h a l f b a k e r y
My hatstand runneth over
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
I was pondering QWERTY keyboards and foreign lands. Do Arabic writers use the QWERTY board? What about in Japan? I was told that in Japan at least, one uses QWERTY but the Roman characters correspond to various Kanji or other characters. Mmmm, interesting.
Pondering now the difficulties of computer
recognized text, as ranted in the linked idea. How to convey your meaning to a human reader but not to a computer? One could have distorted characters like on web pages seeking to block robots. Too unprofessional! I then pondered the good hippo and the font he produced based on his own writing - one that has received some favor and use.
I propose that a font be devised which looks like Times Roman, except that the letters do not match the keys pressed. For example, on switching to Altered typing the letter W will produce a Q. The letter S will produce an A. Everything is shifted. [ ; and , are P, L and M respectively. This will allow touch typists to minimize errors by shifting position slightly.
I assert that computers, used to a given ASCII code for a given letter, will generally befuddled by Altered. Human readers will notice no difference.
This could be tested with Google or Google translate.
Essentially a complaint about the inadequacies of job site search engines. [bungston, Sep 15 2010]
Variable Density Font
Hippo, I see that the link to your handwriting font is broken. I seem to recall a page in which you had examples of its use culled from various sources. That was cool. Link it up, if it still exists, please. [bungston, Sep 15 2010]
||Isn't this just leetspeak ?
||Not leetspeak, because the output as read would use standard spelling and characters. A robot reader which interprets letters as their underlying codes would read it as gibberish.
||I remember a recent comment on one of my posts describing a
function that replaces characters with visually identical but