4 ms·
I agree. I also think that the alphabet leans too far in the direction of making the symbols distinct, and not enough in the direction of making them transparen
by tetrazine 3y ago
I agree. I also think that the alphabet leans too far in the direction of making the symbols distinct, and not enough in the direction of making them transparently interpret-able as binary - which is the unique aspect of a special binary notation like this and should be emphasized.
I sketched some alternatives here:
https://i.imgur.com/7MZs4ji.png https://i.imgur.com/7MZs4ji.png
- klyrs 3y agoThe bibi-symbols are quite bad for those of us with dyslexia, because mirror variants are so common. Yours are actually worse for that; every rotation of every symbol is present! Serifs could help.
- tetrazine 3y agoYeah, that makes sense. Given your account, it sounds like the 2D paradigm of the bibi-symbols (which I'm following) is fundamentally bad for interpretability with dyslexia, because it results in a lot of symmetries. Even when considering the population of people without dyslexia, I can't think of examples of vernacular human alphabets that have many pairs of distinct symbols that are identical under some symmetry. So maybe symmetry is an alphabet design antipattern.