- From: Peter Rainger <P.F.Rainger@sussex.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:08:12 +0100
- To: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Cc: WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi, When considering readability for dyslexic learners the issues are a little more complicated than just typography. To clarify when I said "simple fonts" I mean't non-fancy/fantasy fonts. Joe states that "Simple design impedes letter recognition", this might be true for the bulk of the population, however I would assume this research did not look at the impact of visual processing difficulties on the results (a common dyslexic characteristic). I have knocked this Flash animation together to demonstrate the visual effects for some dyslexic readers. (apologies it is merely a visual animation and not accessible - see bottom of email for alternative description). http://www.techdis.ac.uk/seven/test/dyslexia-letters.html Even if a "simple font" does not provide the most optimum letter recognition accuracy there are other issues involved, including the readers preferences for a readable font. Complex fonts could can be less "friendly" than other fonts, which can put some dyslexics even off bothering to try to read something if it is not aesthetically pleasing. This may not be the science of typography but in the end practitioner based experience shows that fonts like "comic sans ms" have been found to aid some dyslexics in reading whether it is actually a placebo effect from finding it more visually appearing we don't know - but who care if it helps. No one is suggesting any one font can solve a problem - but acknowledging the experiences of real dyslexic learners is important. I would always prefer to listen to a room full of those sharing their experiences than an "expert opinion". Pete Alternative description of animation. The letters "c", "n" and "u" are very similar if you rotate them round their centre. The letters "p" and "q" are similar if you image p reflected in a mirror, the same is also true for "b" and "d" Quoting Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>: > > > This does seem an interesting font type. > > "Outright failure," you mean? > > > > Dyslexia friendly fonts generally have a simple design that aids > in > > letter recognition > > Simple design impedes letter recognition. Bet you didn't know that. > > > and this font design seems to have put a lot of > > thought into avoiding the typical dyslexic reading traits of > letter > > transposition, rotation and reflection. > > Yes, and for that reason, simplified letterforms *worsen* dyslexia. > Consider bicameral vs. unicameral _a_ and _g_. Which are really > easier to > read and harder to confuse? > > > Other "simplistic" fonts include Comic Sans MS and Sassoon - > whether or > > not the Typographers think they are "real fonts" or not. > > Of course they're "real" fonts. Comic Sans works beautifully in > Microsoft > Comic Chat, whose main instantiation these days is the comic strip > Jerkcity <http://jerkcity.com>, and works nauseatingly badly > everywhere > else. Sassoon (the Primary is best known) is a script font, which > would > hardly be considered a dyslexia aid or appliance. > > > It certainly looks a bit better than Comic Sans, > > Blunt trauma to the eyes would work better than Comic Sans. > > <http://www.bancomicsans.com/> > > You're all entitled to your opinions. I'm just looking forward to > some > that are actually informed. "I like it" and "I can read it" are not > valid > criteria. > > > -- > > Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org > Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ > <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/> > >
Received on Friday, 17 October 2003 11:14:40 UTC