Gary Shannon wrote:
>1. Of first importance (to me) is reading efficiency. A thing written once 
>be read again and again, so the ease and quickness with which it can be 
>outweighs the ease of writing.
>2. It should be relatively compact, without sacrificing readability. If the
>same novel can be printed in one writing system on 30% fewer pages than 
>another writing system, then the eye can scan it 30% faster, and 30% fewer
>trees need to be cut down to make paper.
>Any other criteria are, to me, of negliable significance and can be 

Do you mean to exclude ease of learning explicitely or implicitely? Because 
you could take this approach to its extreme and have different symbols for 
the 5 million most common sentences + individual word diacritics to deal 
with the rest... Then the writing system will be virtually impossible to 
learn, but it *would* be ridiculously efficient for a hypothetical fully 
taught reader. It's of no use if no fully taught readers exist, however.

The fully taught writer would also probably not be all that efficient; to 
think up 5 million maximally distinct glyphs, you'd probably have to resort 
to means such as color, texture, 3D shape, odor...

....I'd take my argument further, but I have to go now.

John Vertical