- From: jonathan chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:28:34 +0100
- 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 UTC