<ol>
<li><p><strong><em>How much faster is it really to write simplified, given similar skill levels?</em></strong></p>

<p>Basically, writing simplified characters (SC) can be faster than traditional characters (TC).</p>

<p>SC comes into stage primarily because of its handy characteristics. Some people really want to boost up the writing speed, among other personal reasons, and there's no such awesome typing machine like notebook today, so what can they do is fairly predictable, such as scribbling around, or just dropping some elements.</p></li>
<li><p><strong><em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_traditional_and_simplified_Chinese_characters#Speed_of_writing" rel="noreferrer">Speed of writing</a> is cited as an advantage of simplified Chinese over traditional, which is especially important for schoolchildren, but are there any studies or measurements to this effect?</em></strong></p>

<p>Provide you with my own experiment result here. I've timed and written the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_traditional_and_simplified_Chinese_characters#Speed_of_writing" rel="noreferrer">above Wiki page</a> with its first two paragraphs in the introduction part, both <a href="https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E7%B0%A1%E5%8C%96%E7%88%AD%E8%AB%96" rel="noreferrer">SC version</a> and <a href="https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E7%B0%A1%E5%8C%96%E7%88%AD%E8%AB%96" rel="noreferrer">TC version</a>. There're 306 characters. It took me:</p>

<ul>
<li>14 minutes 43 seconds (883 seconds) to write up the SC version or 2.9 seconds per character on average, and</li>
<li>21 minutes 36 seconds (1296 seconds) to write up the TC version or 4.2 seconds per character on average.</li>
</ul>

<p>Didn't write pretty well, just everyday performance.</p>

<p><strong>The scan of my writing</strong></p>

<p><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/3ksf9.jpg" alt="SC-vs-TC-writing-speed-test"></p>

<p><strong>SC version script</strong></p>

<p>汉字简化争论是一个讨论汉字之正式字体的话题。由于中国大陆、香港、台湾的使用习惯、文化认同及意识形态不同，而持续被提出来争论。汉字文化圈其他国家如日本、越南则较少关注这一争论。<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/3ksf9.jpg" rel="noreferrer">1</a>这里所谓的“汉字简化”，主要针对的是中华人民共和国所推行的简化字，台湾和香港地区并不采用，并有普遍的激烈批评。本条目中的“繁体字”是中国大陆对传统汉字字体的称呼，在香港、澳门等地区也较常使用此名称，中华民国（台湾）官方称之为“正体字”[2][3][4]。现行中国大陆的简体字属于毛泽东时代下，为响应苏联国际化语言而推动汉字拉丁化（废除汉字）的政治性产物。简体字仅是废除汉字前的过渡性措施。[5][6]1985年12月，国务院决定将中国文字改革委员会改名为国家语言文字工作委员会，强调国家语委要“促进语言文字的规范化、标准化”，这表明拼音化道路已被放弃。[7]</p>

