Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.
Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
(via joy)
I'm one of those who can, cool. Yeah, we read by the shapes of the word. You'll notice that in that paragraph shorter words are easier to read in a glance. The longer the word, the likelier it loses its word-shape, and becomes less readable.
Posted by: Ericson | January 11, 2008 at 10:48 PM
that is crazy and i can't believe i read the whole thing - so interesting!
Posted by: gigi | January 11, 2008 at 11:34 PM
my kids tells me that everyone can read this, not only half the population. Aawanyy, I'm not srue I tlod you bfoere but I am a gaert fan of yuor bolg.
Posted by: corine | January 12, 2008 at 12:09 AM
The reason this works is that one-, two-, and three-letter words are unaffected. These small words, articles, conjunctions, and prepositions, add so much to the context of a sentence that meaning is easy to infer.
A similar paragraph where even the smallest words were changed would be much, much harder to read.
Posted by: Elaine Wilson | January 12, 2008 at 01:01 AM
Actually this is quite old, they found it out about 1 1/2 years ago or so.
Posted by: marta | January 12, 2008 at 06:00 AM
Wehn tihs fsrit cmae out a Caidanan utisreviny (srroy I hvae no lnik) sewohd taht if the ioiretnr lrettes are resreved the txet bemoces qtiue ulbadaerne.
When this first came out a Canadian university (sorry I have no link) showed that if the interior letters are reversed the text becomes quite unreadable. Random interior order is easier to read.
Posted by: david | January 12, 2008 at 12:29 PM
hey, cool. i´m surprised how quick i could read this. and @ comment #1: actually i find it easier to read the long words.
Posted by: ksklein | January 12, 2008 at 07:41 PM
this is my proof that its not true.
Stsiienct hzehotesypid taht poolsgcyshit msesngaiidod nruumoes idnececins ivinlonvg alncesedot dopessiren.
Posted by: rich | January 13, 2008 at 06:13 PM
in your example you are right. but in the above one, the longer ones were easier to read.
Posted by: ksklein | January 14, 2008 at 05:07 AM
Another aspect is context and common vocabulary. We could read Tina's example quickly because the context remained the same throughout the paragraph and the words were not challenging. Rich's example above (which I can't read) has no context and it uses unusual (long) words.
Posted by: Arlyn | January 14, 2008 at 07:17 AM
Actually this is so old I learned it in a speedreading class in elementary school in the 1960's.....
Posted by: Mary Richmond | January 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM