This volume expands the resources available for community-centred models of orthography development, contributes to the discussion of best practices, and advances the position that extralinguistic and sociocultural factors are often more relevant than linguistic ones in determining an orthography's uptake. Following previous literature (e.g. Smalley 1964; Sebba 2011; Rice & Cahill 2014), the wide-ranging introduction argues that the key to an orthography's success—the participation of those who should use it—must be central in any development process if the aim is to combat language shift by increasing literacy and expanding domains of usage. From this vantage point, the contributors present case studies from across the world, each with a unique constellation of extralinguistic considerations. Readers interested in the linguistic factors in orthography development will not be disappointed; rich discussions of these are found here as well, inseparable from social dynamics and ideological positions.

The case studies aid the reader in realizing that community concerns may, in the end, not be about literacy at all. The traditional definition of success in orthography development, often informed by the goals of linguists and policymakers, is challenged and replaced with the purposes community members have for writing their language. In Christopher Moseley's survey of thirty new orthographies (ch. 2), for example, missionary linguists report that the Tanna community in Vanuatu has little interest in expanding their native-language literacy practices into domains of everyday communication. For the Tanna, first-language literacy has long been restricted to religious activities, and they see no utility in reading or writing their language in other domains. Communities like the Rama in Nicaragua, meanwhile, use their orthography for symbolic rather than communicative functions; its purpose is to hold space in the linguistic landscape and be recognizably Rama (Bénédicte Pivot & Michel Bert, ch. 14).

A recurrent theme throughout the volume is the role of outside linguists as consultants and facilitators. In one successful example, the Tsakhur community in Azerbaijan agreed on a Roman-based orthography that avoids alienating Cyrillic users in Russia, while also adapting to accessible technologies and encouraging use by youth in everyday digital communication (Kathleen D. Sackett, ch. 5). The process of orthography development is conceptualized not as a single event, but as an on-going series of reflexive assessments. In the case of Kala Biŋatuwã in Papua New Guinea, community ownership of the orthography increases through regular focus groups where changes are introduced even after the orthography's establishment (Christine Schreyer, ch. 7). Inflexibility risks rendering an orthography unusable, which southern Sardinian speakers experienced when top-down policies standardized an orthography unrepresentative of their variety (Rosangela Lai, ch. 10). In other communities, linguistic concerns may be openly disregarded, like some Ch'orti’ Maya who prefer conventions deemed linguistically inaccurate because they succeed in ‘distanciating’ their orthography from colonially imposed precursors (Kerry Hull, ch. 8). Overall, this volume acknowledges the impossibility of prescribing remedies for the infinite combinations of extralinguistic factors that arise in orthography development. It demonstrates, primarily for outside linguists, that using dynamic community-centred frameworks can produce context-appropriate orthographies that communities can and want to use.