--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
<richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
> --- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham"
> <richard.wordingham@...> wrote:
>
> > That's done phonetically as consonant(s) plus vowel
>
> Clarification: Chracters are entered phonetically by typing
> consonant(s) plus vowel

I find that this is a trend with most non roman scripts. Japanese
has had syllabic input but since so often it is easier just to use
an unaltered roman keyboard, most Japanese use a roman
transliteration. Certainly for Tamil, transliteration is the
accepted way - no one would ever use the phonetic input order of
Tamil letters!

For Cree those who have always typed Cree use a syllabic keyboard
but others who are learning the Cree script after they learn
English, use a transliteration keyboard.

My experience with students, approx age 10, suggests that not all
students are able to use a phonetic (transliteration) keyboard
easily. In this case visual knowledge of the script does not enable
you to type the script. You have to know how it is written in roman
and relate the two. For some people this is very easy especially if
they learned to read in English first, but for others I am concerned
that they will never be able to use a transliteration system. It is
okay if you are trained but who trains a child in English, they just
plunk away.

I feel strongly that glyph-based (syllabic) keyboards should be
developed as an equity issue. In HK I was thoroughly convinced by
research that glyph-based input, like Q9, could be easy and
intuitive and much more equitable than Pinyin. I think there should
be both glyph-based and phonetic input for all scripts where there
is a divergence between the two.

For Vai it is even more complicated since there is such a
discrepancy between the superset and the common use set. How could a
Vai literate ever decide which symbol they wanted easily and not
create two ways to spell a word.

Anyway there is a mixture of concerns here. Sorry I can't sort them
all out tonight.

Suzanne