Well, I still think Latin alphabet (or the Arabic one, but I don't know it enough to be sure about it) is more optimized / easier to grasp conceptually when you don't know the word. For example one of the compounds illustrated mixes 2 pictographs, but one is used for the meaning and the other for the sound of the final word (the "to wash oneself" example); that doesn't sound easy to me.
For reference, Chinese people think their language is very easy and that English is absurdly hard (for example, that we have an absolutely unnecessary yet mandatory number of ways to indicate tenses and plurality, and if you screw them up we think you're stupid even though there's no legitimate functional use for the differences - to say nothing of the fact that even with simple pluralisation like adding an "s", that's not one sound, that's three distinct sounds that a Chinese person would need to learn). A nationalistic Chinese on Weibo might air the opinion that the Chinese script is more optimised/easier to grasp conceptually when you aren't familiar with the concept than English, where you have to have familiarity with the suffixes and prefixes of two separate non-English languages (one of them dead!) as table stakes, plus a lot of familiarity with French. Of course, this wouldn't be correct, most people don't really understand a new word they come across in that much detail (in English or Chinese), it's just because you're not a speaker of the language and it's in a different script that it seems so hard to you. I promise you, Chinese is not objectively harder than English to learn. Chinese children have the same language development timeline as English and Arabic speakers, and Chinese scientists are very prolific and accomplished. Chinese is just quite difficult to learn for an English speaker.