<p><strong>TC version script</strong></p>

<p>漢字簡化爭論是一個討論漢字之正式字體的話題。由於中國大陸、香港、台灣的使用習慣、文化認同及意識形態不同，而持續被提出來爭論。漢字文化圈其他國家如日本、越南則較少關注這一爭論。<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/3ksf9.jpg" rel="noreferrer">1</a>這裡所謂的「漢字簡化」，主要針對的是中華人民共和國所推行的簡化字，台灣和香港地區並不採用，並有普遍的激烈批評。本條目中的「繁體字」是中國大陸對傳統漢字字體的稱呼，在香港、澳門等地區也較常使用此名稱，中華民國（台灣）官方稱之為「正體字」[2][3][4]。現行中國大陸的簡體字屬於毛澤東時代下，為響應蘇聯國際化語言而推動漢字拉丁化（廢除漢字）的政治性產物。簡體字僅是廢除漢字前的過渡性措施。[5][6]1985年12月，國務院決定將中國文字改革委員會改名為國家語言文字工作委員會，強調國家語委要「促進語言文字的規範化、標準化」，這表明拼音化道路已被放棄。[7]</p></li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-21T15:47:10.587Z
Right, so I would say that Japanese simplification does not make sense either.
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-21T15:48:30.093Z
Somehow I feel that the TC writing is easier to recognise, perhaps the OP was writing more carefully?
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-25T02:25:34.977Z
Did you include pencil sharpening in the times? :)
congusbongus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-10T09:15:36.810Z
This is the kind of answer I want to see on this site! A +1 from me. Awesome. :)
Alenanno
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-11T05:22:25.090Z
@congusbongus I wrote the post in mechanical pencil :D
George
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-05-11T05:24:04.423Z
@user58955 Yes, I did write casual in simplified version because I grew up writing simplified version in mainland.
George
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-04T14:33:40.060Z
+1 for the experimentalism :D BTW, in your daily life, do you write SC or TC? If you're familiar with writing SC, this experiment can be criticized for your possible lacking experience of writing TC.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-04T14:38:33.357Z
Thanks for encouraging :D  My hand cramped up... I've been switching to TC for about a few years. SC is really fast.
George
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-04T15:08:35.527Z
Not only speed but less pencil sharpening/ink :-) And eye strain for us folks with bad eyesight.
Steve
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-04T15:14:05.673Z
Sorry for that~~ I've got to fix the scanner ha ha. Just pencil prevails in Korea.
George
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-04T16:47:29.873Z
I tried this paragraph too. And my result was: `15:15` for SC and `17:13` for TC. Both are written in running script by a gel pen (when writing TC I was intentional to speed up a little so it looked ugly). Anyway, I believe writing SC is easier.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-04T20:51:17.390Z
Definitely TC writes slower... so in Taiwan the students in secondary or high school have classes of simplified Chinese so they can write faster when taking notes and so on... Of course, their simplification does not match that in mainland China exactly, for instance, 專 is simplified to 专 as in mainland China while 團 is simplified to 囗 + 专 instead of 囗 + 才 as in mainland China. This is more logical because 專 in 團 is the pronunciation indicator, so the form like 团 does not really make sense.
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-04T20:53:06.727Z
Actually simplification attempts started in the Kuo Ming Tang time, see http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E6%89%B9%E7%AE%80%E4%BD%93%E5%AD%97%E8%A1%A8
user58955
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-05T08:56:50.277Z
@user58955 the simplification of 團 is an interesting topic. In fact 团 had been already included in 《龍龕手鑑》, saying `俗音囚` without explanation. And in 《字彙補》, the entry of 团 was `邪局切音囚義`[``](http://www.zdic.net/z/a8/kx/28D4F.htm). I guess 才 in modern 团 came from the [草书楷化](http://vividict.com/WordInfo.aspx?id=937) method and it's a coincidence to be the same as an old character. BTW, in Japan it's 囗+寸, seems 寸 is from the bottom part of 專.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-04T14:27:28.243Z
2013-10-04T15:16:09.280Z
2013-10-04T15:16:09.280Z
George
<p>First of all, thanks to Congliu's experiment. And I think this is a very interesting question.</p>

<p>I found this research called <em>The Dynamic Statistics and Comparison of the Stroke Counts of Simplified and Traditional Chinese Characters</em> (<a href="ftp://ftp.cs.sjtu.edu.cn:990/gshulun/%B7%A2%B1%ED%C2%DB%CE%C4my_published_papers/%BC%F2%BB%AF%D7%D6%D3%EB%B7%B1%CC%E5%D7%D6%B1%CA%BB%AD%CA%FD%B5%C4%B6%AF%CC%AC%CD%B3%BC%C6%D3%EB%B1%C8%BD%CF.pdf" rel="nofollow">ftp://ftp.cs.sjtu.edu.cn:990/gshulun/%B7%A2%B1%ED%C2%DB%CE%C4my_published_papers/%BC%F2%BB%AF%D7%D6%D3%EB%B7%B1%CC%E5%D7%D6%B1%CA%BB%AD%CA%FD%B5%C4%B6%AF%CC%AC%CD%B3%BC%C6%D3%EB%B1%C8%BD%CF.pdf</a>) on Shanghai Jiao Tong University's website. I'm not sure about how serious the research was, but I think it can bring some insights to the topic.</p>

