[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...