IMO, if the solution is to use words, then What4Words would have had a word list of less than 3000, resulting in a word list with less confusable words and more accessible to children and people who struggle to read or write.
People who have trouble with spelling (such as non-native speakers of whatever language the words come from or children) may not be able to rely on word-based systems. Word-based systems are also going to be hampered by speakers of different accents.
Letter- and number-based systems are probably always going to be much more robust, especially when used with a standard phonetic alphabet[1]. There could even be a checksum letter/number to make the system even more robust. Unfortunately, such systems will never be as memorable or as easy to say as a few words (spelling issues aside).
Children, dyslexics, non-native speakers, all will have a hard time writing down many words even if they're part of the top 1000 list.
With the right word set (avoiding homophones) and the presence of autocorrect (or an input only allowing the limited word list), you could probably create a pretty resilient system if you only take the most common words (top 1k would likely be sufficient). You'll need a longer address, but remembering six words is a lot easier than remembering six letters.
Sadly, the entire concept is flawed and doomed for as long as the goons of What Three Words operate their business like a failed media company, sending out threats, falsifying legal documents to enforce takedown requests, and lawyering up to anyone who even considers applying "their" algorithm on their own. "Their" idea may be patentable in the US, but in areas of the world where there is no such patent, these goons cannot take down the competition without lying and dishonesty and they've shown to do anything to prevent any competitor from entering the market.
Code becomes longer according to the required precision, so eight digits are enough for a typical city neighborhood, ten digits goes to a 30x20m block that is good for disambiguation even in the most dense urban areas. Adding more digits will work too, but that just more work.
A typical location would be something like: fm19oc75hv
Stick with nouns? Then you can use icons as supplements. Ball, Pen, Light bulb, Burger, Guitar.
Possibly easier to translate between languages, too.
It's not spelled like it sounds, and not every English speaker (never mind people who can't speak English) is going to know how to spell it. Some may try to spell it "gitar", "geetar" or even "getar", for example. While these maybe be "obviously" wrong spelling for skilled spellers, they're not so for everyone.
Even with a simple word like "ball", it's not obvious that it should have two l's at the end. Someone might spell it "bal" when they hear it.
Spelling reform[1] movements have pointed out these and many other issues with English spelling, but unfortunately the alternatives they've come up with are just not widely known, and at least some of them still have their own problems (such as lack of standardization due to different phonemic spellings for words spoken by people with different accents).
Even were there some magical alternate spelling system for English that was widely known among English speakers, it would still be a stumbling block for people who don't know English, as would the words of any other language.. as long as there are people who don't speak that language.
So any word-based system is going to be problematic and error-prone for some people.
I'm not sure why you think that part of the comment was controversial. Certainly you would agree that the vast majority of people who don't natively speak English would be unable to spell such words as "read"?
There are cases in which non-natives might have better grasp of orthography compared to natives (which might be what GP is objecting to).
I'd be surprised if the vast majority of non native English speakers would fail to spell "read"... Otoh as a non-native, I struggle to be understood and properly differentiate letters like a-e, p-b, etc. So for that reason I use the Nato alphabet whenever I need to spell something
> There are cases in which non-natives might have better grasp of orthography compared to natives (which might be what GP is objecting to).
Certainly. Neither me, nor the "GP" to which you refer ever said anything to the contrary.
> I'd be surprised if the vast majority of non native English speakers would fail to spell "read"
Really? Depending on how you pronounce it, if they even spelled an English word, it would be "red" or "reed". Are you trolling? You do realize most people who aren't native speakers of English don't speak any English, right?
That's an excellent example to pick :)
"I find that book very hard to read" ( "An oboe is a reed instrument" )
and
"I read that book yesterday" ( "My car is red" )
Q: How do you explain to a non-native speaker how to pronounce the word 'read' when you say it aloud...
Easy! just give them some latitude and longitude coordinates and tell them to match it up on what3words.com.
IMO, they also should have built redundancy (some form of error checking at least) into the encoding.
It comes out to 4th root of ((510.1 trillion)/9) which is ~2743.8
Where it gets interesting is that it's only ~4752 for 1mx1m cells :)
Another use for `Correct Horse Battery Staple` I guess.
Something that what3words does is not have an obvious hierarchy of words (e.g. where the first one covers a larger area, and subsequent words home in). I didn't like that, but I understand why they do it - if a single word is going to cover a large area, you have to be extra careful that you don't choose something offensive for a particular region. By having no obvious structure, they get away with being less careful on the wordlist.
With a hierarchy you immediately run into, "Am I in gibbons.apple.banana or was it gibbons.apple.bandana" which is just down the road.
Without hierarchy it jumps out that one of those results is improbable if tallied with any knowledge of roughly where the person is.
To be fair, if the lookup table is created properly, the majority of habited locations should be within the first two bands, which means you're really only using 2500, or 5000 of those words. That was the whole point of the banding system, I assume.
One of the many things that really annoys me about W3W is that it sucks for actual navigation. If I am at waffle.tire.sigh is that north or south of keys.sad.tree? Am I heading in the right direction?
A "word family" is the term for the related forms of a word resulting from derivation, inflection, and other processes. Usually "conjugation" only refers to inflection of verbs whereas "declension" is used for inflection of nouns. And "lexeme" or "headword" are sometimes used to refer to some canonical form of a word family.
I wonder how many words in the english language would be left? I know the english language is massive