Perhaps you didnt understand what for everyone means. It wasn't meant literally. It's often used by programmers, even laypersons, as a short-hand for a broad audience. I've seen laypersons write pseudocode and formal specs after training. Many were also taught to use an executable form called 4GL's which still have a lot of revenue and users. COBOL was the first in this since its language let even accountants and such write programs.
Far as a learning investment, that's true for any precise notation, modeling tool, or formal language. Even English takes Americans years to learn. So, pointing out pseudocode has a learning curve like everything else doesn't invalidate my claim that it reduces detail to aid understanding and by many people.
Note: Im also not arguing group-specific pseudocodes cant be developed. Only that the normal kind is meant to be accessible and usually is.
Anyone (even lay people!) can learn how to program, anyone can learn math, anyone can learn a formal specification language. I've seen accountants learn and excel at APL, the most obtuse language ever.
So, what is "the notation that everyone can read?" Since you've claimed that it exists and is well defined, it must be describable. Surely, it isn't because this notation is different and everyone doesn't like different things?
The Pascal-looking one in the paper I cited that academic publications and classrooms have used successfully going back decades. Strange you seem so unfamiliar with it.
I'm fine with new things. That's another tangent you're on. The original one that started all this was a claim that pseudocode wasn't about broad understanding. The Pascal-like pseudocode that I've seen for over a decade now has been there for familiarity and understanding. Even lay people get it without much work. If they didn't want it comprehensible, they'd be using C language they wrote the code in or who knows what.
Now, the OP designing a new method for perceived benefits is fine. I even encourage experimentation. That's a different topic. I haven't even responded to that one that I recall. I was countering misinformation about common pseudocode. Discussing OP's would require me actually using it on a number of problems along with diverse set of others with a meta-analysis of reported pro's and con's. Obviously haven't done that... ;)
Far as a learning investment, that's true for any precise notation, modeling tool, or formal language. Even English takes Americans years to learn. So, pointing out pseudocode has a learning curve like everything else doesn't invalidate my claim that it reduces detail to aid understanding and by many people.
Note: Im also not arguing group-specific pseudocodes cant be developed. Only that the normal kind is meant to be accessible and usually is.