All of these notations are standardised and can be used for any signed
language. Unfortujnately, nonve of them are widespread and the only
universally understood option would be to use video clips, which is
horrendus (vrml might work too, but it's still not a viable option)
Mark
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 01:59:17 +1100, David Gerard
<fun(a)thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
Neil Harris (usenet(a)tonal.clara.co.uk) [050128
01:44]:
The important question is: what do our potential
deaf users _themselves_
want? Then we can worry about who's going to find the motivation to
adapt the software appropriately to support their needs.
Given the choice of an underlying notation, a nice general way to
proceed would to be able to define a vocabulary in some notation, and to
then reference that vocabulary using {{template}}s, thus allowing the
re-use of the quite complex gestural symbols units that make up sign
language. Multi-layered templates could allow whole phrases or sentences
to be built up.
Presumably the Holy Grail of any such notation would be that it would be
expressive enough to allow the generation of sign-language animations at
some later date...
The other important question is: to what extent is this [[original
research]]? A lot of small dialects don't have teribly standardised
orthography and their Wikipedia choosing one is already likely to have a
fair bit of [[observer effect]]. Is there a sign language with an accepted
standardised notation already, or are we talking about inventing one?
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l