Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> On 2020-11-23 3:58 PM (-4), Mr wrote:
> > Could you elaborate on the specific nature of the various kinds of models'
> > handicaps ? Did you achieve your changes the traditional (text editor) way? as
> > a preparation to merge models from these other apps into the scene for testing ?
> This is all text editor, with a bit of trig (for the railing) and a lot
> of head scratching to get the brick pattern the way I wanted it.
> (Notice the corners of non-assessible.jpg: there are no brick walls that
> look like that!)
> Dealing with people, whether in computer graphics or in real life, is
> currently beyond my skill set, so I don't have any wheelchairs or models
> with disabilities. (I keep telling myself I need to dive into Poser or
> MakeHuman along with Blender, but I'm forever having trouble finding
> round tuits, and those POVers who have them are just sitting on their
> stockpiles.) My idea was to provide a ready-made setting for whatever
> object I am designing, whether it be a human, a coffee mug, a diamond
> ring, or whatever, so that I can view it from various aspects and under
> reasonable lighting conditions without having to construct an
> environment from scratch every time. However, the project has taken on
> a life of its own.
> One of my jobs back in the '90s and early '00s was building and
> maintaining the department website. This was long before there was any
> such thing as an HTML editor that did not mangle your Web pages (I'm not
> sure such a tool exists even today), so I had to learn the ins and outs
> of HTML myself. One thing that impressed me about HTML is that it was
> designed from the very start to accommodate disabilities, and I have
> always been mindful of this. (This is serious stuff; see Bruce Lindsay
> Maguire v. Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games.)
> Of course, in a virtual universe, all it takes is the appropriate
> translate statement to place a wheelchair any place it needs to be, but
> as long as I'm putting so much effort into a mere foil, an accessible
> entrance way doesn't seem to be an insignificant detail.
So I should not assume that your assessment of the athletic nature of a model
was a metaphorical of the respective software ease of use? :-)
Post a reply to this message