This all started a few of months ago when I saw this post on Reddit:

Does anyone else use Opendyslexic font?

I have never been diagnosed with dyslexia nor had any symptoms but using this font just makes reading easier. I can read for so much longer without getting tired using it. Am I dyslexic and just didn’t know it?

Putting that last sentence aside, could there be something to this? And of course While teaching a subject where heavy reading is an absolute necessity, could this be a game changer in my classroom? Could a simple change to this miracle font be a secret tool for teachers to utilize in order to increase students reading ability?

As a lover of both typefaces and universal accessibility, I was now resolute in launching my investigation, no matter the cost.

Lucky for me, the creator of OpenDyslexic, Abbie Gonzalez, was diligent in providing a section entirely dedicated to the research that both inspired and were conducted using this font (or it's more expensive cousin Dyslexie created by Christian Boer). I was surprised, though, that of the 12 studies listed, few focused solely on OpenDyslexic, and the results were mixed and hardly conclusive. Gonzalez’s honesty shines through on the page as they state that the studies were not commissioned, are not in any particular order, and some are only tangentially related to OpenDyslexic.

Here's a select few that I could find online that were relevant (with links for your convenience):

• Hoffmeister's (2016) literature review finds no evidence that dyslexia fonts bolster reading ability
• Jackson (2016) also hints that there needs to be more study on the topic, but that previous literature has found that many do not prefer dyslexia-specialized fonts.
• Broadbent (2023) was one of the few that found OpenDyslexic to significantly improve reading ability of students with and without dyslexia.

Looking at academic databases independently, similar themes arise:

• Wery & Diliberto (2017) find that OpenDyslexic may not provide benefit for readers
• Joseph & Powell (2022) found no increase in reading fluency using Dyslexie
• Kuster et al. (2018) clearly sum it up in their title "Dyslexie font does not benefit reading in children with or without dyslexia."

In Dyslexie's research page, there is a not-so-subtle insinuation that this font can do more than what can realistically be expected. Stating that the font has a "overwhelmingly positive effect" on readers, the page indicates:

72,2% of the tested persons are able to read faster with Dyslexie font
73,2% of the participants make fewer mistakes with the font
About 84,3% of the dyslectics would recommend using Dyslexie font to others

To be clear, the study referenced was from a self conducted survey of 250 people. From my perspective, it would be difficult to say anything definitive using that particular methodology, let alone to showcase on a page attempting to convince people to purchase it. Knowing that Dyslexie is for-sale for individuals and businesses, it is difficult to see their research page as anything other than a overt marketing attempt.

What was most shocking was that there is no evidence that either OpenDyslexic or Dyslexie were created in conjunction with evidence-backed research nor educational organizations or experts to guide it's creation. For a font that is geared toward assisting with the most well-known reading disorder, you would think it would be created alongside reading specialists and students.

This is not to take a stab at Gonzalez, Boer, or both of their incredibly successful work (though the marketing tactices of Boer’s Dyslexie leaves much to be desired). In fact, I adore how they designed an entire typeface to address an issue in accessibility online. I also commend Gonzalez for making this project completely open source for all to enjoy. Clearly, it struck quite a chord with it's user base, where many anecdotally swear that it improves their reading speed significantly. Despite this preference and perceived benefit, I am unconvinced as an educator that putting this font in front of students provides any reasonable benefit, and could serve as an active detriment1.

Another Miracle Font?

This is where our story should have ended. It would have been a simple cautionary tale not to take the claims of these miracle fonts at face value. But just a few weeks ago, I saw yet another post on Reddit2:

I love my Kobo Clara BW and Atkinson Hyperlegible

[...] I’ve discovered the Atkinson Hyperlegible font with this Kobo also. While not having any sight issue.. I found it amazing! [...]

And of course what piqued my interest the most:

[...] I actually read faster and I honestly have the feeling of having to focus less on the screen.

Color me skeptical.

Created in conjunction with the Braille Institute of America in 2019 with NYC design firm Applied Design Works, Atkinson Hyperlegible gets its name from BIA founder, J. Robert Atkinson. Obviously a lot of thought, care, and effort went into the design of this open source font. Though technically sans-serif, it combines both serif and sans-serif elements together in an attempt to create glyphs that are unique, unmistakable, and as the name suggests, hyperlegible to readers with low vision.

In a lecture at the Type Directors Club3, the creative leaders at Applied Design explain that they actively collaborated with people with diverse forms of low-vision and specialists to research, test, and retest Atkinson to function best with its target audience. Each iteration would lead to these experts obtaining feedback from low-vision users, which would then influence the design team’s decision making for the next version. Rinse and repeat.

In the Q&A portion after the lecture, Elliot Scott had the most salient and level-headed answer relating to our particular conversation:

To be honest, it's a typeface. It's not gonna solve like low vision all that much. It's a tool - It's one component for vision...

In the educational world, we would call Atkinson Hyperlegible a classroom intervention. Only when combined with other appropriate and targeted interventions for students with specific needs (whether low-vision, dyslexic, or otherwise) can teachers begin to move the needle on student success. This is nothing new. This is what you learned back in EDU 101. That's just good teaching and no single font can change that.

I was hard pressed to find any academic study utilizing Atkinson in the educational sphere to illustrate positive outcomes for students. To hazard a guess on the matter, I'd imagine the results would likely be at least negligible in the classroom environment, given that Atkinson (unlike Dyslexie) adheres to the common form and function of your average serif and sans-serif fonts.

In fact, I see no real problem in using Atkinson Hyperlegible tomorrow in your own lesson, as long as you level your expectations beforehand.

It has been added to Google Docs for you to use on handouts and presentations, as well as Canva if that is more your thing. At worst your Arial-inclined students may think there is a glitch with their chromebooks, and at best you make an activity more accessible for a student with low vision in a researched-backed manner. Pending further study, Atkinson Hyperlegible may not provide students with a faster reading ability (it doesn't claim to), but can at least be a net-neutral addition to your classroom.

Whether you wholeheartedly believe that one of these fonts makes you a better reader, or you simply like the aesthetic appeal, educators need to be careful with the reasoning behind making these kinds of instructional choices. Elliot Scott's emphatic rejection that a typeface will solve low-vision applies more broadly to education as a whole: There is no one panacea for better reading skills. Only when combined with researched-based practices and collective teacher efficacy can we begin to see positive change occur. It takes a village, not a font.

⛾