I started to use raw squigs.
Would it be possible to calculate a score how close you actually are to the original. How precise you draw. The "OCR" could maybe already have a usable value for this maybe.
Output could be via those "encouraging comments".
And maybe as a longterm value you can track in progress.

Nothing really urgent, not sure it would work that well.

I can only recommend to try raw squigs (checkbox in right corner in settings). I dismissed it earlier, but if you try for a while you realize how much Skritter actually helps and gives away by arranging the input. Standard Skritter helps to remember characters faster and reading, so passive knowledge but that alone won't let you write them.

... so what is a raw squig and how do i use them?

when you activate raw squigs (practice page -> settings -> checkbox raw squigs), there are no strokes flying into the correct position, but you have to write the whole character by yourself and after the last stroke Skritter tells that it's correct (if it's not, after a few wrong strokes you will get the red light)

wb, I haven't used raw squigs, but based on your description of how they work, what would be nice would be the option to turn on raw squigs for the characters that you know best (by score), or optionally to turn them on manually on a item-by-item basis. Then, when I think I really know something, I would get the even greater challenge of raw squigs.

OK, "raw squigs" sounds like either a technical computer term, or a made-up nonsense term. Either way, it's not really a descriptive phrase.

How about calling it "Advanced mode" instead?

I think the term was made up by the Skritter guys. I am not a native speaker, so I always thought it is an American term for drawing similar to scribbling.

I actually like the idea of Ken. With raw squiqs I really suck at writing, so turning them on selectively for those characters you should know, either in terms of degree learned or on character basis would be great.

@MasterOfComboBoxes As far as I can tell "squig" is an invented word (looks like it's short for "squiggle"). A native speaker would probably be just as baffled. The Skritter guys have a whole bunch of invented words they use internally, although I can't seem to find their glossary any more.

James

I don't think it would work very well. We already calculate a score for your squig distance from the ideal, and one for your squig's angles and size and such, and one for your stroke order, and combine that into a final score, and compare that with a score threshold to decide whether to accept or reject the squig. But there's enough fuzziness in each of those numbers that you would be frustrated if you were given grading feedback based on them, as they're not very precise. Originally I had wanted to do something like this, but my algorithms aren't picky enough.

I would guess that having different modes turned on for raw squigs would be somewhat strange, and also a hint as to how well you should know a character (which people complained about in previous versions when it gave you that information in the prompt). I could be wrong; what do others think of the idea?

You gotta stay sane somehow when you're writing software like this, else every other class and variable will be called "Stroke", "Recognizer", "StrokeRecognizer", "Recognize", "Character", "CharacterStroke", "Stroke2", "DrawingStroke", "RecognizeStroke", "CharacterStrokeDrawingRecognizer", etc.... it gets ugly. So now when you're writing a stroke, before it's accepted, it's a squig, and after it's accepted it turns into a stroke.

I agree that the names aren't helpful. On the to-do list is adding better information surrounding the options so they're not as opaque.

Thanks James for the explanation and also thanks for the feedback Nick. It is not too much trouble to shift between raw squigs and normal skrittering when going across different lists or newer words.

Best Alex