W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: specialised fonts Re: read regular - typeface for dyslexics

From: Tom Croucher <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:53:11 +0100
To: "'WAI-IG'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <oprw6wuxyhu930jj@mail.icet.co.uk>

While Joe could be politer about it, I think he does have a point. It is 
all very well be interested in
accessibility, but marketing something as designed for dyslexics when you 
have formal training in the issue
is inappropriate. I completely agree with any quashing of selling 
snakeoil. While personally I don't see an
impossibility with designing a font which is specifically clear, dyslexia 
is a grab bag of conditions (and
yes I am dyslexic, before you say I don't know). Making a font which is 
good for dyslexics might not be as
possible as it sounds.

In this case my reservation I think are based around the lack of 
understanding the site show generally to
suggest that the makers of this font do not work with dyslexics. Further 
more I do not think that it is
much better than many freely available fonts from people such as Ray 
Larabie who have many years in
typography (as Joe suggested I don't think this is a field you can just 
jump into, I believe it is an
aquired art).

Tom

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:12:58 -0700, Tim Roberts <tim@wiseguysonly.com> 
wrote:

>
>> Yeah, if they actually worked, and if the *users* of such fonts had
> any
>> typographic knowledge or training. Since most of them are Windows
> users,
>> the chance of that is nil.
>
> Joe, "as usual a condescending *put your own noun here*" Clark.
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 09:53:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:11 GMT