<p>Their findings are:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Among 3479 high-frequency TC characters, TC characters have 2.19 (30%) more strokes than SC characters. </p></li>
<li><p>For another 1128 random TC characters, the difference is 6.69 strokes.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>So if we can set an average stroke speed, SC is definitely faster.</p>

<p><strong>THOUGHTS</strong></p>

<p>This is not a surprise. Intuitively, Simplified Chinese should be faster since speed its one of its purpose and it was achieved by trim down the strokes in the characters. And it is very understandable that TC users may find SC repelling. I'm a SC user (I'd like to use TC, but I think I'd better do it by formal training rather than just use the TC function in the IME which may lead to subtle misuse). But if I were a TC user, I probably would frown when I see SC as well since some of the characters I tried hard to learn had been trimmed down without inconsistently and they just look awkward. Also it would be easier to criticise something new (relatively). But process of simplification lost some of the characters origin and tradition is a fact.</p>

<p>But there are two sides of the story. Indeed the SC was part of the Soviet political scheme. However, I think it did benefit the population in less literal area to become semi-literal quickly. I mean, for the speed of China's economy, those people really don't have the time the differentiate the four ways to write character 茴 (look it up， it's called 茴香豆的茴字的四种写法, it's famous criticism on Chinese characters by Lu Xun). Now think about another fact: for years, college students were required to pass CET English test to graduate in Mainland China, which has been lifted just recent year. Facing a huge illiterate population who resides in poor areas, SC did help to smooth the process for making them to read and write at least and make time to learn English as well.</p>

<p>But this question got me to think about the current situation for SC. Today, most of us Chinese, like the rest of the world, use computers, cellphones more than ever. Personally, I only actually write when I want to practice my handwriting. Pinyin really helped in this aspect, so the writing speed in production environment seems to be less an issue. If we start switching back to TC characters now, speed wouldn't be a big problem for economy (And most people in economically developed part can read most TC). And for schoolers, they have and should spend the time to learn each characters closely. But on the other hand, TC might be too complex for displays, especially in small sizes. And SC has become part of the history and reality.</p>

<p>Those are my personal thoughts about the SC v.s TC issue. I know that my thought is inconclusive regarding which one is better issue. But I think it will just become part of asian history. It doesn't make any more sense than arguing which one is more correct between Japanese Kanji and Chinese Characters except in terms of politics.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-27T04:05:05.690Z
2015-02-27T05:30:04.460Z
2015-02-27T05:30:04.460Z
user1228520
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_traditional_and_simplified_Chinese_characters#Speed_of_writing">Speed of writing</a> is cited as an advantage of simplified Chinese over traditional, which is especially important for schoolchildren, but are there any studies or measurements to this effect? How much faster is it really to write simplified, given similar skill levels?</p>

