- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 10:41:40 -0400
- 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. > AG:: 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 odd. 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. Al >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 10:27:03 UTC