Dyslexic Myths Presented as Truths

This is not my usual style, but having read the most fundamentally flawed article on Dyslexia I simple had to post this. There is so much great work out there but when someone rushes to write about a subject they have not properly researched it can create problems that become difficult to shake off. It's like bad code. Once it's live, it can spread because people trust that the work was done in the first place to ensure it it right.

Here's the article. Please read it first, then read my following comments and have a think about how damaging something like this can be.

https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2021/11/dyslexia-friendly-mode-website/

Let's start with the use of WCAG.

WCAG "foundations" are for typography only and miss out the font itself, which is the foundation issue. To quote Jared Smith, "Accessibility lipstick on a usability pig."

Stating that this is the same for all latin based languages is utterly misleading. There are lower instances of dyslexia for native German or Italian speakers because the language is more transparent, one group of glyphs, one sound one one meaning. But other languages, English being the perfect example, are opaque and therefore the connection becomes tricky between an uncertain sound an uncertain meaning. Dyslexia is an audio deficit that impacts reading and not a visual one. Please do your research.

Where did the information come from about Dyslexia, Open Dyslexic, Helvetica and Times being equal? There are some studies that show all four are sub-optimal for any reader in certain situations. There are characteristics such as contrast, spacing, counter openness etc, that are beneficial. This is the foundation issue that is brushed aside in an unproven statement.

Linking to Edoardo’s article you’ll notice that he’s equalled out the the sizes of the font’s using x-height. This is the most reliable approach for physical visual parity, so please forget pt sizes, pixels or ems, because none of them will give you a comparative physical sizing between fonts… and yet later in the article pt sizes are used.

Any quote that reads, “it seems that for some people with dyslexia...” is admitting that it is just guessing at something. Never present noncommittal guesswork as evidence, just as guesswork, which is what was intended. This is fine for discovering questions but misleading as presented as evidence for answers.

“The popularity of Comic Sans”. Yet another belter of a statement that is presented without evidence. Comic Sans is fairly popular with teachers who get evidence from memes, but as far as I’m aware there have been very few polls with dyslexic people on the subject.

The entire concept of a “dyslexia mode” is appalling. Segregated accessibility by creating “accessible alternatives” is not OK, and that by using it people identify themselves has having a specific condition you are creating further problems. Just the ethics of this drift into the realms of trying to diagnose users, similar to the objects made to detecting assistive technologies. This is medical and personal data and if it is stored in a cookie or against a profile you have GDPR and other data issues. If that data get's sold or tracked inappropriately it could lead to all sort of issues.

There is mention in the article of ligatures being an issue… in what context? Ligatures along with features like serifs can help form word shapes which are incredibly useful for long-form reading for people of all abilities. Have a look at Bookerly for Kindle and Ember for Amazon’s websites and apps… different reading experiences require different approaches to font design.

Colour Contrast for dyslexic users? As the whole subject of contrast inherent in the font’s design has been skipped over, it is then brought up for typography. We are back to the lipstick on the pig again. This also misses out the subset of people who also have Irlens syndrome, often associated with dyslexia but it is a completely different condition. There are a subset of users for whom high contrast is a barrier.

Larger font sizes… yet again another statement without evidence. There are many coping strategies such as using zoom etc. to reduce the amount on the screen, not about increasing the font for example. Dyslexia isn’t a visual condition, it’s an audio one. Us dyslexics read words and can struggle with forming the right sound, and then we add meaning to the sound. It's how we all read and for some of us it is hard to get write. Larger fonts might make a poor font choice clearer as a coping strategy, so instead choose a better font.

Extra white space… again there is no evidence presented for this and again this is an Irlens issue.

Fewer decorations or distractions… we are not getting mixed up with requirements from other cognitive groups such as ADD, ADHD or ASD. Again there is no evidence presented in the article that backs any of this up.

And the last one is a belter. “From my dyslexic reader”. To hijack and adapt a quote about autism, “if you have met one person who is dyslexic, congratulations, you have met one dyslexic person.”

You can’t extrapolate an audience need from one person’s feedback. Presenting this as evidence is great if you are designing for an audience of one person. But remember you only have one person's lived experience of the condition to go on.

Even the research quoted at the end... "A Comparative Study of Dyslexia..." is fundamentally flawed and inconclusive. There were only 27 subjects in the study, all the same age, in the same class etc. You can't extrapolate nearly 10 percent of the population from 27 people.

The problem us dyslexics have is articles like this being published. They present an inaccurate picture of the issues and the fixes, and if anything can do more harm that good, no matter how well-meaning they are.