Folks, WAIT A BIT.
This method, as tempting as it is, would make all text "not accessible" for
people with visual disabilities. And, as you all know, Section 508 requires
that any electronic information from the government (e.g. web site) must be
accessible to people with disabilities.
Here goes a great idea unless we find an accessible way to "display" colors
for the blind ! Assistive Technologies companies - here is your challenge
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick McGowan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:12 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: UniCharacter (Re: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE:
> Chromatic font research))
> Tex wrote:
> > Lends a whole new meaning to unification! The single
> character encoding,
> > UniCharacter!. Just color what you need.
> Yeah! I like Tex's suggestion. It would eliminate all kinds
> of problems.
> We wouldn't have to worry about encoding anything ever again,
> because users
> would have all the tools they need to express whatever they
> wanted just by
> coloring in the bits! And nobody would have any problems decoding it!
> The only question that remains is, "how much resolution is
> enough"? I
> think if we have 512x512 bytes for 256x256 resolution at
> 16-bits/pixel for
> color, that ought to be enough resolution to satisfy anyone. So each
> character would only require 2,097,152 bits. With all the
> fancy compression
> schemes we could cook up, that shouldn't pose any difficulty
> at all. And
> it really ought to appeal to the RAM manufacturers...
> Speaking of compression schemes, we could pick a space of say
> 32 bits and
> allow people to register the characters they like by NUMBER
> (!), and we
> could keep a whole technical committee engrossed for decades
> in deciding
> which proposed pictures were really the same and thus have
> "already been
> registered", and numbering things, then we could transmit
> compactly by using the catalog numbers instead of the
> pictures. That might
> be helpful to users, I'm not sure...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 15:59:34 EDT