Re: Font accessibility

It's inappropriate to make this topic (choice of font versus other typographical aspects) an either or question.  The fact that aspect A may matter more than aspect B is no justification to not care about aspect B.

One aspect that is very often ignroed when it should not: context.

Needs of a low vision person are different  form needs of a dyslexic person. Even for people with low vision there are different types of low vision that may benefit from different (possibly mutually exclusive) aspects (I know of people who benefit from low contrast whereas others prefer as much contrast as they can get). Not a single of these variations is wrong or  irrelevant. Nonetheless it is necessary to find middle ground for a form of presentation (e.g. for print, which is obviosuly difficult to reformat; for electronic devices adjusting presentation is also often limited) that works best for most.

There are many other context aspects: type of text, situation in which text is viewed, relevance of text (e.g. emergency sign versus pharmaceutical label versus novel), apparatus used for viewing (screen, printout, with or without magnifying glass,...),  lighting, quiet environment versus 'rough' environment, ...

Also, make sure to understand that the Latin script is different from other scripts, whether CJK, Vietnames, Thai, Myanmar, ...  or whatever. There are probably more people by default using non-Latin scripts than people using Latin script... Rules may have to vary between scripts.

Olaf


> On 21. Jun 2018, at 11:28, Gijs Veyfeyken <gijs@anysurfer.be <mailto:gijs@anysurfer.be>> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Related: I've searched for an answer to the serif versus sans-serif font question in the past.
> There is no conclusive evidence from user research that I could find indicating one is better (easier to read) then the other.
> In conclusion, I pretty much agree with this article:
> https://axesslab.com/fonts-dont-matter/ <https://axesslab.com/fonts-dont-matter/>
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Gijs
> 
>> On 21 Jun 2018, at 11:12, Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com <mailto:olaflist@callassoftware.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.
>> 
>> That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.
>> 
>> It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.
>> 
>> 
>> Olaf
>> 
>> 
>>> On 21. Jun 2018, at 10:58, Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com <mailto:gian@accessibilityoz.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Gian
>>> 
>>> (Sorry for cross-posting)
>>> 
>>> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>