Just to clarify, you think writing English in Braille instead of with the Latin alphabet will somehow cure humanity of its spelling mistakes? Or that Braille to speech TTS software will handle the lazy spelling in Braille any better than it does now?

Your point is fun and I upvoted it because it made me smile but I don't see how it matters. Lazy gonna lazy, no matter what alphabet you give them, and the redundancy of Braille in the 21st century won't be cured by having more of it.

Thank you, but there's an art to telling someone their idea won't work in such a way that they're inspired to try again. I blew it. Nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but I went overboard. Way too much criticism and not nearly enough encouragement. I didn't even offer an alternative idea, I just pooped on his. I was wrong to do that.

I don't read Braille. I just don't see the need. We have podcasts and audio descriptions and TTS software. There are apps that allow you to point your phone's camera at a street sign in Spanish and the translation is read aloud to you in English. Learning Braille seems like learning to spin my own thread and weave my own cloth to sew my own clothing. Braille is a cool skill to have but not really a useful skill to have.

The only word in Braille I know is MEN. It's easy to remember because the dots are shaped like a drooping penis. If I'm ever alone in an unfamiliar building and I happen to put my hand in the right place on the wall to find a Braille sign that feels like a drooping penis I'll know I'm in the right place. If there are other dots before Mr. Droopy I'll know it's the women's room.

You asked for our opinions. I gave mine. You seem to be arguing against it more for the sake of arguing than for anything else.

That might be my fault. I came across as a condescending know-it-all in my first response. I'll accept the blame and keep it friendly, even though I still disagree.

Your first objection was to my point that we lose tactile sensation as we age. You said we'd be no worse off with Braille than with English because of this, and my point seems irrelevant. The exact same argument could be used against your point - we'd be no better off with either language once we lose tactile sensation. So why go through the expense and the hassle if the point is moot? I'm old enough to remember when the Carter administration tried to convert America to the metric system. It didn't work because people are stoopid and there was too much inertia in the system. Most people just didn't want to do the mental math the conversions required. Switching from a Latin alphabet to a Braille one would be like going metric times 1000. If there isn't anything to gain from the tactile impaired blind community the hassle of conversion would be pointless.

But not all blind people are tactile impaired, and some people would benefit. But is the benefit to those few people worth the effort and the resistance the rest of the community would experience? That's the crux of the question. How much disruption should 99.98% of the population endure to benefit the 0.02% who would benefit?

This question ties into your last objection, why bother teaching kids to read at all if TTS software and talking alarm clocks exist? We read because it is the fastest way to transmit information. It's 3 or 4 times the speed of talking. A written warning sign that says NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY saves the cost of a town crier telling beach goers there's no lifeguard on duty. In short, we read because it's convenient and efficient. That's why we still teach it.

I don't see switching to Braille convenient or efficient. The benefits don't even come close to justifying the inconvenience.

The historical artifacts question: Maybe it's the sentimentalist in me but I think historical documents have intrinsic value. A birthday card from my grandfather to my grandmother would be a treasured possession if I had one. A letter informing a widow her husband was killed while at war or an autographed album sleeve from a favorite band just wouldn't have the same emotional impact if they were written in a language most people could no longer read. Is the 0.02% of the population that would benefit from this worth the sentimental and emotional loss the 99.98% could experience? Again, I don't think the marginal benefit is worth the cost.

There were compelling reasons to go metric. There was a government effort to get us to go metric. The change would have been minor, street signs in kilometers instead of miles and milk in liters instead of quarts or gallons. We couldn't do it. Switching from our alphabet to Braille would be a much greater lift, against much more resistance, for a smaller benefit than the effort to switch to metric. I like the idea of not having to learn a new alphabet when learning to read with my fingers but I'm also realistic. The benefit is just too small and the effort is just too big, and I'd rather not have some angry rednecks pissed off at the blind community for making them learn a new alphabet.

If a genie in a lamp gave me a wish and I could wish your Braille alphabet into existence without the labor pains it would cause to society I'd say cool, let's do this! But we can't do this without disrupting the status quo.

As you know now from your other $1, people are almost never equally proficient in Braille and text reading and text can be read much faster than Braille.

EDITED TO ADD:

People also said that printed Braille can't be made as small as regular print and be easily read.

It would take a very long time for a sighted person to become proficient in Braille. I'm not sure you would be able to come up with many examples of people who are equally good at both. Text can be grasped at a glance from any sheet or screen. Braille dots have to be sensed. It seems like one would be faster than the other.

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that children are not taught Braille from birth. They're encouraged to develop their tactile abilities through exercises and play but they work up to Braille.

The fact remains that Braille would be a valuable skill for people to learn, yet many people don't learn it, even when they become blind later in life. That suggests to me that it's not easy.

>It's the same with standard English, there are contractions there too. People would just learn braille contractions instead.

My understanding is that it's not the same. Basic (uncontracted) Braille is just at the beginning. Most materials aren't written in basic Braille; you have to learn the more advanced (contracted) versions. You also have to learn how to distinguish punctuation.

That’s the thing, I don’t think you could go as small with print-Braille as you can with print-print, so it’ll take up more space. I’m just imaging how much more trouble I would have reading this post at this size if I was reading Braille dots instead of Latin letters. Granted, I’m low vision, but I assume the same would apply to sighted people, just with the font sizes stepped down.

I’m glad we’re both in agreement on how atrocious Braille handwriting would be. XD