Braille has many of the same properties, and it could be worthwhile to train yourself to read it visually. If you went down that path, though, I think you'd get to a point where you'd say: hmm, if I'm going to start over I might as well make the letters one column of dots, so the words are roughly square-ish and can form more visually distinct shapes. The shape of Braille words wouldn't be much of an improvement over Latin - unnecessarily long and skinny. Which is probably a good fit for a finger but less optimal for an eye. And then there's that unnecessary sixth dot.
As to the originality, most computer science students have looked at a binary versions of ascii charts at one time or another. Turning them sideways and making a font out of it isn't discovering relativity. On the other hand, even Braille had its percursors (see your Wikipedia link), and Braille users don't reject it on that account, do they?
> Silicon Valley
You're assuming I'm from Silicon Valley. I am here now, but was actually in Ohio when I came up with Dotsies :)
The terminal is tricky, due to the monospace aspect. It degrades readability when the spaces between the words are as skinny as the letters, but that's what a requirement of a monospace font. One (though not perfect) workaround is to make both the spaces and the letters a little fatter. Also making the numbers readable is a challenge with monospace. I've made numbers that are more adapted to the terminal, but they could use some improvement.
I tried that, as well as with color variations. The problem that arises is when you view them at small or even medium font sizes, a black dot next to a red or gray dot just looks like a blurry black dot.
I like your mapping just about as well as the Dotsies mapping. Slightly more speckled vs angular. I wish others who are finding fault with the mapping would go down this path as well. I think they would quickly realize that one mapping is (generally speaking) about as good as another, so you might as well pick one with a good order. That's why I created that page.
> It doesn't really make sense to optimize for screen space like this.
However, the teaching style along with a symbol alphabet that IS trying to solve for better legibility ...
Optimizing for legibility as opposed to screen space is a distinction that isn't very meaningful in practice. Because if words aren't legible enough, people increase the font size until they are. If something is extremely legible (like latin letters at a 40pt font size) people will naturally tend to decrease the size. So screen space and legibility are largely different labels for the same concept. With some wiggle room but not that much.
Hit the "random" link a few times and you'll get an idea of the possible variations. In the Dotsies pattern, vowels are at the tops and bottoms of words. The variations can look grainy, chunky, loopy, checker-board-ish (you'll see what I mean if you try it). The version I picked is a balance that leans toward being sparse and loopy, and is one of the many variations that has an intuitive letter ordering. Here's a decent one, but with a crappy ordering.
Surprisingly, none of them jump out as significantly better than the others (the overly dense ones being exceptions).
[from another comment]
> I am pretty sceptical that an "optimized" alphabet glyph would be one dot for a b c d e, two adjacent dots for f g h i, etc.
There are other mappings that looked marginally better to me, but I deemed picking one with a nice ordering was worth doing. A and E happen to be the 1st and 3rd most common letters, which works out if you want to lean toward the sparse end. Also O (the 4th), A, and E all stick to the top and bottom edges of words, so if you want your words to tend to have holes in the middle they are a good fit. Getting a decent mapping for the commonest letters seems to be key, but by all means, try the above link and post an alternative that you think is better.
Grids of dots can be slightly morphed to resemble curves and slashes. Notice how some of the morphed versions of Dotsies appear visually similar to Asian scripts:
Interestingly, when you read Dotsies quickly and at a smaller font size, the scripted versions appear indistinguishable from the square (unmodified) versions. Because of this I didn't end up pursuing this aspect.
Part of my motivation with Dotsies was to capture the compactness and visual distinctness of Asian characters, while still keeping what's good about alphabets. I'm guessing native Chinese speakers find it exhausting to have their eyes dart back and forth at a comparatively hectic speed to take in the same information when reading English?
As to the originality, most computer science students have looked at a binary versions of ascii charts at one time or another. Turning them sideways and making a font out of it isn't discovering relativity. On the other hand, even Braille had its percursors (see your Wikipedia link), and Braille users don't reject it on that account, do they?
> Silicon Valley
You're assuming I'm from Silicon Valley. I am here now, but was actually in Ohio when I came up with Dotsies :)