What Characterizes Pictures and Text?
This paper addresses an apparently trivial question: what is the difference between graphics and text? It appears to be trivial because there would seem to be several alternative and simple ways of answering it. For example, 'text is made up of letters whereas graphics are not', 'one can create text...
| Publicado en: | Literary & Linguistic Computing Vol. 19; no. 3; pp. 265 - 273 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Sep2004
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=14385807&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 14385807 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 02681145 BJ1 jtl: Literary & Linguistic Computing issn: 02681145 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2004 vid: 19 iid: 3 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 14385807 10.1093/llc/19.3.265 ppf: 265 ppct: 8 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 75KB tig: atl: What Characterizes Pictures and Text? aug: au: Biggs, Michael A.R. affil: University of Hertfordshire, UK su: Computer graphics Computers Electronic data processing XML (Extensible Markup Language) Document markup languages Text processing (Computer science) sug: subj: Computer graphics Computers Electronic data processing XML (Extensible Markup Language) Document markup languages Text processing (Computer science) ab: This paper addresses an apparently trivial question: what is the difference between graphics and text? It appears to be trivial because there would seem to be several alternative and simple ways of answering it. For example, 'text is made up of letters whereas graphics are not', 'one can create text using a keyboard', 'one can read text aloud', etc. However, none of these provides robust conditions to differentiate graphics from text, e.g. cases such as typewriter art and gobbledy-gook can be identified. The paper approaches the problem of identifying content conditions by analysing boundary cases which lie on the margins and are difficult to classify. It considers examples that arise in the production of materials, including bitmapped text, graphics consisting of letters and words, text used as patterns or in tables, etc. It also considers examples that arise from the consumption of materials, including a comparison of the methods used for reading and interpreting text and graphics. This paper concludes that current XML specifications, e.g. TEI guidelines, for the integration of graphics into text are primarily made on the basis of form rather than content. This is incompatible with a content-based or descriptive markup scheme. Before such guidelines can be modified we must be clearer about what differentiates graphics from text in terms of content conditions rather than technological or formal conditions. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 EADH: The European Association for Digital Humanities. item: Literary & Linguistic Computing holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2004 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|