22 Mar
2005
22 Mar
'05
4:06 p.m.
Hi, Mario:
Now that I understand better what you're after, I would encourage you to
consider my comments anew. I believe the same scaling problem pertains
for a tactual representation of scored music. If you can scale the
thinner elemements more than the larger and thicker ones, you will stand
a better chance of success, imho. The eye, in other words, is capable of
much finer detail, as well as greater contrast, than the hand.
PS: I agree with you about getting a better understanding of the media
representations used by most musicians. My memories of that definitely
help my understanding of things musical.
Mario Lang writes:
Hi Janina.
No, that doesnt help :-). Since I am not trying to actually read the result,
I just want one tactile example for getting a feel about how
visual music works. Again, I am not trying to read this with my eyes,
just trying to get a representation I can touch. It sounds strange maybe,
but experience taught me that it is very useful to have a grip on how
the sighted world actually works with things.
Janina Sajka <janina(a)rednote.net> writes:
--
Janina Sajka Phone: +1.202.494.7040
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com
Chair, Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG)
janina(a)freestandards.org http://a11y.org
If Linux can't solve your computing problem, you need a different problem.
It's not exactly what you're asking
about, but maybe related.
I'm recalling my experience when I was still low-vision with printed
scores. I was never able to get satisfactory magnification results. The
problem at the time was a matter of scaling, imho. The note heads (and
other elems, like the two bars indicating 16ths) were heavy and large
relative to fairly thin stave lines and note stems. So, if I magnified
enough to see the staves, the notes were heads were preposterously
large. On the other hand, if I made the noteheads comfortable to see, I
could not find the staff nor the note stems.
So, my guess that magnification of score would require a rescaling where
small elems receive more magnification than large, heavy ones.
Not sure if this helps at all.
Mario Lang writes:
--
CYa,
Mario Hi.
To make a long story short, I recently gained the ability to make
normal print into a tactile thing very easily. Now, I'd really like
to have a short piece of music for getting an idea how this stuff
normally looks... Of course not for playing or anything serious, its more
a thing of interest. However, if I print out a straight A4 PostScript
file generated by LilyPond, the resulting information density is soo high
that I basically can not feel much difference between the individual notes, let
along figure out their exact position vertically. What I'd like to do
is to flip LilyPond output by 90 degree, and magnify it as much as possible,
so that one system goes all the way along the long axis of an A4 paper.
I've choosen Musette from www.MutopiaProject.org as my example piece
since it normally fits on one A4 page, so I guess after my magnification
it should probably take up 3 or 4 pages? Also, I know that tune in and out,
so its surely a good way to getting a grasp of the system...
I've tried all sorts of things like editing the LilyPond .latex files
directly, switching to landscape mode and all that, but the result never really
worked as I expected. Digging through all the PostScript postprocessor
tools didn't help either. psresize can not flip, and psnup can not
magnify and so on and so on.
PLEASE, if anyone got an idea how I could accomplish this and still keep
a fairly high resolution, please please let me know.
P.S.: In case you're confused after reading this, I am blind, and tactile
print is the only way for me to access graphical content right now.
--
CYa,
Mario
--
Janina Sajka Phone: +1.202.494.7040
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com
Chair, Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG)
janina(a)freestandards.org http://a11y.org
If Linux can't solve your computing problem, you need a different problem.