<p>I'm referring to writing all the strokes, by hand. Of course the differences disappear if people are writing cursive, or electronically using IMEs.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-22T03:04:52.413Z
The differences don't necessarily disappear when using an IME, but they change due to other inherent differences between the IMEs mostly used for simplified and mostly used for traditional. The most popular ones require interaction, but there are other IMEs for fast touch typing at a cost of a higher learning curve. I'm personally finding the Pinyin IME for simplified faster than the Zhuyin fuhao IME for traditional because the latter requires more frequent interaction.
hippietrail
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-26T05:29:13.843Z
It's difficult to compose a rigorous answer to this question in only 7 days. It requires too much research work -- mainly on the gathering, filtering of the corpus. So it seems no one would won the bounty.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-26T05:34:16.853Z
@Stan well if you are preparing a good answer please keep doing it, I'll promise to award the bounty once the answer is there. It's ok if this one expires. Unfortunately I don't think there's any way to extend an existing bounty.
congusbongus
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-26T07:03:40.477Z
@congusbongus sorry I just found some nice character frequency lists for some corpora but hadn't got much time to write a program to analyze them (not so hard, but dealing with issues like 发發髪 requires cross-reference between SC and TC corpora, that's a little troublesome). Anyway if no one does such statistical work, I will finish it some day :D
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-27T13:39:45.130Z
I am not sure the difference does disappear when using IMEs.  The IME will sometimes generate a longer list of alternatives in traditional than in simplified, and it may take longer to scan the alternatives.  Of course it will depend on who is doing it.  As a foreign beginner, more trained in simplified than traditional characters it takes me a lot long for IME in traditional.  For one thing I go back and catch more mistakes.
Colin McLarty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-04T12:31:21.950Z
[This paper](http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical_bhdxxb-shkxb200902011.aspx) concludes: 1) in the test of sample text, the 1128 traditional characters' strokes are on average 6.69 stroke-per-character more than the simplified ones. 2) in the high-frequency text test, 3479 traditional characters' strokes are only on average 6.69 stroke-per-character more. Now I cannot read the whole paper **but I highly doubt if its statistical methodology is sound** -- you know, as the situation 99 persons have no money but 1 is a billionaire will result in they're "millionaires" on average. It's unfair.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-04T18:05:09.283Z
**Sorry for my typo above.** "2) in the high-frequency text test, 3479 traditional characters' strokes are only on average 6.69 stroke-per-character more" should be **2.19** stroke-per-character.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-05T04:09:37.190Z
@Stan, you omitted to mention that the additional 2.19 strokes is equivalent to 30% more strokes in that test, which is statistically significant no matter how you look at it.
杨以轩
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-05T04:37:27.597Z
@QuestionOverflow that sentence is a little vague. If so, 2.19/0.3=7.3 should be the average stroke of a frequently-used simplified character. However according to [百度百科](http://baike.baidu.com/view/31301.htm?fromId=16311), `简化后平均笔画是10.3画`, it confuses me "can the frequently-used simplified characters be so much simpler than 10.3" so I decide not to mention that before I can read the whole paper.
Stan
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-05T05:20:52.087Z
@Stan, if you want to rely on a certain analysis, it is always better to present the full picture if presenting half of it can lead to misleading conclusion. If we go by what Baidu says, then the gap is even wider at 10.3 strokes for simplified compared to 16 strokes for traditional. A range between 30%(the paper) to 55%(Baidu) looks quite reasonable to me based on Congliu's test below.
杨以轩
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-10-05T06:52:20.413Z
@QuestionOverflow if we focus just on the data, you're certainly right. Besides my doubt above, in that paper the author said "*只* 多2.19画, *多近* 30%", first he used 只(only) which implied he thought it's not significant and second he presented the rate 30% which seemed quite conflicting. In a word, yes the data look quite reasonable and the conclusion can be accepted, but to be rigorous, maybe it's better to be careful to check the correctness of the data first.
Stan
<traditional-vs-simplified>
How much faster is it to write Simplified over Traditional?
# How much faster is it to write Simplified over Traditional?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-10-04)

[Speed of writing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_traditional_and_simplified_Chinese_characters#Speed_of_writing) is cited as an advantage of simplified Chinese over traditional, which is especially important for schoolchildren, but are there any studies or measurements to this effect? How much faster is it really to write simplified, given similar skill levels?

I'm referring to writing all the strokes, by hand. Of course the differences disappear if people are writing cursive, or electronically using IMEs.

