- From: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:40:17 -0700
- To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- 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>
Sure, but that's why I sarcastically mentioned people in comas. You can't always please everyone. If trying to make something clear to a small minority of people without even the most basic communication skills means that I have to very, very seriously degrade the experience for the vast majority, then it is not something I am going to spend a lot of my time on. Or any, because I have more important priorities. If a person can only communicate in simple pictures, like Koko the gorilla, then they have special needs that they could only be expected to be served by special Web sites, not the mainstream. (Koko knew some sign language too, but that would be more equivalent to spoken language, and thus not relevant.) On Jul 17, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) wrote: > 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 16:40:59 UTC