Mark Williamson wrote:
I think the most viable system is Stokoe (with the
modifications used
in the BSL dictionary). It is by far the easiest to learn and doesn't
use more than a couple of non-latin glyphs (the problem is the
positioning of subscript and superscript clusters and diacritics).
Few people write signed languages at all, and when they do they
usually use the "gloss" method (ie, word-for-word translation into the
national spoken language). After this the most popular is Sutton
SignWriting which I personally despise for various reasons, then
Stokoe, then personal systems (yes, prior to Stokoe and SSW some
people wrote signed languages using systems they invented themselves),
then HamNoSys (based on Stokoe, but capable of much more detail,
perhaps paralell to Stokoe not distinguishing from allophones but HNS
distinguishing; mostly used in academic circles).
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...
-- Neil