It's fine if the tactile letters intended for the blind don't look the same as the visual ones intended for the sighted; you can associate the whole set in a single day, provided that you're genuinely interested in doing so. (People don't do it because they don't see the point [pun not intended] in doing so.)
The actual issue with Braille, is that letters are often tactically similar. Even tactically, people identify shapes better than absolute positions over a grid; in this sense Braille is flawed by design (why just dots? Why not a mix of dots, curves and straight lines?), and Fakoo's alphabet doesn't solve this.
Mind that visual reading – I actually do not know about tactile, but I'd guess it may be similar – isn't about letter by letter, but about the impression of entire words. Here, similarity helps a lot. (Otherwise, you have not only learn the new alphabet, but the gestalt of all the words anew.)
Regarding Braille, my grandmother became mostly blind at old age. Having maintained an interest in books, while finding herself increasingly restricted with regard to her radius of action, she tried to learn Braille, but eventually gave up. At her age, she couldn't feel the differences anymore. Tactile resolution and significance do matter. (I'd imagine, in her case a similarity to what she had been used to may have also helped.)
Generally – while not knowing much about the viability of the specific implementation –, I think, Fakoo is a great idea.
The similarity that I'm talking about (letters with excessively similar shapes) is a hindrance, not a help. Specially because, as you said, we don't read words letter-by-letter; if the shapes are too similar you need to pay more attention to each one of them, otherwise everything becomes a jumbled mess.
I'm not blind, mind you, although I can read Braille by touch. And sometimes I feel like Braille is the tactile version of this: https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/r... - sure, you can decode the letters, but you waste seconds doing so.
Fakoo doesn't address that, and I feel that it's a more pressing concern than making the letters look like Latin letters.
Mind that visual reading – I actually do not know about tactile, but I'd guess it may be similar – isn't about letter by letter, but about the impression of entire words.
I'm under the impression that I'm reading words from both ends with a rather diffuse emphasis on the middle, progressing from both ends towards the middle (maybe at times with a slightly stronger emphasis on the ending) and stopping, when sufficiently ensured, both by the gestalt and and from context. It's more like grabbing the words than reading them sequentially. This is also true for entire groups of words. Generally speaking, reading fluently is a different processing from spelling words out.
It was, but is it now? I don't think that we should restrict ourselves to what we could do 200y ago.
Specially when you could easily build a system already using the readers' knowledge of current Braille, something like this: https://i.imgur.com/faOWkxb.png
They're visually more distinctive, but more importantly: I think that they'd be easier to tell apart by touch.
If you do that you throw away everything that’s been written in Braille, or force the visually impaired to learn two alphabets. All in the name of an optimization that has an unproven benefit.
Let’s say it’s 10% better. Would that be worth it?
throw away everything that’s been written in Braille, or force the visually impaired to learn two alphabets.
Neither.
Check the picture linked in the very comment that you're replying to. Then you'll notice my proposal is to modify the current system, by either a) tweaking the shapes of the individual dots or b) replacing certain sequences of dots with lines. The underlying associations are still the same.
If it helps, think on it as a different typeface for Braille instead of a new alphabet. The actual con of the idea is printing, not reading.
Fakoo's idea on the other hand is, effectively, a new alphabet. It might be more advantageous than Braille, I don't know; however keep in mind that learning a new alphabet is by no means such a Herculean cognitive burden as you're pretending it to be, provided that you're already used to the relevant medium.
Let’s say it’s 10% better. Would that be worth it?
Nobody needs to assume anything in this case. _If_ the idea is worth trying, this can be measured by testing it.
Comments
It's fine if the tactile letters intended for the blind don't look the same as the visual ones intended for the sighted; you can associate the whole set in a single day, provided that you're genuinely interested in doing so. (People don't do it because they don't see the point [pun not intended] in doing so.)
The actual issue with Braille, is that letters are often tactically similar. Even tactically, people identify shapes better than absolute positions over a grid; in this sense Braille is flawed by design (why just dots? Why not a mix of dots, curves and straight lines?), and Fakoo's alphabet doesn't solve this.
Mind that visual reading – I actually do not know about tactile, but I'd guess it may be similar – isn't about letter by letter, but about the impression of entire words. Here, similarity helps a lot. (Otherwise, you have not only learn the new alphabet, but the gestalt of all the words anew.)
Regarding Braille, my grandmother became mostly blind at old age. Having maintained an interest in books, while finding herself increasingly restricted with regard to her radius of action, she tried to learn Braille, but eventually gave up. At her age, she couldn't feel the differences anymore. Tactile resolution and significance do matter. (I'd imagine, in her case a similarity to what she had been used to may have also helped.)
Generally – while not knowing much about the viability of the specific implementation –, I think, Fakoo is a great idea.
The similarity that I'm talking about (letters with excessively similar shapes) is a hindrance, not a help. Specially because, as you said, we don't read words letter-by-letter; if the shapes are too similar you need to pay more attention to each one of them, otherwise everything becomes a jumbled mess.
I'm not blind, mind you, although I can read Braille by touch. And sometimes I feel like Braille is the tactile version of this: https://www.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/r... - sure, you can decode the letters, but you waste seconds doing so.
Fakoo doesn't address that, and I feel that it's a more pressing concern than making the letters look like Latin letters.
This is a strangely popular myth.
Praheps that starengly pouplar mtyh about rediang is gronuded in the nautre of cogitnive prcoesess.
I'm under the impression that I'm reading words from both ends with a rather diffuse emphasis on the middle, progressing from both ends towards the middle (maybe at times with a slightly stronger emphasis on the ending) and stopping, when sufficiently ensured, both by the gestalt and and from context. It's more like grabbing the words than reading them sequentially. This is also true for entire groups of words. Generally speaking, reading fluently is a different processing from spelling words out.
It's simplified but not a myth. This article from Science Alert explains it better than I do: https://www.sciencealert.com/word-jumble-meme-first-last-let...
ThE OvErAlL SHapE MatTeRs ToO, and that's what makes case-mixing so annoying.
Your link does not even purport to address the mechanics of reading.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/develop/word-re...
This is false.
Because it was easier for the technology of the day (invented in 1824) to reliably emboss dots.
It was, but is it now? I don't think that we should restrict ourselves to what we could do 200y ago.
Specially when you could easily build a system already using the readers' knowledge of current Braille, something like this: https://i.imgur.com/faOWkxb.png
They're visually more distinctive, but more importantly: I think that they'd be easier to tell apart by touch.
If you do that you throw away everything that’s been written in Braille, or force the visually impaired to learn two alphabets. All in the name of an optimization that has an unproven benefit.
Let’s say it’s 10% better. Would that be worth it?
Neither.
Check the picture linked in the very comment that you're replying to. Then you'll notice my proposal is to modify the current system, by either a) tweaking the shapes of the individual dots or b) replacing certain sequences of dots with lines. The underlying associations are still the same.
If it helps, think on it as a different typeface for Braille instead of a new alphabet. The actual con of the idea is printing, not reading.
Fakoo's idea on the other hand is, effectively, a new alphabet. It might be more advantageous than Braille, I don't know; however keep in mind that learning a new alphabet is by no means such a Herculean cognitive burden as you're pretending it to be, provided that you're already used to the relevant medium.
Nobody needs to assume anything in this case. _If_ the idea is worth trying, this can be measured by testing it.