- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:18:34 +0100
- To: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
- CC: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
OK, at least I can see you are serious, but do you not accept that for /some/ people, their literacy is already as advanced as they can achieve, yet it is still difficult (if not impossible) for them to derive any real meaning from anything other than the simplest (written) utterances ? Philip TAYLOR -------- Brad Kemper wrote: > I'm just a proponent of increasing literacy, not decreasing it. I think > it is absurd to suggest that we reduce all written communication to what > the illiterate can understand, and I don't think trying to talk with > pictures does that anyway. They are still visual a written language of > sorts, but just one that is not standardized, much more ambiguous, and > less rich in meaning. I think that if you like to write in pictograms, > you would have much more communicative effect if you used simplified > Chinese, which derives its symbols from word pictures. Or if you wanted > to use something even more pictographic, you could advocate for the use > of Egyptian hieroglyphics. At least that is something that is more well > developed in vocabulary. > > There are good reasons why written communication developed from pictures > into more formalized systems.
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 16:19:24 UTC