When I was first reading later-medieval and 16th century English texts, I was made to pause by “trew” the first time I saw it, and not thereafter; and with that pattern learned by just one exposure to it, I didn’t blink when I came across “rewfule” for “rueful” and suchlike.
It’s human naycha. Human what? How many times do you need to see naycha in your own language before you know what it means? I do pronounce ‘r’ myself and I’d never write naycha myself, but I feel I’ve no logical or morally decent reason to censor others from using it.
Yes, if there is a pattern that is repeated across multiple texts and you are continually exposed to it, then alternative spellings aren’t a big issue. As I said, the differences between British and American spelling aren’t a big problem for readers. But that’s not what you’re advocating, which is a relaxation of standards so there will be a myriad of spelling differences, without readily discernable pattern, that readers will continually have to confront.
The example of naycha is a good one. It reflects a dialectal or slang pronunciation of the word. Does every dialect of English have its own spelling standard? That’s the case with medieval texts, and it does make them very difficult to read. For example, reading Chaucer is relatively easy. He writes in the London dialect, which is noticeably (emphasis on relatively here) familiar to today’s standard English. But switch to the contemporaneous Pearl poet, who is from the region around Chester, and you’re in for a world of trouble.
I haven’t read the Seymour paper, but from the abstract, it would seem the solution he points to is a single, standard revision of English spelling to reduce orthographic depth (i.e., bring the language closer to a one-to-one correspondence of phonemes to letters). It has to be a single, “totalitarian” standard, or otherwise readers will have difficulty every time they switch to a new writer.
For a global language like English, having a single written standard, while allowing spoken varieties to flourish, is a distinct advantage.