Sign languages do not have a written form, but are based on faceto-face communication (Peters 2000). However, the non-existence of a form of writing recognised and shared by deaf communities does not mean that sign languages are not written at all. We could consider for example SignWriting, today widely used in research, but preceded and followed in history by various other systems (see Garcia & Sallandre 2013). Alongside these notation systems, which are in some way ‘official’ because they are formally codified, there are numerous other sign writing/notation systems, individual or shared by small groups, which were born spontaneously with the aim of preserving memory (one of the main functions of writing). Among these we could mention the signs used by French deaf actors to memorise choreographies (Schetrit 2016), but also the signed notation strategies used by hearing LIS students and aspiring LIS interpreters. These systems differ significantly from each other, just as their users differ, both with respect to their position in the deaf community (fully inside or at the boundaries), and with respect to linguistic and metalinguistic awareness. The present study proposes a comparative analysis of these systems: the results allow us to observe the potential of the graphic strategies, the proximity/distance compared to the vocal language in its written form, and the ‘readability’ of the systems.