[conistonwater]

Here is the abstract for the linked study:

> In two experiments, the claim was tested that the font “Dyslexie”, specifically designed for people with dyslexia, eases reading performance of children with (and without) dyslexia. Three questions were investigated. (1) Does the Dyslexie font lead to faster and/or more accurate reading? (2) Do children have a preference for the Dyslexie font? And, (3) is font preference related to reading performance? In Experiment 1, children with dyslexia (n = 170) did not read text written in Dyslexie font faster or more accurately than in Arial font. The majority preferred reading in Arial and preference was not related to reading performance. In Experiment 2, children with (n = 102) and without dyslexia (n = 45) read word lists in three different font types (Dyslexie, Arial, Times New Roman). Words written in Dyslexie font were not read faster or more accurately. Moreover, participants showed a preference for the fonts Arial and Times New Roman rather than Dyslexie, and again, preference was not related to reading performance. These experiments clearly justify the conclusion that the Dyslexie font neither benefits nor impedes the reading process of children with and without dyslexia.

It is not some bullshit about children's preferences, it's a pretty reasonable way to evaluate a font in a more objective setting.

[salmo]

It's one study that says that one font (not the same one) didn't appreciably help a handful of kids with and without dyslexia. It's interesting, but not enough to make any kind of generalization. Heck, without being independently reproduced, it's not enough to make its own claims.

The study used word lists vs. prose. I'm no expert, but that limits a reader's abilities for pattern recognition. Also, the age and reading experience of the reader may have bearing on the potential benefits. This just looked at children (otherwise unspecified).

To me, the interesting finding there is that preference does not correlate to speed or accuracy for the given task. It might be that even kids just pick the one they think is prettier and that even with kids most folks "like" clean-lined sans-serif.

I know design folks say that sans-serif are good for signs, titles, etc. (which would apply to bear words) and serif are better for prose. I have no idea if there's good data to back that up, though.

[klint]

Here are a couple of round-ups of studies:

https://bigelowandholmes.typepad.com/bigelow-holmes/2014/11/...

https://www.truthorfiction.com/dyslexie-font/

This study looked at OpenDyslexic, and found subjects preferred Verdana and Arial:

http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/sites/default/files/good_fonts...

Whether sans serif or serif fonts are more legible remains contested:

http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-s...

[doctor_eval]

I didn’t read the whole study but it certainly seemed flawed to me.

- dyslexia is a condition, not a disease. The underlying problem is not well understood and there are probably multiple causes. The study groups all children together as if they are identical.

- the font is successful if any child benefits from it, not if a majority or average benefit. This kind of flaw seems prevalent in many studies. If it makes reading faster for some children then it’s a benefit. It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t work for everyone.

- it doesn’t look like these tests were reading-out-loud tests, which is specifically where we have seen the most improvement. In my experience OpenDyslexic improved reading out loud which lead to improved silent reading and significantly improved comprehension over a period of weeks. The important thing here is that dyslexic children use coping mechanisms such as skimming to give the appearance of being able to read like their peers (at least this was this case for us).

Given my own personal experience in which OpenDyslexic (not Dyslexie) has been life changing for my family, the study appears to be bullshit. While I haven’t examined the study in detail, it is not clear that the findings justify the very strong claims that it makes.