Notation: State Of The Onion

After transcribing the latest batch of short forms I'm pretty happy with the way that the notation system is coming along. It's complete enough that I can concisely record complicated actions, which indicates to me that now's a good time to step back and evaluate the system as a whole. For example, consider Studio X Short Form 21:

---

UB CS		RP		Left
	↓
	Feint		3
BS
	↺
(G)←BF
	XB		2
←InB/TH	>HS
	⊙ ↓ ↻	OB	1
RP		CS UB		Right
	↓
	Feint		3
		BS
	↻
		BF→(G)
	XB		2
	HS<	InB/TH→
OB	⊙ ↓ ↺		1
	NS

(1) Blocking arm comes to rest in upward block position, wrist facing inwards, in preparation for cross-block.
(2) The cross-block is formed by continuing the motion of the inward block/twist-hit so that the arm comes to rest in upward block position, wrist facing inwards, on the outside of the arm which executed the outward block.
(3) The defender leans forward slightly, offering their chin as a target, in an attempt to bait the attacker.

---

What's the overall effect here? Is the transcription legible? Do all the various symbols work well together?

I believe the system as it stands right now works well visually. The division of the symbols into rows and columns imposes an order which makes them easy (or easier, at least) to parse at a glance. I also think we've also done a good job so far of preventing symbol proliferation; we don't have a lot of arbitrary symbols which have to be memorized.

It does take a little bit of practice to get used to reading/writing forms using this system. One thing that I've noticed is that I tend to get "lost" when reading; I can't always tell what part of the form I'm looking at based on a few lines of context. As an aid to navigation I find that it help to break long sequences up into short sections; in Short Form 21 above I divided the left and right sides by means of a heavy line and then noted which was which off to the side.

There's also the problem of dealing with "unique" movements which are idiosyncratic to a particular form. These movements don't occur with enough regularity that it makes sense to develop specific notation for them, but its still necessary to record them in some fashion for the sake of fidelity. Most of the time its possible to record an approximation of the movement using existing notation, at which point I can just add a footnote elaborating on the movement in English. When there's nothing close I just write down a word (like "feint") and explain it; that seems sufficient given that the primary purpose of the system is to server as a mnemonic device.

Now, shortcomings: I'm not wholly satisfied with the grappling notation that we've developed so far; I think we're on the right track, but I'm not sure its expressive enough to be accurate or useful in the long run. Additionally there is, as of yet, no good way to record what the performer's opponent is doing. These two items are related; finding a good way to record the opponents actions will no doubt help with grappling notation as well. I'm going to turn my attention to that problem next.