W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: reading vs. writing

From: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 09:31:47 -0400
Message-ID: <39B252C3.AC2BA6BF@clark.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
CC: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, jonathan chetwynd <jc@signbrowser.org.uk>
seen perhaps, comprehended perhaps, understood perhaps, but in the
actual litteral sense, not read.  I saw the dictionary definition and if
I told someone I read a photo, I'd be laughed at.

Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> 
> At 12:08 PM -0400 9/2/00, David Poehlman wrote:
> >this was somewhat my point but when reading media, we usually refer to
> >it as assimilation of text? To put it another way, how can an animation
> be read aloud?
> 
> Ah, but you seem to be including "aloud" in the phrase above.  There's
> no guarantee that "reading" can be directly translated into "aloud"
> in English usage -- "reading" is an input action, and "aloud" is an
> output action, so "reading aloud" is a composite action.
> 
> An animated gif can be -read-.  Reading it -aloud- is a different
> matter and depends more on the ability to vocalize than it does
> on the ability to read.
> 
> --Kynn
> 
> --
> --
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
> http://www.kynn.com/

-- 
Hands-On Technolog(eye)s
ftp://poehlman.clark.net
http://poehlman.clark.net
mailto:poehlman@clark.net
voice 301-949-7599
end sig.
Received on Sunday, 3 September 2000 09:29:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:49 GMT