[coldtea]

>The human convention of written language it to interpret the symbols after they have been completed, not during the act of writing them.

Not exactly. E.g. Japanese handwriting and the order of strokes etc (also in traditional caligraphy/penmanship)

[snowwrestler]

I understand the idea of looking at completed characters and inferring the original order of strokes.

But are you saying that Japanese writing is only readable if you observe the writer during the act of writing? Because that's what some stroke recognition engines do.

Here's a tangible example. Imagine I write "h l o", pause, then go back and place an "e" in the first space, and an "l" in the second space, then hold it up to you. You're going to see "hello," right?

But an algorithm that tries to interpret the act of writing itself, might see "hlo el", because that's the order in which I wrote the characters.

[coldtea]

>But are you saying that Japanese writing is only readable if you observe the writer during the act of writing? Because that's what some stroke recognition engines do.

Not exactly, but the situation, as I understand it, is somewhat related: Japanese writing is better (and thus more readable) if the writer observes (respects) a specific stroke ordering.

So, one doesn't have to observe a writer while he is writing to be able to better read what they wrote. But the ordering of strokes can have impact on readability, even when one sees the written words after they've been completed.