Dotsies (2012)
dotsies.org
Dotsies (2012)
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#2[deleted]
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#3I learned it back then. Used it for a while as a privacy feature for my phone.
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#4I learned it back then. Used it for a while as a privacy feature for my phone.
how was it? easy to read after a hwile?
I whished the downloadable font would be the "densest" setting, not just abc encoding
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#5Was about to pass this off until I starting reading the sample near the bottom of the page that gradually teaches you. It actually amazed me that I could sort of read it halfway through. I can't get to the end though, but at least I have an idea of the difficulty level to read it naturally.
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#6Why not follow the 'natural' scheme of binary? A picture is worth n words:
http://i.imgur.com/3XIMXcD.png (added the 0-9 digits for emotional effect)
I can't seem to put my finger on what makes a scheme more 'readable' than another.
Edit: Reminds me a lot of Chinese, but in this case there's a clear procedure to decode glyphs as a word!
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#7imagelike alphabets and languages are harder to process, takes more time, not effective
signs needs to be distinct
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#8imagelike alphabets and languages are harder to process, takes more time, not effective signs needs to be distinct
Under this system the words are what become easier to distinguish (after some practice?), not the symbols.
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#9I cannot tell if this is a practical joke or what. At first, I tried to learn it in earnest but then I fell totally apart and virtually threw my hands up. Either I have some sort of learning disability or this is there to simply waste my time.
Is this a real thing?
Re: Dotsies (2012)
#10Why not follow the 'natural' scheme of binary? A picture is worth n words: http://i.imgur.com/3XIMXcD.png (added the 0-9 digits for emotional effect) I can't seem to put my finger on what makes a scheme more 'readable' than another. Edit: Reminds me a lot of Chinese, but in this case there's a clear procedure to decode glyphs as a word!
> I can't seem to put my finger on what makes a scheme more 'readable' than another.
I think one constraint is that the meaning of glyphs should be translation invariant. But this does not hold for dotsies either (the glyph for "a" could be interpreted as "b" depending on where the baseline is chosen). I wonder how subscripting or superscripting works with this font :)