Also no information on the licence that I could see.
The thing that irks me the most about Atkinson Hyperlegible is that there is no medium weight and the bold weight is way too heavy for many applications. I also just kinda like the way Inclusive Sans looks more, but the Atkinson letterforms are definitely easily identified even when blurred.
However, note that it does feature mirrored "b" and "d", which can be difficult to distinguish for people with dyslexia.
No, but only because with Javascript disabled there is literally nothing but an olive green page. Truly remarkable, given that it is supposed to be inclusive.
Edit: nor `prefers-reduced-motion`, neither.
Don't see why I should wait for images to fade in either.
On my main, 1x monitor, the lowercase i has an anti-aliased "half pixel" at the bottom that extends past the baseline. A few other characters have this, but it's especially noticable on the lowcase i.
It looks like this is the author's first attempt at making a font, though, and by that standard it's pretty good!
There are also some small technical typesetting issues in the samples, for example, by using straight quotes instead of true quotation marks in "Inclusive Feature 04".
But yes if it's her first attempt then it's quite good and I hope that with some tweaks and improvements, it will be a really good font!
Inter (with disambiguation features enabled) [1], Atkinson Hyperlegible [2], and IBM Plex Sans [3] are still better fonts to me.
The problem with that is that in this font, the l (lower case L) is just a vertical line. It's true there is a distinction between the 3, but seeing the l on its own you can't tell which it is.
I have seen that some dyslexia fonts don't seem to have an advantage from a population level, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful for some people. Unless there's evidence that people who think it's useful are actually being misled by their perception, I'd say it's not a bad idea to let people know it exists.
The default font needs to be dyslexic friendly on a dyslexic's computer if it's not already, and it should be the OS's job to ensure this.
I am afraid there's no one size fits all wrt fonts and accessibility because I suspect different conditions have different requirements, so you can't pick yourself as a web designer.
We indeed need dyslexic friendly fonts among others so dyslexic people can configure their devices with one that they like, fonts that are indeed actually proven as being effective as another commenter said. No proof: it didn't happen.
I think sans serif fonts are preferred for most screen reading because it takes effort to perceive the tiny serif details, or just the really thin lines like the horizontal in the 'e', at typical font sizes.
But there are no absolutes so fonts that try to be more legible use some tails and such to make characters distinguishable.
With screens becoming more precise, it may be less of an issue, serifs and especially horrible on low definition screens, but it's not clear they improve things on higher definition screens.
That thesis has a claim itself:
> Creating a well designed, legible typeface is therefore not about creating dissimilar characters; the aim must be to find, amongst other things, an optimal balance between uniformity and differentiation and, through that, to attain legibility
At the end of the related chapter, where the author surveys some studies about letter and word recognition. It seems like the distinctions made in this font may be informed by that kind of perspective - not that increased differentiation of characters is good on its own.
This is just at a glance but it seems there is at least a thread there to follow about evidence and reasoning.
It's not like a pizza shop or a hairdresser who never claimed that their very reason for existing and mission and product was accessibility.
This is a completely topical and fair challenge.
Weird it's not on their website, but it seems to be just a case of poor communication rather than anything nefarious.
People who can't see use the same browsers as everyone else and they run JavaScript.
https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey10/#javascript
There is no reason for Javascript to be required on that page, it is static and should be nothing more than a simple HTML file with a few images, the font and a style sheet. It is slow on a decent desktop PC with a fiber connection, I can't imagine on an old smartphone. Recently featured on HN: https://danluu.com/slow-device/
But maybe we shouldn't blame the author too much, she is using Squarespace, that's the kind of service people use when they don't want to deal with these technical details. But Squarespace should know better and be ashamed of delivering such crap to their customers.
I use uMatrix to disable most Javascript by default, and enable sources one-by-one if necessary for a web app. There’s no need to use Javascript on a blog post, certainly not to dynamically load in HTML text and images, so I generally don’t even bother to enable it, and just hit the back button.
The way I look at it is, a web interaction is a conversation: my browser asks a server for a resource, and the server returns it. This makes sense for static HTML: ‘server, please send me this blog post’; ‘sure, here you go, and here are some images or fonts or whatever to make it prettier.’ This, OTOH, feels just wrong: ‘server, please send me this blog post’; ‘sure, here is this list of instructions for you to follow to assemble to blog post.’
Web apps are fine, Javascript is fine for that. Forcing the use of Javascript to do what HTML already can do natively is just wrong.
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/01/the-unreasonable-effectiven...
Seriously, it does have use in building web apps, but the vast, vast majority of web sites I encounter should be static, or progressively enhanced.