The characters in the font are unique and clear so learning to read it should be easier that say reading using some completely unknown alphabet.
This font should be easier to read than most people's hand writing.
A readable font takes no practice to read, presuming you already read the script of the font and the language of the text. A decipherable one can be sort of limped through at first and probably picked up to fluency with experience. Although, as the article notes, this font has homonymous glyphs, there are only a few words where that creates ambiguity, and as few as none where it would be ambiguous in context.
No. Any font takes a lot of practice to read. Maybe the difference is that you define "readable" as readable immediately by anyone who is already familiar with modern fonts?
I'm sure medieval fonts were readable to pepole who wrote them, but when I look at them I need to labor at every letter.
Yes, people aren't born knowing how to read.
> you define "readable" as readable immediately by anyone who is already familiar with modern fonts
This is the only reasonable definition of "readable".
taken to a silly extreme, you could compress 26 letters into 2 pixels, 3 colors, and 3 levels of opacity. before even considering a time-dimension.
a mantis shrimp just needs one pixel with color.