Bill, thanks for this. I have to question, though, the relevancy of your experiment. Is a visual test of running test relevant for internet identifiers? And on the subject of visual similarity, I believe this has been discussed extensively and this panel has agreed that visual similarity is outside the scope of our work. The case of the “small dotless I” and “small letter I” is interesting because of the treatment under different locale settings. The focus of our analysis should be on that, taking into account the needs and expectations of different internet users, including the Turkish community. -Dennis From: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Reply-To: Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com> Date: Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:05 PM To: Dennis Tan Tanaka <dtantanaka@verisign.com>, Mats Dufberg <mats.dufberg@iis.se>, Michael Bauland <michael.bauland@knipp.de> Cc: Mirjana Tasić <mirjana.tasic@rnids.rs> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Latingp] Draft variants principles document - Dotless I I've given some more thought to the Dotless I question. It occurred to me that there are actually two approaches to the question: analysis and experiment. So I ran an experiment. Here are the results: A dozen subjects were tested. All were well-educated native speakers of English. Approximately 1/3 are involved in IT, but none are network experts and none are involved in ICANN. The subjects were given a paragraph to read (on the subject of variants). In one word, the lower case I was replaced by a dotless I. The number of subjects who noticed when reading the paragraph: Zero. The subjects were then told that the substitution had been made, that it was in the first sentence, and shown the dotless I for information. Half managed to locate the substitution in 1 or 2 re-reads of the sentence; half took 3 or more tries to spot the substitution – even though they knew what the substitution was and knew that it was there to find. In short, misreading is the expected result of a substitution. Accordingly, it is again recommended that U0069 and U0131 be determined to be blocked variants Happily, the results are the same as the analysis. I have updated the document with this information. Bill Jouris Inside Products bill.jouris@insidethestack.com 831-659-8360 925-855-9512 (direct) ________________________________ From: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org> To: "Tan Tanaka, Dennis via Latingp" <latingp@icann.org> Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 9:41 AM Subject: [Latingp] Draft variants principles document Need assistance with developing the sections for special cases: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IrT_kfildf1SumYUqjkaIkMT-TYx9IRqtuPMV4Yv... Thanks, Dennis _______________________________________________ Latingp mailing list Latingp@icann.org<mailto:Latingp@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/latingp