|
Zorzi et al., 2012
PNAS 109(28)
Read it
|
Extra-large letter and word spacing, in an ordinary serif font |
74 children with dyslexia, aged 8 to 14, in Italy and France |
Wider spacing “substantially improved text reading” on the spot. The authors link it to crowding: letters packed close together interfere with each other more for readers with dyslexia. |
|
Rello and Baeza-Yates, 2013
ASSETS ’13, ACM
Read it
|
12 fonts, OpenDyslexic among them, with eye tracking |
48 people with dyslexia |
Sans-serif, monospaced and upright fonts did better than serif, proportional and italic ones. OpenDyslexic did no better than ordinary fonts, and readers preferred Verdana and Helvetica to it. |
|
Rello, Pielot, Marcos and Carlini, 2013
W4A ’13, ACM
Read it
|
Six text sizes and four line spacings on Wikipedia articles |
28 people with dyslexia |
The title gives it away: “Size matters (spacing not)”. Reading improved as text grew to 18 points; line spacing made no significant difference. |
|
Marinus et al., 2016
Dyslexia 22(3)
Read it
|
Dyslexie against Arial, then against Arial spaced like Dyslexie |
Children who were behind in reading |
They read about 7% more words a minute in Dyslexie than in standard Arial, but the difference was no longer significant once Arial had the same letter and word spacing. |
|
Wery and Diliberto, 2017
Annals of Dyslexia 67(2)
Read it
|
OpenDyslexic against Arial and Times New Roman |
12 students with dyslexia, aged about 9 to 12 |
No font made reading faster or more accurate. The authors: “there may be no benefit for translating print materials to this font.” A small sample, as they say themselves. |
|
Kuster et al., 2018
Annals of Dyslexia 68(1)
Read it
|
Dyslexie against Arial and Times New Roman |
170 children with dyslexia; then 102 with and 45 without |
Dyslexie neither helped nor hindered. Most children preferred Arial, and which font they preferred had nothing to do with how well they read in it. |