Dotsies (2012)

For each letter, we can build a histogram of contexts that letter occurs in for a sufficiently large corpus. An example is the letter "o", whose occurrences in the previous sentence have the following contexts: f_r (twice), t_g, c_n, _c, c_r.

Each letter's context histograms have some similarity with each other letter's. We want different letters that have similar contexts to have widely differing appearances, because if their appearances were similar, their contexts will be of less help to the reader in disambiguating. And letters with sufficiently different contexts may be allowed to be more similar in appearance (note e.g. the archaic long "s", which despite visual ſimilarity to "f" is easily distinguished from it by the different contexts it appears in).

* No baseline or other orienting structure, so vertical shifts easily change meaning ("ab" turns to "bc"), same for rotations.

* No redundancy to allow for recognizing incomplete / garbled / damaged letters.

Both features are prominent in any machine-readable encoding (like bar codes or QR codes), and are relatively easy to find in any human script.

The idea behind making more compact visual representation of letters has merit. This particular implementation of it is impractical, though. It only looks acceptable on a demo page.

(While at it, I know two well-designed phonetic writing systems: Tengwar and Hangul. Neither is super compact, but both are easy to learn and read, because of the internal logic. Dotsies are way more arbitrary; they don't exploit any connections between letter or sounds they represent.)

The most trivial is omission of vowels, instead relying on context or vowel marks (or some combination). Wrds r srprsngl lgbl wtht vwls. Anotherisomissionofspaces.

Lots of western (and other) scripts have been written these ways in the past. Neither can be said to have evolved to make text easier to write! Including the vowels is more difficult to write and both are more costly because they take up more space, which means larger tablets or more animal skin and ink required.

We settled on including vowels and word spacing to make text more legible, so I'm not sure where the author's claim about latin working the way it does to benefit writing comes from. If the OP wants to claim letters like b/d/p/q, m/n, w/v/u, etc are to the benefit of writers OK but "dotsies" is even worse in lacking distinct shapes.

Humans like symmetry and patterns so it seems far more likely some letters are variations on a pattern or mirror images because it is visually pleasing or easy to stamp new letters out of existing known shapes. If you think about it a/b/c/d/e/g/o/p/q are arguably variations on the same pattern, with g -> j, and j -> i following.