Interesting, I don't understand how it feels to be exposured to Cued Speech, but belive you 100%.
I myself got basic understanding of phonics by old fashioned speech training, and if I was exposured to Visual Phonics I would probably get a understanding from Visual Phonics as well. But I can't see the advantage of using Visual Phonics over speech training, though I am pondering on it's use in different cases, like people that aren't able to lipread(aprox 5-10% of the whole population, both deaf and hearing) dyxlexia, autism, downs and so on. It might have a use for people who are language delayed as well, counting deaf people.
My concern here is that research have proved that qualified bi-bi and early ASL is more than sufficent for proper language development and good literacy.
Loml is in some cases against the focus on building up a proper standard for bi-bi education, sufficent skills in ASL among tutors and help to provide deaf children with full early language stimulation with sign language. Instead loml wants us to put all our effort into NCSA Cued Speech, going against increasing correlative research about early language and education.
I would suggest people to switch over to Visual Phonics for both the sake of a newer and better system and lack of hostility against ASL. NCSA Cued Speech is a small repressive dinosaur toward deaf people, from the late only oral era when people started to realize that HA wasn't the cure after all. It have a small comback right now here on AD because some "experts" are starting to realize that CI only, then CI+AVT not was the cure after all.
