> why just dots? Why not a mix of dots, curves and straight lines?
Because it was easier for the technology of the day (invented in 1824) to reliably emboss dots.
Because it was easier for the technology of the day (invented in 1824) to reliably emboss dots.
Specially when you could easily build a system already using the readers' knowledge of current Braille, something like this: https://i.imgur.com/faOWkxb.png
They're visually more distinctive, but more importantly: I think that they'd be easier to tell apart by touch.
Let’s say it’s 10% better. Would that be worth it?
Neither.
Check the picture linked in the very comment that you're replying to. Then you'll notice my proposal is to modify the current system, by either a) tweaking the shapes of the individual dots or b) replacing certain sequences of dots with lines. The underlying associations are still the same.
If it helps, think on it as a different typeface for Braille instead of a new alphabet. The actual con of the idea is printing, not reading.
Fakoo's idea on the other hand is, effectively, a new alphabet. It might be more advantageous than Braille, I don't know; however keep in mind that learning a new alphabet is by no means such a Herculean cognitive burden as you're pretending it to be, provided that you're already used to the relevant medium.
>Let’s say it’s 10% better. Would that be worth it?
Nobody needs to assume anything in this case. _If_ the idea is worth trying, this can be measured by testing it.