**Tags:** traditional-vs-simplified

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: [This paper](http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical_bhdxxb-shkxb200902011.aspx) concludes: 1) in the test of sample text, the 1128 traditional characters' strokes are on average 6.69 stroke-per-character more than the simplified ones. 2) in the high-frequency text test, 3479 traditional characters' strokes are only on average 6.69 stroke-per-character more. Now I cannot read the whole paper **but I highly doubt if its statistical methodology is sound** -- you know, as the situation 99 persons have no money but 1 is a billionaire will result in they're "millionaires" on average. It's unfair.  
> **username_2**: **Sorry for my typo above.** "2) in the high-frequency text test, 3479 traditional characters' strokes are only on average 6.69 stroke-per-character more" should be **2.19** stroke-per-character.  
> **username_4**: @username_2, you omitted to mention that the additional 2.19 strokes is equivalent to 30% more strokes in that test, which is statistically significant no matter how you look at it.  
> **username_2**: @QuestionOverflow that sentence is a little vague. If so, 2.19/0.3=7.3 should be the average stroke of a frequently-used simplified character. However according to [百度百科](http://baike.baidu.com/view/31301.htm?fromId=16311), `简化后平均笔画是10.3画`, it confuses me "can the frequently-used simplified characters be so much simpler than 10.3" so I decide not to mention that before I can read the whole paper.  
> **username_4**: @username_2, if you want to rely on a certain analysis, it is always better to present the full picture if presenting half of it can lead to misleading conclusion. If we go by what Baidu says, then the gap is even wider at 10.3 strokes for simplified compared to 16 strokes for traditional. A range between 30%(the paper) to 55%(Baidu) looks quite reasonable to me based on Congliu's test below.  
> **username_2**: @QuestionOverflow if we focus just on the data, you're certainly right. Besides my doubt above, in that paper the author said "*只* 多2.19画, *多近* 30%", first he used 只(only) which implied he thought it's not significant and second he presented the rate 30% which seemed quite conflicting. In a word, yes the data look quite reasonable and the conclusion can be accepted, but to be rigorous, maybe it's better to be careful to check the correctness of the data first.  
> **username_1**: The differences don't necessarily disappear when using an IME, but they change due to other inherent differences between the IMEs mostly used for simplified and mostly used for traditional. The most popular ones require interaction, but there are other IMEs for fast touch typing at a cost of a higher learning curve. I'm personally finding the Pinyin IME for simplified faster than the Zhuyin fuhao IME for traditional because the latter requires more frequent interaction.  
> **username_2**: It's difficult to compose a rigorous answer to this question in only 7 days. It requires too much research work -- mainly on the gathering, filtering of the corpus. So it seems no one would won the bounty.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 well if you are preparing a good answer please keep doing it, I'll promise to award the bounty once the answer is there. It's ok if this one expires. Unfortunately I don't think there's any way to extend an existing bounty.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 sorry I just found some nice character frequency lists for some corpora but hadn't got much time to write a program to analyze them (not so hard, but dealing with issues like 发發髪 requires cross-reference between SC and TC corpora, that's a little troublesome). Anyway if no one does such statistical work, I will finish it some day :D  
> **username_3**: I am not sure the difference does disappear when using IMEs.  The IME will sometimes generate a longer list of alternatives in traditional than in simplified, and it may take longer to scan the alternatives.  Of course it will depend on who is doing it.  As a foreign beginner, more trained in simplified than traditional characters it takes me a lot long for IME in traditional.  For one thing I go back and catch more mistakes.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2013-10-04. Score: 25

1. ***How much faster is it really to write simplified, given similar skill levels?***

   Basically, writing simplified characters (SC) can be faster than traditional characters (TC).

   SC comes into stage primarily because of its handy characteristics. Some people really want to boost up the writing speed, among other personal reasons, and there's no such awesome typing machine like notebook today, so what can they do is fairly predictable, such as scribbling around, or just dropping some elements.
2. ***[Speed of writing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_traditional_and_simplified_Chinese_characters#Speed_of_writing) is cited as an advantage of simplified Chinese over traditional, which is especially important for schoolchildren, but are there any studies or measurements to this effect?***

   Provide you with my own experiment result here. I've timed and written the [above Wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_on_traditional_and_simplified_Chinese_characters#Speed_of_writing) with its first two paragraphs in the introduction part, both [SC version](https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-cn/%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E7%B0%A1%E5%8C%96%E7%88%AD%E8%AB%96) and [TC version](https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E7%B0%A1%E5%8C%96%E7%88%AD%E8%AB%96). There're 306 characters. It took me:

   * 14 minutes 43 seconds (883 seconds) to write up the SC version or 2.9 seconds per character on average, and
   * 21 minutes 36 seconds (1296 seconds) to write up the TC version or 4.2 seconds per character on average.

