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