I'm uncomfortable with people publishing work like this without studies to back up whether they work for their intended audience. I'm sure the Braille Institute is expert in needs of low vision readers. And the design certainly looks promising. But AFAICT no one has studied whether this font is actually more readable. https://www.maxkohler.com/notes/2021-02-16-atkinson-hyperrea...
The mess with the popular-but-not-effective OpenDyslexic isn't good for anyone except publishers wanting to tick off an "accessibility" checkbox. (Thinking particularly of the library e-reader Axis360 which includes only two fonts; a bad regular font and a "dyslexia font". Neither are particularly readable IMHO.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629233/
To be fair, most studies on fonts, at least as they relate to reading speed, have shown that there's much more cultural variation than we realize. Different line spacing, serifs vs sans serifs, font weights, etc can all affect reading speed positively or negatively based on age of the reader or cultural background.
It turns out that the fastest fonts to read in are the ones people have practiced using the most.
Given this, perhaps a more useful metric would be the maximum reading speeds for each font. This could give us something of an idea of what is possible given sufficient proficiency.
Fonts like Atkinson Hyperlegible are very well designed around some simple but well accepted principles yet, to most people without a designer's eye, it looks like any other sans serif font
---
PS if you wanna keep up with the latest in font readability research, you should check out the Readability Consortium:
I work in this area and it's true that OD hasn't fared well in various studies, but there are some people who swear by it. When it comes to matters of cognition and perception, it's hard to say what does or does not actually make a difference for people, and what evidence should be accepted.
After enough people asked for an OD option in my browser extension (which is used heavily in the dyslexia, ADHD, and vision impaired communities, as well as by other readers), we decided to offer it. I know the science behind it is not stunning, but who am I to tell people that the thing they think helps them read does not actually help them read? Even if they read more slowly with OD than without (something I'm not sure is true for people who choose to use OD), it's possible that one might enjoy reading more with OD even if it doesn't improve reading speed.
I wholeheartedly agree with your point about companies wanting to check the box on accessibility by offering OD, and it's unfortunate more companies don't do more.
This implies there is a study showing the open dyslexic font is actually not good? I can't say that would shock me, but it is surprising that they wouldn't have done some studies to justify the claims.
Edit: the second link wasn't loading for me, so now I see the study. Bad phone internet... :( Again, still surprised they didn't have the counter study.
> Results from this alternating treatment experiment show no improvement in reading rate or accuracy for individual students with dyslexia, as well as the group as a whole.
That's the key finding. And while "no effect" may sound harmless the Discussion section of the paper highlights all the ways having a popular ineffective solution is actively harmful to people with dyslexia.
Yeah, apologies for my post before the extra links loaded for me. Definitely should have either worded it with the expectation that the link was that study, or waited.
My intent was to express that surprise that they didn't have studies showing benefit. That is, the implication that really surprised me was the reverse, that there are not studies showing it works.
The answer to the question "Was there any scientific data or studies used in the design?", which begins
"The design comes from the tradition of type design. It’s not really rocket science... " does little to inspire confidence.
As a dyslexic the mechanism for OpenDyslexic always seemed a little off for me. How does a differently shaped font help adjust for a difference in cognition?
However in this case it would seem like focusing on ensuring that the letters can be distingushed with poor vision has a more direct mechanism? - though it may be that other fonts are better
>"How does a differently shaped font help adjust for a difference in cognition?"
AIUI for some people with cognitive difficulties when using text they find orientation of glyphs (which form letter characters) to be difficult to discern, and similarities across glyphs to be confusing. Thus, if glyphs are more differentiated from one another, and if they have a non- rotationally-symmetrical shape, then letters can be easier to comprehend.
I'm curious whether fonts like Dyslexie mighty bed better for those learning to read. Children learning to read often confuse letters, b/d/p/q for example. I can see ways it could both help and hinder.
This is a tension in the field of dyslexia/reading. Most academics in the US believe that dyslexia is phonological, not visual. If this is true, then visual supports like OD would not help dyslexic readers.
Many practitioners (and researchers outside the US) have a different view, which is that there are different strains of dyslexia, and some strains are more visual than others. I've talked with SPED teachers who laughed when they heard that researchers think dyslexia is phonological, not visual.
My own belief, based on years of working in the field, is that there is a significant portion of the dyslexia population who can benefit from visual changes to text presentation. This may be a direct symptom of their dyslexia, or it may be an indirect effect of (1) having dyslexia and struggling with reading, which leads to (2) not reading as much and having less-developed pathways related to the visual aspects of reading.
But given how dyslexia is defined as a residual category (roughly: a person who has a low reading level, not caused by visual impairment or deficits in general intellectual ability), it seems highly unlikely that no people with dyslexia have any visual aspects to their condition. There may be some, or even most, for whom the condition is phonological. But reading is visual in nature, so it would be very surprising if the group of people who struggle with it didn't happen to include anyone whose difficulties are visual in nature.
Of course, one can define dyslexia more narrowly (and some do), but schools typically don't. So if a broad range of kids are diagnosed as "dyslexic" in school, then it doesn't make sense for experts to proclaim "dyslexia is never visual, and people who say otherwise are wrong!".
My experience is based on launching a speed-reading tool (on HN, of course! [1]) that ended up becoming popular in the dyslexia and ADHD communities. It is a tool that is visual in nature, and I have gotten tons of emails from people with dyslexia who describe it as life changing. Some experts believe in what we're doing, but others are completely opposed to it. The dogmatism among certain experts conflicts with what I hear from people IRL, some of whom I have literally seen brought to tears by how effective our tools are. Even if what these people have is not "dyslexia" as defined by some people, they struggle with reading and are told they are dyslexic.
The mess with the popular-but-not-effective OpenDyslexic isn't good for anyone except publishers wanting to tick off an "accessibility" checkbox. (Thinking particularly of the library e-reader Axis360 which includes only two fonts; a bad regular font and a "dyslexia font". Neither are particularly readable IMHO.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629233/