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.
