3 ms·
It sounds like you take issue with "whole icons" rather than "whole words". > It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tih
by mrkeen 2y ago
It sounds like you take issue with "whole icons" rather than "whole words".
> It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
https://www.treehugger.com/why-your-brain-can-read-jumbled-letters-4864305 https://www.treehugger.com/why-your-brain-can-read-jumbled-l...
- tivert 2y ago> The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Not without problem. Reading that next was noticeably slower and more difficult than reading ungarbled words.
- mrkeen 2y agoWrong comparison. It's not ungarbled text vs garbled text. It's treating each word as 1 image vs trying to sound out the letters.
- WalterBright 2y agoI remember when that went around the intertoobs. Subsequent research showed that didn't work with plenty of other text.
- card_zero 2y agoAlthough you must admit it works moderately well. So we probably make use of the effect, among other things (your human mind may vary).