   Didn't write pretty well, just everyday performance.

   **The scan of my writing**

   ![SC-vs-TC-writing-speed-test](https://i.sstatic.net/3ksf9.jpg)

   **SC version script**

   汉字简化争论是一个讨论汉字之正式字体的话题。由于中国大陆、香港、台湾的使用习惯、文化认同及意识形态不同，而持续被提出来争论。汉字文化圈其他国家如日本、越南则较少关注这一争论。[1](https://i.sstatic.net/3ksf9.jpg)这里所谓的“汉字简化”，主要针对的是中华人民共和国所推行的简化字，台湾和香港地区并不采用，并有普遍的激烈批评。本条目中的“繁体字”是中国大陆对传统汉字字体的称呼，在香港、澳门等地区也较常使用此名称，中华民国（台湾）官方称之为“正体字”[2][3][4]。现行中国大陆的简体字属于毛泽东时代下，为响应苏联国际化语言而推动汉字拉丁化（废除汉字）的政治性产物。简体字仅是废除汉字前的过渡性措施。[5][6]1985年12月，国务院决定将中国文字改革委员会改名为国家语言文字工作委员会，强调国家语委要“促进语言文字的规范化、标准化”，这表明拼音化道路已被放弃。[7]

   **TC version script**

   漢字簡化爭論是一個討論漢字之正式字體的話題。由於中國大陸、香港、台灣的使用習慣、文化認同及意識形態不同，而持續被提出來爭論。漢字文化圈其他國家如日本、越南則較少關注這一爭論。[1](https://i.sstatic.net/3ksf9.jpg)這裡所謂的「漢字簡化」，主要針對的是中華人民共和國所推行的簡化字，台灣和香港地區並不採用，並有普遍的激烈批評。本條目中的「繁體字」是中國大陸對傳統漢字字體的稱呼，在香港、澳門等地區也較常使用此名稱，中華民國（台灣）官方稱之為「正體字」[2][3][4]。現行中國大陸的簡體字屬於毛澤東時代下，為響應蘇聯國際化語言而推動漢字拉丁化（廢除漢字）的政治性產物。簡體字僅是廢除漢字前的過渡性措施。[5][6]1985年12月，國務院決定將中國文字改革委員會改名為國家語言文字工作委員會，強調國家語委要「促進語言文字的規範化、標準化」，這表明拼音化道路已被放棄。[7]

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: +1 for the experimentalism :D BTW, in your daily life, do you write SC or TC? If you're familiar with writing SC, this experiment can be criticized for your possible lacking experience of writing TC.  
> **username_5**: Thanks for encouraging :D  My hand cramped up... I've been switching to TC for about a few years. SC is really fast.  
> **username_8**: Not only speed but less pencil sharpening/ink :-) And eye strain for us folks with bad eyesight.  
> **username_5**: Sorry for that~~ I've got to fix the scanner ha ha. Just pencil prevails in Korea.  
> **username_2**: I tried this paragraph too. And my result was: `15:15` for SC and `17:13` for TC. Both are written in running script by a gel pen (when writing TC I was intentional to speed up a little so it looked ugly). Anyway, I believe writing SC is easier.  
> **username_6**: Definitely TC writes slower... so in Taiwan the students in secondary or high school have classes of simplified Chinese so they can write faster when taking notes and so on... Of course, their simplification does not match that in mainland China exactly, for instance, 專 is simplified to 专 as in mainland China while 團 is simplified to 囗 + 专 instead of 囗 + 才 as in mainland China. This is more logical because 專 in 團 is the pronunciation indicator, so the form like 团 does not really make sense.  
> **username_6**: Actually simplification attempts started in the Kuo Ming Tang time, see http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E6%89%B9%E7%AE%80%E4%BD%93%E5%AD%97%E8%A1%A8  
> **username_2**: @username_6 the simplification of 團 is an interesting topic. In fact 团 had been already included in 《龍龕手鑑》, saying `俗音囚` without explanation. And in 《字彙補》, the entry of 团 was `邪局切音囚義`[``](http://www.zdic.net/z/a8/kx/28D4F.htm). I guess 才 in modern 团 came from the [草书楷化](http://vividict.com/WordInfo.aspx?id=937) method and it's a coincidence to be the same as an old character. BTW, in Japan it's 囗+寸, seems 寸 is from the bottom part of 專.  
> **username_6**: Right, so I would say that Japanese simplification does not make sense either.  
> **username_6**: Somehow I feel that the TC writing is easier to recognise, perhaps the OP was writing more carefully?  
> **username_0**: Did you include pencil sharpening in the times? :)  
> **username_7**: This is the kind of answer I want to see on this site! A +1 from me. Awesome. :)  
> **username_5**: @username_0 I wrote the post in mechanical pencil :D  
> **username_5**: @username_6 Yes, I did write casual in simplified version because I grew up writing simplified version in mainland.  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2015-02-27. Score: 5

