Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
We are investigating the problem and will update you shortly.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



non-phonetic shorthand

quicker way to write words, based on spelling not sound
  [vote for,

Shorthand strtegies are based on coding phonemes (sound fragments), which requires people to have a good ear. What I want, is a strategy for writing that preserves spelling, and allows people who are deaf to write much faster. I can spell better than I can hear.
pfperry, Jul 14 2002

(?) Handwriting repair kit http://www.global20...repair/KateHwR.html
Good advice starts a ways down the page. [reensure, Jul 15 2002]


po, Jul 14 2002

       Yeah, I think learning to touch type would be much more rewarding. (Although I speed type with only five or six of my fingers.)
DrCurry, Jul 14 2002

       Since the tendency of the deaf to substitute central vowel accounts for their vagarities of speech, isn't the best approach to speed the handwriting rate of the deaf just to write without vowels? A satisfactory spell checker could break the words for “audification” upon completion of the text. I think this is already done.   

       ¯pfperry: Are you suggesting a redesign of the alphabet into fonts best suited for handwriting, based on the structure of alphanumeric symbols and kinesiologic limits of writing posture?
reensure, Jul 14 2002


       Though that prompts me to suggest using Palm script.
DrCurry, Jul 14 2002

       reensure,you have got it, I am wanting a mapping of present symbols (and possibly commonly occurring combinations) to symbols that are much easier/quicker to write than the present cursive script. Speedwriting is a lossy compression technique, and uses the same symbols which limit speed.
pfperry, Jul 15 2002

       Surely preserving spelling is highly inefficient. Even in English, spelling is largely based on rules, and would generally include redundant information. For instance, the choice of single vs. double consonants can usually be inferred (by rules, by matching which version is a proper word, or by context), so writing a separate/longer sequence for a double letter would be a waste of time.
pottedstu, Jul 15 2002

       I agree. I'm a bit torn between relative efficiencies of monoconsonantal shorthand (I thitt, thetetote I at) and vowel reduction (I thnk, thrfr I am) because I don't intend to practice either to perfection, and I don't plan to investigate the outcomes of those who've been trained in either extreme. Preserving spelling is inefficient but important. I learned to take rapid notes from lectures by not looking at the page as I wrote. The effect is similar to ‘touch typing’ at a keyboard, only one must develop a mental ‘bell’ to know when the right margin is near.   

       Later, I had to decipher what I'd written and draw it legibly or console it to disk. My lettering style changed to meet my legibility requirement (finishing the transcription of a late class before midnight while there was still some fun to be had) and today remains a mix of Times New Roman and italic, with the odd personal florish ( ___shit K, LOL).   

       I'm hep to the Palm Script notion. Any substitution a bit of recognition software can be trained to do, I can be trained to do.
reensure, Jul 15 2002


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle