Every time I see a product use the awful, not-working-as-intended OpenDyslexic font I die a little. Particularly irritated with the second string ebook apps libraries use (like Boundless) that have two options: some ugly sans-serif and OpenDyslexic. They smugly thing they’re doing something useful and instead it’s the opposite.
I find it a bit ironic that a font “designed for accessibility (…)” has big images describing its features with alt text like InclusiveSans_Website9.jpg. So much to accessibility…
Both have the word “accessibility” in “web accessibility” and “reading accessibility”, but neither are the same. The author may be very unskilled in web development or not had the time to add accessibility to their website. It is an extra effort unfortunately in all cases to add accessibility. That’s just the reality. Maybe you should reach out and offer your expertise and time? I’m sure they would love to have your help! Your keen eye in web accessibility could really have an impact here!
Aw, no monospace. Unfortunate. It’d be an instant user capture for a lot of us. Otherwise looks very sensible compared to other apparently “accessible” fonts.
Oooh thanks, that’s the first font I’ve seen with code ligatures that I don’t hate! For some reason doing things like turning the two-character |> into the one-character ▷ really bugs me. Keeping it obviously two characters but drawing them more nicely together is a very nice middle ground.
I ended up using Inclusive Sans as my desktop sans serif font for some time, and I really like it. A nice bonus with it is that it happens to match heights very well with the serif and monospace fonts I use, Charis SIL and Iosevka, so I can mix the freely without having to fiddle with scaling.
I don’t have any particular reason to use an “accessible” typeface but I find this quite pleasant and readable.
This is one of the reasons I avoid changing the default font on websites I make. The dreaded “font stack” wipes out the users choice of font (unless they use something more dramatic like forcing their browser to ignore website for choices which causes other issues, mostly icon fonts). Leaving the default gives the user an elegant want to have their preferred font while still allowing overrides where it makes sense (headers, monospace for code…)
See also Atkinson Hyperlegible.
Every time I see a product use the awful, not-working-as-intended OpenDyslexic font I die a little. Particularly irritated with the second string ebook apps libraries use (like Boundless) that have two options: some ugly sans-serif and OpenDyslexic. They smugly thing they’re doing something useful and instead it’s the opposite.
Another font with a similar goal is B612 which was made for digital displays in cockpits in a research project done for Airbus
https://b612-font.com/
that’s really limited to that use case though, character-set wise
The glyphset on the site is for some reason not the full set, have a look on Google fonts where you can see more characters https://fonts.google.com/specimen/B612/glyphs?query=b612
Oh, thanks for pointing that out! I guess that might have been a later addition maybe?
I like how the L’s are more visually distinct in the hyper legible. If I vs l is gonna be ambiguous it’s just frustrating
I find it a bit ironic that a font “designed for accessibility (…)” has big images describing its features with alt text like
InclusiveSans_Website9.jpg. So much to accessibility…Both have the word “accessibility” in “web accessibility” and “reading accessibility”, but neither are the same. The author may be very unskilled in web development or not had the time to add accessibility to their website. It is an extra effort unfortunately in all cases to add accessibility. That’s just the reality. Maybe you should reach out and offer your expertise and time? I’m sure they would love to have your help! Your keen eye in web accessibility could really have an impact here!
It’s a squarespace website, for what it’s worth.
This is a poor argument to “your website boasts accessibility while being inaccessible”
What’s the argument in that sentence
It’s a gentle, if possibly slightly acidic reminder, to be a positive force in the world rather than a negative one.
Love it, particular the clarity around O/0 and I/l/1. I wonder how it would work as a monospace font for code editing.
There is virtually no distinction between l (lower case l) and | (vertical bar). So that needs to be fixed.
I’m not dyslexic, but I do love being able to tell the difference between I, l and 1.
Aw, no monospace. Unfortunate. It’d be an instant user capture for a lot of us. Otherwise looks very sensible compared to other apparently “accessible” fonts.
If you haven’t tried them, for monospace I suggest 0xProto, and the insanely customizable Iosevka.
Oooh thanks, that’s the first font I’ve seen with code ligatures that I don’t hate! For some reason doing things like turning the two-character
|>into the one-character▷really bugs me. Keeping it obviously two characters but drawing them more nicely together is a very nice middle ground.0xProto looks really dang nice. Thank you.
Looks nice. Reminds me of https://software.sil.org/andika/ which I also really like and even used for my desktop interface font for a while.
The only reason I switched to Inter was really that it harmonizes better with those annoying apps that makes it hard to change their font.
There’s a nice Andika-based font called Cadman: https://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/cadman
I ended up using Inclusive Sans as my desktop sans serif font for some time, and I really like it. A nice bonus with it is that it happens to match heights very well with the serif and monospace fonts I use, Charis SIL and Iosevka, so I can mix the freely without having to fiddle with scaling.
Why are there three a’s and three g’s?
Pretty standard for typefaces to offer alternate forms for these glyphs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allograph
I don’t have any particular reason to use an “accessible” typeface but I find this quite pleasant and readable.
This is one of the reasons I avoid changing the default font on websites I make. The dreaded “font stack” wipes out the users choice of font (unless they use something more dramatic like forcing their browser to ignore website for choices which causes other issues, mostly icon fonts). Leaving the default gives the user an elegant want to have their preferred font while still allowing overrides where it makes sense (headers, monospace for code…)