From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 25 2004 - 14:15:16 CDT
On 25/09/2004 18:50, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Philippe makes an excellent case for the continued use and teaching of
>shorthand, but none of his arguments really demonstrates why shorthand
>should be encoded in a standard character encoding such as Unicode.
>There is no question that major corporations and small businesses alike
>relied heavily on shorthand before the advent of machine-assisted
>transcription, and many would benefit greatly from continuing to use it.
>(Are stenographic machines or computerized equivalents really in common
>use at ordinary companies for taking meeting minutes?) ...
>There does not seem to be a demonstrated need to *interchange* shorthand
>text from one computer system to another. That appears to be one factor
>that determines whether encoding is justified or not.
If we are considering a scenario in which someone takes shorthand notes
at a meeting and transcribes them later, interchange between computers
is likely to be required. If this process is to be automated, a sensible
way to do so would be for the minute-taker to write shorthand on to a
hand-held computer's screen. This data would then need to be transferred
to a desktop or networked machine for transcription and further editing.
The most processing-efficient way to do so might be to transfer images,
but that would be a lot of data for a record of an entire meeting, so
for bandwidth efficiency the hand-held computer should analyse the
shorthand and transfer the shorthand text in some kind of encoded form.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 25 2004 - 14:32:22 CDT