4 ms·

I think any font which is decipherable becomes readable with practice. The characters in the font are unique and clear so learning to read it should be easier

I think any font which is decipherable becomes readable with practice. The characters in the font are unique and clear so learning to read it should be easier that say reading using some completely unknown alphabet. This font should be easier to read than most people's hand writing.

semi-extrinsic 3y ago
The lowercase characters are non-unique, which may be what GP was referring to. For instance "ox" and "co" can only be distinguished by context.
- vpribish 3y ago
  if more than one bit of color was allowed you could make different levels of grey/opacity hint at where the opening in the symbol should be. just as learnable and now it's unique. taken to a silly extreme, you could compress 26 letters into 2 pixels, 3 colors, and 3 levels of opacity. before even considering a time-dimension. a mantis shrimp just needs one pixel with color.
  - Moru 3y ago
    What is wrong with morse code? Just need one pixel that blinks.
samatman 3y ago
Many people's handwriting is best described as "decipherable" as well, yes. A readable font takes no practice to read, presuming you already read the script of the font and the language of the text. A decipherable one can be sort of limped through at first and probably picked up to fluency with experience. Although, as the article notes, this font has homonymous glyphs, there are only a few words where that creates ambiguity, and as few as none where it would be ambiguous in context.
- kuboble 3y ago
  > A readable font takes no practice to read No. Any font takes a lot of practice to read. Maybe the difference is that you define "readable" as readable immediately by anyone who is already familiar with modern fonts? I'm sure medieval fonts were readable to pepole who wrote them, but when I look at them I need to labor at every letter.
  - samatman 3y ago
    > Any font takes a lot of practice to read Yes, people aren't born knowing how to read. > you define "readable" as readable immediately by anyone who is already familiar with modern fonts This is the only reasonable definition of "readable".

semi-extrinsic 3y ago

The lowercase characters are non-unique, which may be what GP was referring to. For instance "ox" and "co" can only be distinguished by context.

vpribish 3y ago
if more than one bit of color was allowed you could make different levels of grey/opacity hint at where the opening in the symbol should be. just as learnable and now it's unique. taken to a silly extreme, you could compress 26 letters into 2 pixels, 3 colors, and 3 levels of opacity. before even considering a time-dimension. a mantis shrimp just needs one pixel with color.
- Moru 3y ago
  What is wrong with morse code? Just need one pixel that blinks.

samatman 3y ago

Many people's handwriting is best described as "decipherable" as well, yes. A readable font takes no practice to read, presuming you already read the script of the font and the language of the text. A decipherable one can be sort of limped through at first and probably picked up to fluency with experience. Although, as the article notes, this font has homonymous glyphs, there are only a few words where that creates ambiguity, and as few as none where it would be ambiguous in context.

kuboble 3y ago
> A readable font takes no practice to read No. Any font takes a lot of practice to read. Maybe the difference is that you define "readable" as readable immediately by anyone who is already familiar with modern fonts? I'm sure medieval fonts were readable to pepole who wrote them, but when I look at them I need to labor at every letter.
- samatman 3y ago
  > Any font takes a lot of practice to read Yes, people aren't born knowing how to read. > you define "readable" as readable immediately by anyone who is already familiar with modern fonts This is the only reasonable definition of "readable".