[powersnail]

> Even if that's a "yes" for only 2% of dyslexics, then isn't that good enough? Why can't a reader decide for themselves whether they find that page easier to read than most?

If a drug cures 2% cases of cancer patients, with absolutely no downside, it wouldn't be a cure for cancer. It would be incredible, but still it cannot be claimed to be a cure for cancer.

The name and branding all suggest the font to counter dyslexia generally. That would be ridiculously misguiding if it only helps tiny fraction of dyslexia. Is it a helpful invention? But it's far from what the branding promises.

Of course readers can decide for themselves whether it works for them or not; but a misleading branding is still misleading.

[prox]

I don’t see this website claiming anything bold or misleading, the intro paragraph is very modest, and there is a HN commenter who already feels its helpful. And you don’t go around naming your domain opendyslexiafontbutforonlysomedyslexics.org

I don’t see the misleading part tbh.

[doctor_eval]

No, but if there was a free and completely harmless drug that cured cancer in 2% of cases then you’d definitely give it a shot if you had cancer.

I mean the website itself is written in its own font, it’s gonna be pretty clear to a dyslexic if it’s gonna help or not.