3 ms·

> why make the same (or rather opposite) mistake on purpose? The thought is that it's low effort to click a button on a computer to change the font of somethin

> why make the same (or rather opposite) mistake on purpose? The thought is that it's low effort to click a button on a computer to change the font of something you're reading (vs high effort to do the analogous thing to text you've written). The intention is to augment latin text in a small way (you can use it when you feel like it) more so than to replace it. > Wait, what problem does this solve? It's helpful to consider the extremes. Let's say the convention was to represent the "A" sound you were supposed to draw a tropical island, including palm trees and a peaceful lagoon and a volcano. (And for the "B" sound, you draw a herd of buffalo, etc.) We would probably all agree that the palm trees are superfluous and should be removed. We'd probably further agree that maybe something even simpler like just the letter "A" would be an even bigger improvement. Desert islands take up a lot of space on paper, are a lot for the eye to look at, and when viewed en masse are less visually recognizable than simpler shapes. Along that line of thinking, why not simplify even further? Whatever your objections, you'll probably concede 2 or 3 dots is simpler than most letters. A valid objection would be that there are some detractions that outweigh the benefits of increased simplicity and efficiency, or that the benefits aren't significant enough to bother with. But, I think the jury is still out on that.

gavinpc 15y ago
I agree of course that it's simpler. This reasoning reminds me of the "nutritionist" argument (as I understand it from Michael Pollan's book In Defense of Food), in which individual nutrients are presumed to contain in toto the benefits of the foods in which they are found. Sure, a leaf of spinach may contain some inert matter that is irrelevant to your body from a chemical point of view. But it has not been convincingly demonstrated (he argues) that "the good parts" can be extracted or understood separately from the whole. My gut reaction, and I'm sticking with it, is that this is the reductio ad absurdum of a beautiful, human mystery. But take that with a grain of sea salt, as I was a student of "letters" before I was a hacker.
- trogdoro 15y ago
  > This reasoning reminds me of the "nutritionist" argument Except that in this case the before and after are both man-made.

gavinpc 15y ago

I agree of course that it's simpler. This reasoning reminds me of the "nutritionist" argument (as I understand it from Michael Pollan's book In Defense of Food), in which individual nutrients are presumed to contain in toto the benefits of the foods in which they are found. Sure, a leaf of spinach may contain some inert matter that is irrelevant to your body from a chemical point of view. But it has not been convincingly demonstrated (he argues) that "the good parts" can be extracted or understood separately from the whole. My gut reaction, and I'm sticking with it, is that this is the reductio ad absurdum of a beautiful, human mystery. But take that with a grain of sea salt, as I was a student of "letters" before I was a hacker.

trogdoro 15y ago
> This reasoning reminds me of the "nutritionist" argument Except that in this case the before and after are both man-made.