Some thoughts:

- To an outsider, Zhuyin Fuhao (注音符號) aka Bopomofo, c 1912 seems like an obvious and easy solution to the problems of the Chinese system. Yet it wasn't adopted during the simplification movement of the 1950s. Why is that? I think the reasons are complex and largely have to do with strong cultural biases towards logographs and a cultural comfort with education being the same as memorization, but other, more practical reasons may have contributed. For example, the very large number of homophones in spoken Chinese -- which are partially resolved via tones and context and unambiguously resolved by referencing the appropriate written character (do you mean this character or this one when you say that?) Chinese speakers on HN will probably be familiar with this kind of conversation clarification style.

- Korean, which has a very large number of Chinese loan words (한자어, 漢字語), but doesn't have tones to help resolve homophones, and Hangul (한글) doesn't even have different written forms, ambiguity can become problematic. Koreans will also often reference the Chinese written forms to resolve this! It's not uncommon, in formal Korean writing, to see a bit of Chinese written in parentheses next to the Hangul form to clarify the meaning. The same kind of conversation, referencing the appropriate Hanja (한자, 漢字) to sort out ambiguous homophones is also probably familiar to Korean speakers on HN.

- Knowledge of written Chinese is a social prestige marker in Asia, like knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek, and later French used to be prestige makers in the West. Men, traditional holders of most of the prestige positions have cared about these kinds of markers more, and spending lots of time and money educating girls in useless (for women) prestige things like reading/writing wasn't traditionally important. Using Chinese characters in Korea and Japan was important for social standing, and using "simple" non-Chinese systems might have been viewed as a shameful mark against...not too unlike Westerners, with perfectly fine native languages, writing to each other in French or Latin instead. For example, Isaac Newton, who I assume was perfectly capable of writing in English, wrote Principia in Latin.

- Hangul, though a 15th century invention, wasn't widely used except as a feminine script until Korean Nationalist and Identity movements in the late 19th century, intended to help cultural resist Japanese annexation pushed Hangul into prominence. During the occupation, writing in Hangul was considered a form of protest and resistance against the attempted cultural dominance of the invaders. Only Japanese was officially allowed during most of the occupation and downtown Seoul looked like a Japanese city with all of the Hiragan and Katakana on the street signs.
- Old letters in Hangul are almost exclusively written between women, or between women and men who were close to one another http://imgur.com/a/IZpqn

- Hangul underwent a number of orthographic reforms, modern Hangul is a bit different the original, losing quite a few letters, some spelling formalization and a modernization movement in the 20th century establishing many rules that school children learn today. 15th century Korean written in Hangul is about as readable to a Korean today as 15th century Chaucer written in the original English is to a native English speaker.

This frere bosteth that he knoweth helle, And God it woot, that it is litel wonder; Freres and feendes been but lyte asonder.