> The core issue is people without familiarity with how non-native (to them) script can function - in the English centric world it means assuming one letter == one visual glyph, and the visual glyph won't get a different rendering depending on context.
English has cursive and I think most English speakers are at least aware of cursive. We have script that is designed for print as well, though, while Arabic script does not; it is always cursive.
Some have developed non-cursive Arabic script, but it hasn’t taken off.
For instance, the Simplified Arabic Alphabet was devised by Muhammad Shakeel as an alternative way to write Arabic. It is a non-cursive alphabetical script as opposed to the traditional cursive Arabic abjad. The letter shapes are based mostly on the early Arabic Jazm script. It is not connected to or inspired by Nasri Khattar's Unified Arabic script.
Interesting. I think it probably hasn't really taken off because there's not really any reason for it to at this point. We have high resolution displays and printers and software that is powerful enough to render and input regular Arabic script just fine.
There were similar issues with typing JP/KR/CN glyphs on computers for a long time which thanks to technological progress has stopped being something that needed solving.
English has cursive and I think most English speakers are at least aware of cursive. We have script that is designed for print as well, though, while Arabic script does not; it is always cursive.