When people talk about “dyslexic fonts”, they’re usually referring to two main players: Dyslexie (the original, proprietary font) and OpenDyslexic (its open-source cousin). We haven’t conducted a statistically representative study focused solely on dyslexic or neurodivergent users to test these fonts in isolation. However, across years of real-world user testing with diverse cohorts, one pattern has been remarkably consistent: we’ve never observed a single person choose a dyslexic font as their preference when it’s available, nor express a desire for it.
Kuster et al. (2018) — Dyslexie font does not improve reading performance
Journal of Learning Disabilities.
International Dyslexia Association (IDA) — Dyslexia Basics & Reading Interventions
https://dyslexiaida.org
At face value, the idea of a dyslexic font makes sense. Dyslexia was long (and incorrectly) framed as a problem of letter flipping and visual confusion, so the logic followed that heavier, more distinctive, or asymmetrical letterforms might reduce perceptual errors. But modern research paints a different picture. Studies have found that the Dyslexie font did not improve reading speed, accuracy, or comprehension compared to standard fonts (1), while broader research synthesised by the International Dyslexia Association makes clear that the primary challenges in dyslexia lie in phonological decoding and language processing, not simply confusing a b for a d [2]. Changing letter shapes alone doesn’t meaningfully address how the brain processes written language.
That doesn’t make these fonts useless. Some individuals genuinely prefer them, and personal preference matters. They’ve also been valuable in prompting conversations about dyslexia, readability, and inclusive design, which is undeniably a good thing. But when dyslexic fonts are positioned in sales decks as a meaningful accessibility intervention, scepticism is warranted. If you’re serious about investing time and money in accessibility, the evidence consistently suggests that effort is far better spent on content clarity, spacing, layout, plain language, and overall usability than on a font that promises far more than it can deliver.
In short: an interesting conversation starter, but if someone’s selling it as a silver bullet, there’s a strong chance you’re being sold snake oil.
Kuster et al. (2018) — Dyslexie font does not improve reading performance Journal of Learning Disabilities.
International Dyslexia Association (IDA) — Dyslexia Basics & Reading Interventions https://dyslexiaida.org
At face value, the idea of a dyslexic font makes sense. Dyslexia was long (and incorrectly) framed as a problem of letter flipping and visual confusion, so the logic followed that heavier, more distinctive, or asymmetrical letterforms might reduce perceptual errors. But modern research paints a different picture. Studies have found that the Dyslexie font did not improve reading speed, accuracy, or comprehension compared to standard fonts (1), while broader research synthesised by the International Dyslexia Association makes clear that the primary challenges in dyslexia lie in phonological decoding and language processing, not simply confusing a b for a d [2]. Changing letter shapes alone doesn’t meaningfully address how the brain processes written language. That doesn’t make these fonts useless. Some individuals genuinely prefer them, and personal preference matters. They’ve also been valuable in prompting conversations about dyslexia, readability, and inclusive design, which is undeniably a good thing. But when dyslexic fonts are positioned in sales decks as a meaningful accessibility intervention, scepticism is warranted. If you’re serious about investing time and money in accessibility, the evidence consistently suggests that effort is far better spent on content clarity, spacing, layout, plain language, and overall usability than on a font that promises far more than it can deliver.
In short: an interesting conversation starter, but if someone’s selling it as a silver bullet, there’s a strong chance you’re being sold snake oil.