades now.
you may also have notices that tom and jerry, not only are very popular, but
there is masses of new current production.
much cinema is CGI and this must of necessity be regarded as symbolic, even
when realistic.
finally 'static' icons and individual symbols are used throughout all walks
of life.


images and music contain information that is not susceptable to textual
description.
Those who maintain a score will ever be as rich as what it indicates, fool
only themselves.

Also consider there is a large population of illiterates, who cannot
communicate using the written word, but can create, images, crafts and much
more.
We have a responsibility to communicate with them via their chosen modality.

jonathan

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>
To: "lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>;
<w3c-wai-pf@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: controlled use of language


> At 10:16 PM 5/15/2002 -0700, lisa Seeman wrote:
> >controlled use of language
>
> Who will control the controllers? If it is to be some version of the
French
> Academe, they must be prepared for forms of ridicule/satire beyond
anything
> presently available.
>
> "Let me make one thing perfectly clear" almost invariably precedes some
> simplistic (how's that for demagoguery?) spout.
>
> Further, the "anticipated development of symbolic language" has been
> underway for millennia with the results we indulge in here. If the notion
> of Bliss Symbols or ASL or hieroglyphics or whatever is the model for this
> development we have nothing to fear - instead of being "six months away"
it
> will actually recede further/faster and become more improbable as language
> grows ever richer.
>
> So to "Be prepared for it to be a long process." is a matter of *forever*
> because it ain't gonna happen.
>
> As Dave Pawson would indicate (on another list)
> -1 (that's a definite "nay" vote).
>
> Lisa is almost certainly one of my favorite minds on this WG, but this is
a
> terrible waste of her talent.
>
> --
> Love.
>
> It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious!
>
>
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 09:28:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT