But does the effectiveness of this hold up over time or will your brain get accustomed to the font after a while such that reading it eventually becomes no different than reading whatever font you used to use before?
Yes, you will get better at reading this font than you were at reading this font initially, but probably you still won't be able to read it as fast as you can read some other font.
ƃop ʎzɐʃ ǝɥʇ ɹǝʌo sdɯnɾ xoɟ uʍoɹq ʞɔınb ǝɥʇ
I used the converter I found here:
𝖀𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖔𝖉𝖊 𝖈𝖆𝖓 𝓫𝓮 𝓪𝓫𝓾𝓼𝓮𝓭 𝕚𝕟 𝕞𝕒𝕟𝕪 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙖𝙮𝙨
works on chrome + ubuntu though, apparently
I would posit that this might be true if everything was in sans forgetica, but since only your notes should be in that font, then it will likely retain it's utility over time.
Is the goal that you type these notes in SF and hope the font trains you to remember? There was a scene in the video where someone just "switched" the notes to SF en-masse... seems like that'd be not so useful.
Writing in a normal font and then switching to Sans Forgetica to read/study the notes would be my use-case.
I will try to use this font for proofreading and see how it compares to my current favorite, Luminari.
If it needs more CPU usage maybe the reinforcement is stronger.
I'd love to see some studies on the effect to give something a little more concrete than a pretty graph.
1. read essay 4 times
2. read and take notes, study notes
3. read once, then have to write out (a few times) what can be recalled on a blank piece of paper
The groups were from most to least confident in their learning but the actual success on a test for concepts (which requires recall) was opposite.
So, better than using a weird font to push encoding of memory is to plan for and then do recall practice. Like tell other people about what you learned or test yourself on it.
You get good at whatever you practice. If you reread something over and over, you don't get better at recalling the ideas, but you do get better at reading the thing. I bet the first group above would do better than the others at giving a live reading of the essay.
The Feynman Technique is basically alternating between writing a description of a concept on paper from memory, and looking up whatever you couldn't remember.
 Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning: http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2007-16657-003
 Disfluent fonts don’t help people solve math problems: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-13746-007
> Although the more general prevalence of “desirable difficulties” (Bjork, 1994) is beyond the scope of this article, several research groups have found that disfluent fonts improve performance on memory tasks (Cotton et al, 2014, Diemand-Yauman, Oppenheimer, & Vaughan, 2011; French et al., 2013; Lee, 2013; Sungkhasettee, Friedman, & Castel, 2011; Weltman & Eakin, 2014). Though some have also failed to replicate these effects (Eitel, Kühl, Scheiter, & Gerjets, 2014; Yue, Castel, & Bjork, 2013), the balance of evidence suggests that disfluent fonts may aid memory but not reasoning—presumably because reading words more slowly benefits memory, but not reasoning.
Credit to kradroy for noting the discrepancy and prompting me to check. I regret the error :(
I was doing research in this area in 2005-2006. Mine was focused on recall of English vocabulary by ESL learners. I chose to explore spacing intervals (a hot topic then). The font disfluency aspect isn't something I had heard of until today. I did a cursory search and found the first mentions of it between 2007 and 2011.
I wish I had proposed using Comic Sans over Arial to improve recall. It would have made my experiments (and analysis turnaround) quicker than a semester. :)
> "Although the more general prevalence of “desirable difficulties” (Bjork, 1994) is beyond the scope of this article, several research groups have found that disfluent fonts improve performance on memory tasks (Cotton et al, 2014, Diemand-Yauman, Oppenheimer, & Vaughan, 2011; French et al., 2013; Lee, 2013; Sungkhasettee, Friedman, & Castel, 2011; Weltman & Eakin, 2014). Though some have also failed to replicate these effects (Eitel, Kühl, Scheiter, & Gerjets, 2014; Yue, Castel, & Bjork, 2013), the balance of evidence suggests that disfluent fonts may aid memory but not reasoning—presumably because reading words more slowly benefits memory, but not reasoning." (my emphasis)
“Sans Forgetica is designed for non-commercial use only. It is bound by a creative commons, non-commercial, attributed (CCBYNC) license.”
> "Students remembered 57 per cent ... written in Sans Forgetica, compared to 50 per cent .... in Ariel"
7% delta retention isn't so much, is it?
Tufts University has Lewis & Short online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?redirect=tru...
Paging Reginald Foster, Father Reginald please!
 nux indica is the coconut
I provided the link to google books to the Liber fundamentorum pharmacologia only to show that oleum serpentis was actually an ancient remedy, of course the Latin of a book translated from medieval Persian might be not exactly Cicero, still it should be much better than any translation I can do.
But most probably oleum was a synonym of olive or however vegetable oil in ancient Rome, and it is entirely possible that the actual Persian medicine was the extract of some plant and only called serpentis.
On the other hand, besides the name, we don't actually know if snake oil is actually made of snake oil or snake fat or something else.
"Comedite pinguia" may be not "classic" latin, still it is known enough:
Also, there's a certain point where the delta is relevant enough to justify the extra effort invested (things involving safety/security for example).
There's a bunch of reasons why this could be either better or worse, depending on a myriad of different factors. I think it's a cool tool to have in your kit.
I see no cited papers here, just the claim, in the video, that "over 100 students" were used in testing to pick this font from several candidates.
I'm doubtful of any long-term value here. Even if "desirable difficulty" mechanism is real, I'd expect different readers to need wildly different levels of interference, and for their perceptions to adapt quickly to consistent letterforms. (So, to really get the benefit, you'd have an adjustable and dynamic level of perceptual-interference.)
>Tiny (3x5) Font
>Created for the Apple II program The Terminal. Copyright (c) 1981 Michael C. Koss
>In 1981 I wrote a terminal emulator for the Apple II. At the time, the Apple II could only display upper case characters. I used the hi-res display (280 x 192 pixels!) to display my own character set. In order to come close to showing an 80-column display, I created a truly tiny font, displaying the full ASCII character set (upper and lower case).
>I created a font within a 3x5 pixel dimension, allowing the display of 32 lines of 70 characters each. The font definitely takes some training and getting used to (especially recognition of characters that use descenders); but I found it to be quite readable after a while.
http://www.matthewfrench.net/pubs/fontspreprint.pdf reproduces the original effect. What's interesting here is that the effect is measured as significantly more pronounced in dyslexic students.
Interesting that the university's website is not on that TLD but rather https://rmit.edu.au
Anyone can apply for their own gTLD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain
Interestingly, one of the major promoters of gTLDs is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_IT a neighbor of RMIT
Using that student tuition fee wisely. (ICANN's website confirms this is still the initial cost + deposit, and more fees can pile on)
But when it comes to sites and services students and professors would want to use, go for the TLD, (e.g.s alumni.rmit, bursar.rmit, athletics.rmit). It’s a much more pleasing (I don’t know whether rmit actually does that or not).
There's an ancient Greeks' way to read text more effectively called Boustrophedon. The idea is that the text lines are interleaved with x-axis mirrored lines, so your eyes move not by Z-shape trajectory, but like meander. There're demo texts to learn to use it .
As for my experience, I can't say I'd been understanding or remembering more or less while reading boustro, especially when I'd begun to get used to it.
I'd like to see more research here and see where it can be used and how it can be used.
I've been working on an integrated offline browser for documents and annotation named Polar:
which is mostly designed around annotation and spaced repetition.
You can store all your documents and web content in one place and since you're obviously trying to read and retain all that information it might be interesting to enable this as a one-off feature to see if it helps.
Another idea could be to just have them for the flashcards since this is the key information you're trying to retain.
I would have made the letters monospaced at least (no kerning either), and would have used base letter shapes that look much more alike (e.g., the bowls of the d, a, q, and c should be the same, because slight differences in them help you identify letters more readily, which is precisely what proper fonts do).
Also, does that university actually own their own top-level domain? Those don't come cheap do they?
It's about $200k.
I always thought the use of study notes was just in writing them to stimulate memory, not actually reading them (for me at least).
Though, just think of your memory retention if you take notes by hand-drawing this font. Sure, it's time consuming, but you're never going to forget those two sentences that you got through.
Based on this logic - harder the process better the processing - its obviously a mistake that schools are increasingly using technology to teach, like visualizing geometric shapes on screen in 3D instead of painstakingly drawing on the board and letting students see it in their heads.
Edit: NOOOO!!! I said DOWNVOTE! ;(
One recent study that manipulated processing fluency using a hard-to-read font is "Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion," Social Cognition, 2008.
The study found that people who read information in a hard-to-read font were better at spotting a certain category of error than people who read the same information in an easy-to-read font.
(Incidentally, this study is one that I adapted for my book "Experiments for Newlyweds: 50 Amazing Science Projects You Can Perform With Your Spouse," due out in April. So if you know any couples who'd like to try it out together, it makes a great wedding gift!)
When I was studying from notes or a book in Spanish (my native language), I would review in English. Actually, my review consisted in presenting the contents to an invisible audience in English (yes, I've never been able to study in libraries or other places where you need to remain silent, most of my time studying consists in standing and talking...)
Conversely, when I studied from material in English, I would review it in Spanish, also by presenting to an invisible audience.
I always found this to be very effective (even before learning about the cognitive science concept you point out). Of course, it's just anecdotal evidence with sample size of 1. But it's a fun way to study anyway, it also lets you practice a foreign language, and you're more likely to not get bored and set "autopilot" on (maybe this was also a big factor why it worked for me...)
This forces you to really notice what is written, helps sustain your attention (when you're walking and talking, there's not much cognitive slack for drifting off), will improve your memory (we tend to remember things better when we have spent a larger effort on them), and leads pretty naturally to reason aloud about what you have just read.
Apparently, there used to be perambulatory monks that would follow a similar strategy, reading or reciting sacred texts while pacing around the courtyards of their monastery.
I'm now wondering if the added chair-balance while walking enhanced the approach you're describing.
Fortunately I’d spent years watching Jeff in action before my turn came, and I had prepared in an unusual way. My presentation -- which, roughly speaking was about the core skills a generalist engineer ought to know -- was a resounding success. He loved it. Afterwards everyone was patting me on the back and congratulating me like I’d just completed a game-winning hail-mary pass or something. One VP told me privately: “Presentations with Jeff never go that well.”
To prepare a presentation for Jeff, first make damn sure you know everything there is to know about the subject. Then write a prose narrative explaining the problem and solution(s). Write it exactly the way you would write it for a leading professor or industry expert on the subject.
That is: assume he already knows everything about it. Assume he knows more than you do about it. Even if you have ground-breakingly original ideas in your material, just pretend it’s old hat for him. Write your prose in the succinct, direct, no-explanations way that you would write for a world-leading expert on the material.
You’re almost done. The last step before you’re ready to present to him is this: Delete every third paragraph.
If it turns out not to be a joke/hoax/psychology/social experiment, I will be sure to remember - I made a note to check back later, using this special font that aids memory.
Instead of simply deleting messages after a short time, Snapchat should render them in Forgetica Light, so you can't even remember them!
More specifically, you would imagine that if such a simple hack existed, we would be well aware of it in 500 years of printed press.
What would be cool is if they conducted a larger study via the Chrome plugin.
Looking at paragraphs of text in it, I feel like it actually encourages me to read faster because of the missing pieces; maybe it is harder to read but that triggers "skim mode" so I pay less attention to each word.
If someone doesn't seem to understand something as simple as contrast, why should I think they understand memory?
Webaim has a tool to help with contrasts. Anything lighter than #595959 on a white background can be hard to see.
In both cases, I notice it's easier to memorize things in this fashion. Although I suppose with the ·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 that effect will wear off if I obtain more reading & writing proficiency.
The Shavian Reddit has links to a Linux keymap and more details if you'd like it. I used Memrise's Shavian course to memorize it in about a week, and I've been reading and writing ever since.
It's delightful for task and note taking right now because the extra effort of writing to it helps me remember things.
So I like it, but I use Shavian mostly because it's well supported. I'm in the camp that says physical writing is dead, so I wnat to get quick/read into Unicode formally.
At my job for some reason I never need to force myself to remember stuff; it comes naturally as I look up the same thing over and over again because I use it frequently.
 Donald E. Knuth, N-Ciphered Texts: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
I tried copy-pasting the whole website into the "Type something you want to remember" box near the bottom. Unfortunately, it's a <div contenteditable> and the original font styling got copied inside too. :|
Maybe if the textbook was printed in this font...
Here's an even more dynamic (albeit less efficient) PostScript font I made for NeWS that forks off a light weight process to draw each character in the background.
It actually creates a separate canvas (window) for every character with a lightweight input event manager process listening for mouse events that lets you slide each character around the screen by dragging with the middle mouse button.
Some of the characters are "CycleItem" widgets you can click on with the left button to cycle between different glyphs, and even "SliderItem" sliders and "TextItem" input fields!
Because why should't you be able to create fully interactive editable user interfaces just by drawing text?
BTW personally I always found FAR MORE effective to take notes with pen and paper and after transfer them on personal desktop, in org_mode in my case so without any fancy distracting typography. The same for reading: I learn far more reading a printed docs than from an on-screen one. I test many times and techniques from high school to university to work training/conference etc. ALL "PC made from the start" was a fail, including photos and voice recording. Of course I'm not a statistical valid sample but I pretend to be not much different than any other human around.
You may not know it, but there are studies backing this up. Whether you consider it a scientific truth or not is barely relevant. What is interesting to know is that not all disfluencies are created equal: blurring text and adding visual noise don't help, apparently because they don't engage the right part of the visual pathway.
Personally I notice that force me to read difficult fonts does not help at all my understatement or my memory. In the end my idea, without statistical proof of course, is that such contrasting observation are simply noise. Perhaps due to a sample size not big enough, perhaps due to tested individual itself but still noise.
Also IMVHO such studies exist for a reason: teacher's mean quality is getting lower and lower due to various schools reforms and since admit errors it's not a thing these days someone try a sort of "montecarlo test" in the desperate search of a solution to stop the bleeding. Other find such tentative nice for their business because new stuff means new sales for someone.
I fear that’s a fairly fat if, though.
I was worried about exactly this when I was thinking about using it for company training materials. Apparently the benefit for dyslexics (if you believe this study) is even greater than for non-dyslexics.
For me, I think part of the reason that I remember handwritten things better is that the formatting has to be done correctly the first time. For example, if I was writing down the three elements of a statute, one of which had two sub-elements, then I had to know very clearly how the statute was structured before committing pen to paper. When taking notes on a computer, it's easy to just pound out text and then go back later and put in the right formatting. For me, being forced to properly format the first time around seems to greatly increase recall.
Does RMIT have a good reputation?
Does the reputation of the university have any bearing on the quality of the research? Sounds like the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy to me.
It's definitely one of the better universities in Australia, and has a good design reputation.
This doesn't exactly help with remembering things, but by now I have a somewhat better understanding of the cyrillic alphabet, even without being able to speak any of the languages using it, and only fleeting experience with any slavic one.
It definitely takes away the alienness of it.
I mean, nice and all, but what about some actual tests/reports of it actually being noticeably better at remembering what you have read?
The concept is very nice and interesting, but besides it:
>The science of Sans Forgetica
>Sans Forgetica is more difficult to read than most typefaces – and that’s by design. The 'desirable difficulty' you experience when reading information formatted in Sans Forgetica prompts your brain to engage in deeper processing.
I would like to have something more than a video by the scientists that designed it.
If it wasn't a UNI backed thing, I would have thought that the video was a sales pitch for Kickstarter or similar.
I had some expectations for the .pdf inside the downloadable .zip but basically all there is in it is:
>Learn more about the science behind Sans Forgetica at
Turns out it was simply replacement of old signs, and that Clearview actually had reduced legibility in negative-contrast (black on white, instead of white on green).
I'd bet that research would show something that the benefits of this come with cons.
I checked the credits on https://mumbrella.com.au/naked-creates-font-for-rmit-which-i... where i see no psychology anything but maybe Behavioural Business Lab. Granted, this was no list of the scientists working on it, but there sure seems to be a lot of marketing and brand management involved.
I can't be sure on this one, but it seems adding science to a claim is just a good marketing practice.
Are there science news sites that add paper references or something to fact check against, to their articles?
You can test this yourself by making a fair comparision:
* Copy entire documents by handwriting vs typing, with no regard to choosing "what's important", and test which strategy leads to better recall.
* Take notes from a lecture by handwriting vs typing, setting a goal of say 10% of the total material note-taken, choosing what's important to write down, and giving yourself as much time as needed to write or tye everything
* Similar comparisons, writing all vs writing selections, typing all vs typying selectionsl
A bit in undergrad but quite a lot in grad school, I ended up stopping taking notes. I discovered I was better off engaging completely in class, and consulting the textbooks if necessary, than trying to multitask learning and taking notes. YMMV; I can easily believe there are people who had the exact opposite experience, that note taking radically improved their retention. I'm just saying that such experience is definitely not universal.
It may make sense, and personally I hope/wish that it actually works as intended, but that's far from being OK with the font to be tagged as it is.
Even the paper mentioned in the article you linked to that should be this one (the original link in the article is to SAGE journals and I cannot access it):
seems like proposing a theory that makes a lot of sense more than anything else.
Yeah, but this is about a typeface that's intentionally harder to read, not write.
I agree with the idea that handwriting notes is more beneficial, to a degree. I prefer taking notes by hand, but once I reach a certain threshold (over 3 pages, usually) , I need to organize the notes digitally.
No idea how much better, or if the test was terrible. At least they're on the right track.