There are already numerous pronunciation respelling systems for English
. Making your own is just reinventing the wheel. If you're not adverse to adding new letters to the alphabet, adopt Unifon or IPA.
First, I know there are many previous proposals. There are many previous Romance conlangs, etc. as well. I really don't care, as I have never aimed to establish any actual reform. I assume the same is true of Squall. You're free to be uninterested, but it's really completely missing the point to respond to our posts by saying "just use IPA.'
Second, as Xonen mentions, you're just rehashing your previous talking points and Iinks. I'm very well aware of how English spelling works, thanks. I already told you what I think about Cut Spelling. If you want to actually engage people, why don't you discuss the merits and faults of various systems yourself in more detail rather than speaking so generally all the time.
I mean, I've seen that kind of thing before, but it's not very elegant. I hope if I was forced to write a serious spelling reform proposal, I'd be able to do better than a rehash of this.
The use of gray to indicate "silent" letters is easily missed, and difficult to use when writing.
It looks like the accents are basically just chosen on a "whatever works" basis. For example, I don't see any reason within the system for the use of an acute rather than a macron to mark "long y" (I guess it might have been due to greater availability of ý as a pre-composed character in fonts?), and the acuted vowels have no general relationship to each other. The acuted consonants don't relate, either: it makes "s" voiced, but makes "c" soft, despite the fact that soft g gets an overdot.
Using "Ä" (Jensen's symbol for the "SPA" vowel) to transcribe the first element of the "MOUTH" diphthong ("ÄÛ") seems unnecessary. And for me, it actually sounds closer to TRAP anyway. "AH-w" for "MOUTH" sounds like a German accent. I don't know if Jensen's system is consciously meant to be localized for American pronunciation, but obviously it is since he also uses "Ä" to represent the short o sound after "w" (which he apparently uses in "water").
I think the use of û for both /uː/ and /w/ is likely to cause ambiguity in at least some contexts. For example, "lingûistics" in Jensen's system could technically be pronounced as "lingoo-istics."
I also think it's a bad idea to transcribe digraphs like the "ee" in "tree" or the "ey" in "valley" with accents on both elements, rather than accenting just the first and graying the second. The "āi" in his transcription of "raise" would be ambiguous between a monosyllabic pronunciation and a disyllabic pronunciation like the one often used in "dais."
He seems to be missing a symbol for the /tʃ/ represented by "t" in words like "nature."