First of all, thanks to Congliu's experiment. And I think this is a very interesting question.

I found this research called *The Dynamic Statistics and Comparison of the Stroke Counts of Simplified and Traditional Chinese Characters* (<ftp://ftp.cs.sjtu.edu.cn:990/gshulun/%B7%A2%B1%ED%C2%DB%CE%C4my_published_papers/%BC%F2%BB%AF%D7%D6%D3%EB%B7%B1%CC%E5%D7%D6%B1%CA%BB%AD%CA%FD%B5%C4%B6%AF%CC%AC%CD%B3%BC%C6%D3%EB%B1%C8%BD%CF.pdf>) on Shanghai Jiao Tong University's website. I'm not sure about how serious the research was, but I think it can bring some insights to the topic.

Their findings are:

* Among 3479 high-frequency TC characters, TC characters have 2.19 (30%) more strokes than SC characters.
* For another 1128 random TC characters, the difference is 6.69 strokes.

So if we can set an average stroke speed, SC is definitely faster.

**THOUGHTS**

This is not a surprise. Intuitively, Simplified Chinese should be faster since speed its one of its purpose and it was achieved by trim down the strokes in the characters. And it is very understandable that TC users may find SC repelling. I'm a SC user (I'd like to use TC, but I think I'd better do it by formal training rather than just use the TC function in the IME which may lead to subtle misuse). But if I were a TC user, I probably would frown when I see SC as well since some of the characters I tried hard to learn had been trimmed down without inconsistently and they just look awkward. Also it would be easier to criticise something new (relatively). But process of simplification lost some of the characters origin and tradition is a fact.

But there are two sides of the story. Indeed the SC was part of the Soviet political scheme. However, I think it did benefit the population in less literal area to become semi-literal quickly. I mean, for the speed of China's economy, those people really don't have the time the differentiate the four ways to write character 茴 (look it up， it's called 茴香豆的茴字的四种写法, it's famous criticism on Chinese characters by Lu Xun). Now think about another fact: for years, college students were required to pass CET English test to graduate in Mainland China, which has been lifted just recent year. Facing a huge illiterate population who resides in poor areas, SC did help to smooth the process for making them to read and write at least and make time to learn English as well.

But this question got me to think about the current situation for SC. Today, most of us Chinese, like the rest of the world, use computers, cellphones more than ever. Personally, I only actually write when I want to practice my handwriting. Pinyin really helped in this aspect, so the writing speed in production environment seems to be less an issue. If we start switching back to TC characters now, speed wouldn't be a big problem for economy (And most people in economically developed part can read most TC). And for schoolers, they have and should spend the time to learn each characters closely. But on the other hand, TC might be too complex for displays, especially in small sizes. And SC has become part of the history and reality.

Those are my personal thoughts about the SC v.s TC issue. I know that my thought is inconclusive regarding which one is better issue. But I think it will just become part of asian history. It doesn't make any more sense than arguing which one is more correct between Japanese Kanji and Chinese Characters except in terms of politics.


---

