LOGO-L> Auditory vs Visual

[Tom Woods <woods@moose.ncia.net>]

James E. Hoburg wrote:
> <snip> A representation may
>be easy or difficult to learn or use, but neither its origin or avowed purpose
>explains *why* (or whether) that is so.
>
So here is a conjecture as to a possible *why* (or whether)...

Using the visual representation of the alphabet, a fluent reader would
benefit from instant recognition of almost every word. Using an auditory
representation like morse, reading would have go sequentially bit by bit
until an entire letter is collected. Then letters would still have to be
gathered into words.

I don't know if this qualifies as making auditory reading of morse more
difficult, but it constrains reading speed to that of the transmission.
Fatigue may become a factor after less words have been read, compared to
visual reading. The ability to chunk visual letters into words could be a
big advantage of visual representations.

Ironically, it may be the binary nature of morse that is the chief
limitation. If more meaning could be added to each bit, the problem could be
alleviated. Consider speech. It is an auditory serial transmission with rich
phonetic packets of meaning. Reading speech is virtually automatic given
clear quiet conditions.

Now, what advantages are there for auditory reading?

Tom

---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.