Re: Unicode & Shorthand?

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Sat Sep 25 2004 - 14:15:16 CDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: Unicode & Shorthand?"

    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 (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 25 2004 - 14:32:22 CDT