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

Re: reading vs. writing

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 10:41:40 -0400
Message-Id: <200009031427.KAA324323@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: David Poehlman <poehlman@clark.net>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, jonathan chetwynd <jc@signbrowser.org.uk>
At 09:31 AM 2000-09-03 -0400, David Poehlman wrote:

>                              ...  I saw the dictionary definition and if
>I told someone I read a photo, I'd be laughed at.


On the other hand, if you told someone your radiologist read your X-Rays,
they would not blink.  If you described it any other way they would find it

It is a matter of context whether text input is assumed when "reading" is
the activity.

There is no one boundary to the meaning of a term in natural language.
Natural language terms zoom in and out in definition space as a function of
the context in which they are used.


>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
>voice 301-949-7599
>end sig.
Received on Sunday, 3 September 2000 10:27:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:09 UTC