September 16, 2003

Slelinpg Sckus Aawyny

Posted in General at 2:00 am by Ian

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe. ceehiro.

See hree.

An’it it cool!



  1. Daniel said,

    I read that a while ago in a book about graphic design and typography. I thought it was interesting how when we read we dont’ read every letter but simply “read” the size and shape of words and over time our brain is able to decipher what we read without actually reading it. Makes making little typos not as big a deal anymore… WOOHOO!!!

  2. Kyle said,

    True, it’s amazing how easy it is to read that paragraph, especially if I try to speed read it. With one exception, though. The first time I read this entry, I kept reading the title as “Sleeping Sucks Anyway.” Maybe correct spelling is only important with words that are very similar to other words. Or maybe I just can’t read.

  3. Adam said,

    Ah, the countless hours that can be wasted reading slashdot.

  4. Ian said,

    The really amazing part is when you see how much you can read when they just plain randomize the letters in the middle of the word (rather than scrambling them).

    I found this to demonstrate:
    “it’s paefky exuy to mmie ort tle svcvad ecoeyke wfen yeu’ve grt tle fdzut as rstsanoee. Bot it’s atst mnwe ewzvpanntlwg wten ywu dan’t atvusby heoe tle plwlaimut vuxobxn of the escrlcd tzzt. I’d wrqxr tfvt its sdlil pwvsldke, bat nnt at “ruotkxg spocd”, lbke it is whrn uahzg tie szae ckvacxkuos as in tke oaipbxzl weeks.”

    I can actually figure out a lot of that crap.

  5. Kyle said,

    you can? :dubious: looks like gibberish to me.

  6. Ian said,

    It’s pretty easy to make out the second something when you’ve got the first as reference. But it’s alot more somethinging when you don’t actually have the something something of the encoded text. I’d wager that it’s still possible, but not at “reading speed”, like it is when using the same characters is in the original words.


  7. Ian said,

    uhm. Should be “as in the original words.” at the end.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: