Interesting dilemma indeed. I should point out that in my case, I'm doing a transcription and therefore want to stay as close as possible to the original notation, which is most probably the composer's choice.
I personally think there are points to be made on both sides. Yes, in terms of readability, John's suggestion is definitely the best choice. But as a composer, I think sometimes it's worth compromising a bit of sight-readability in order to convey most clearly the musical intention. Here, I like that you can clearly see which notes are musically (in terms of phrasing / musical idea) grouped together. The idea of wanting to hear different overlapping rhythms is also made more visually obvious with the dotted 8ths rather than ties. In short, the dots are closer to the original musical intention of the composer and the ties are a compromise in order to fit this idea inside the global rhythmical structure.
It's also worth noting that this passage is written for a flute solist, that the tempo is rather slow and that the music overall seeks to eliminate any sense of steady pulse. Of course, one would never notate such an idea for an orchestra who's most likely sight-reading, nor at a fast tempo!
Here's another example found in the same piece which imo finds a great compromise between readability and musical intention/phrasing :
The beaming makes the 2 phrases clearly distinct and emphasizes the fact that the first beat is clearly the end of a phrase and has no special emphasis/accent. Yet it's still easy to decipher the rhythm (well...not harder than if it was notated conventionally imo).
That being said, for the original passage I decided to go with John's advice because I don't want to take the time to create those glyphs, haha! For those curious, this is what it sounds like : https://youtu.be/iQkSAwWwfJM?t=34
Now here's another challenge this piece is giving me.
I see 2 ways of copying this : one would be to create a long measure and place artificial barlines (using shape expressions I guess?). I've never tried that so I wonder how efficient it is at keeping the spacing good (...also what about the parts?).
The other solution would be to add extra notes in the first measure and keep the second measure empty. I did that and it seems to work pretty well, however I can't for the life of me place any shape or expression or articulation correctly on any note after the first one of that 5:6. Every time I try to drag an item around that measure it just goes berzerk and keeps jumping all over the place. It also positions differently when I click on it and when I update the layout.