The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
I'm not dyslexic, and I do not find the font easy to read. Yet I will easily believe claims that for some kinds of dyslexia, this font is a good one.
One reason for me to say this: I had a daughter with a strong visual handicap, so she was a braille reader. His teacher decided that the entire class should learn a little braille, so they had my daugther print out some braille hardcopy that the others could read, looking up the dot patterns one by one in the braille alphabet. One of the boys was suffering from severe dyslexia, and had had large problems learning ordinary blackprint reading - but this little fellow read learned the braille right away, and soon could read the texts without checking the alphabet. He actually learned to read braille faster than he could read letter text. This was when they were seven, maybe eight, so they were not fast readers, any of them. (And this was a Waldorf School, or Steiner School as we call them, where they certainly do not push reading at a very low age. Other things are more important when you are five or six.)
When a small kid with strong dyslexia learns to read braille without any problem, then it makes sense that a different, but character-like, typeface can have a simlar effect.
Hmmm, interesting, like comic sans, I would be interested to hear what a genuine strong dyslexic opinion of it. I am guessing it's the difference in the font that makes it easy to read when contrasted against a standard...
I am finding all the feedback very interesting. Everyone I have shown it to agrees that it is easier to read. Admittedly, showing it to a dozen or so personal contacts does not make for a very good sampling. Given the number of people that don't seem to like it, I will have to rethink making it a default. I will definitely make it an available option though.
Thanks to everyone for the feedback ... from both sides. I sometimes forget that I should not only think outside of the box, but occasionally get out of my box and see what other people think.
Money makes the world go round ... but documentation moves the money.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
I wish you so much peace, as the one you leave behind
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Ha! I've had that quote on my signature for a while now. Great quote!
"When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others; same thing when you are stupid."
Ignorant - An individual without knowledge, but is willing to learn. Stupid - An individual without knowledge and is incapable of learning. Idiot - An individual without knowledge and allows social media to do the thinking for them.
Clueless: An individual without knowledge ... but, who has the intelligence, and resources, to learn ... who does not realize there is a need to learn, or, is unaware there is a deficit in their knowledge.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
My guess: File names reflected some significant of ordering of, say, observations that gradually focused on some target, similar to a mathematical series expansion. When summing a long series, you start from the "small" end, not the "big" end, or you might loose a large number of small values that are insignificant one by one, but the sum of thousands of them can be quite significant. Adding elements in random order can loose small values.
When traversing an array by a foreach, you expect to get the elements by increasing indexes. Assume that there then comes a new implmentation processing all array elements simultaneously on a highly parallell machine (assume that the handling of each element is independent of the others, no locking issues). Partial results are returned in arbitrary order. This would be similar to processing files in arbitrary order.
A few (5-10?) years ago, I read a description of a new language that makes it explicit that with a foreach, or other set/array operation, the runtime system may process all elements in parallel if several processing units are available. (The compiler have to verify that there is access conflicts.) You can NOT rely on a foreach being sequential, or that the same modification added to all elements of an array is done row-wise or column-wise.
But which language was this about? All I remember is that it came from some large actor, such as Google. In today's description of Go on Wikipedia, I do not see this mentioned. Did I read about a different language? Or did I read some paper that was a proposal for what became Go, but this part of it was dropped from the language defintion? I found no programming language description in Wikipedia that matched my memory.
Last Visit: 17-Feb-20 9:43 Last Update: 17-Feb-20 9:43