Yes, bases 12 or 6 bring only a negligible improvement over base 10, which is entirely due to the fraction 1/3 being more frequently encountered in practice than the fraction 1/5.
When the exact representation of frequently used rational numbers is irrelevant, base 2 has no competition.
If you want to represent exactly more rational numbers than with bases 2 or 10, than either base 30 shall be used (= 2 * 3 * 5) or bases that are multiples of 30, like the traditional 60 or like 240, which fits well in a byte.
Wow, they throw some serious spars at these duodecimal people:
> the problem is that Latin uses base ten, so bases larger than ten end up with names that put a bit too much of an emphasis on their relationship with decimal: undecimal, duodecimal, tridecimal, etc. people who like base twelve like to call it "dozenal" instead of "duodecimal" for this exact reason. these names are simply too biased in decimal's favor. ideally, every base should have a unique name that reflects its properties, rather than trivial information about its size.
An advantage of seximal is that it takes a lot less time to memorize the times table: there are only ten "nontrivial" entries, whereas in base ten you have 36.
