SignWriting List Forum| Message 6186 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] | Message Index |
|
SignWriting List Forum |
|||
|
|
From:
Valerie Sutton Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 5:09 pm Subject: Re: Questions for a Notation Comparisons Study | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
>design of each symbol. From a typograph's point of view many of the >symbols are (no offence!!) 'badly designed' in as they need to many >strokes in to many directions. So this is another point where speed >seems relevant for proving that 'good' type design (according to >those rules) is not everything once the writing system is put into >application and works very well because it is accepted by the people >who use it. And they have gone to show us that they can write SW >just as fast as a writing system that has 'evolved' over many >centuries. SignWriting List January 15, 2002 Susanne - Thank you for this statement. I appreciate the fact that you have a hard job. Writing a comparison between systems that were not designed for the same purposes, is a very hard task. And I look forward to reading your study. You are right, that some people would judge "SignWriting Printing" as "too many strokes of the pen". But they would be comparing the wrong section of SignWriting to the goal of "writing economy". To give you a summary: 1. SignWriting Printing was designed for "reading economy"...the visual nature makes it easy to read... 2. SignWriting Shorthand was designed for "writing economy"...and there are some who became skilled in this years ago...and work is still being done in this area... Feel free to quote or use all the diagrams from this article on the web, which YOU helped me with years ago...without your HamNoSys diagrams, this article could not exist! Thank you for that gift... Val ;-) | ||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
