3 ms·
It is worse than just sensitivity to different fonts, it ends up being sensitive to totally incidental details of the glyphs. In a Latin script, all the letters
by jsnell 5y ago
It is worse than just sensitivity to different fonts, it ends up being sensitive to totally incidental details of the glyphs. In a Latin script, all the letters carry as much information. But this metric would treat a lowercase i as much more efficient than a capital W.
- Redoubts 5y agoIsn't that intentional? Picking sprawling glyphs for common items, and simple ones for rare meanings would be "inefficient" in some interesting sense. Indeed 'i' is the most common letter in Latin.
- im_dario 5y agoYou are right but then is interesting to compare languages using Latin script. I find interesting that the first runner is Lithuanian, between non-Latin script languages, and the second is Swedish, with English coming third with quite a difference. Lithuanian has quite a heavy use of diacritic signs, but it seems to pack more information than the others. And other languages with similar diacritic signs are not close to it. Although the sensitivity to different fonts and details is real, we can draw some interesting conclusions from this Sunday exercise.