Fonts That Promise a Lot—but Do They Deliver?

A few years ago, while visiting an inclusive learning centre in Copenhagen, I noticed something unusual. Most of the printed materials were set in a font I hadn’t seen before. The letters looked heavier at the bottom, some slightly tilted. It was OpenDyslexic—promoted as a font tailored for people with dyslexia. The staff believed it made reading easier. Curious, I asked the children about it. Most shrugged. One quietly said, “I just use what I’m used to.”

The conversation stuck with me. So I started digging.

Throughout the world, educators, designers and developers are starting to integrate fonts, such as OpenDyslexic, Dyslexie, and EasyReading, into platforms, books, and tools. The fonts are supposed to be well-meaning: heavier strokes, larger curves, and more space between letters. They aim to prevent retinal flip or confusion, a typical feature of dyslexia.

But does being well-meaning translate to improved reading performance?

What the Studies Say—and Don’t Say

The research is telling. In 2017, a peer-reviewed study published in the Annals of Dyslexia tested OpenDyslexic against Arial and Times New Roman. The results? No improvement in reading speed or accuracy among students with dyslexia. In fact, many found standard fonts easier to read.

In 2018, another study evaluated the Dyslexie font. The verdict echoed the previous findings. Children with dyslexia showed no measurable benefits when using the font compared to traditional ones. What stood out was their preference: most leaned towards mainstream fonts they were already familiar with.

A detailed paper by researchers Luz Rello and Ricardo Baeza-Yates added nuance. Testing 48 participants with dyslexia, they found that reading performance was more closely tied to font familiarity than to font design. Fonts like Verdana and Helvetica performed just as well—or better—than specially created dyslexia fonts.

Across all studies reviewed, there was one clear trend: no statistical advantage to dyslexia-specific fonts.

Understanding Dyslexia Beyond Design

We need to understand dyslexia itself before we can even speculate on why a particular font does not have the desired effect whatsoever. Visual difficulties are not the primary issue in dyslexia but instead a linguistic issue with all the back-ended phonological information—the sounds, not shapes, thrown in there too.

So now, while some letters may look confusing, the core difficulty is in decoding language. This is why most of the evidence-based interventions for the remediation of dyslexia are all about phonemic awareness and structured literacy applications.

Modifying the font does not address this phonological processing difference. It is not an argument; it is validated by decades of cognitive science and educational research.

The Value of Simplicity in Typography

That doesn’t mean that font has no role to play in the matter. Legibility matters. TheBritish Dyslexia Association, among other international reading bodies, recommends fonts like Arial, Tahoma, and Verdana. These are plain, easy-to-read sans-serif typefaces.

The size of the font is crucial. Fonts that are between 12 and 14 points are always easier to process, especially when they are coupled with enough space between the lines and a clean format. Also, avoid using italics or underlining, keep everything left-aligned, and use clear section headers to maximise readability for everyone, not just for people with dyslexia.

But readability is not the same as remediation. A readable font makes text more accessible. It doesn’t teach a child how to decode unfamiliar words.

Why Brands and Platforms Are Leaning In

Educational technology companies and publishing platforms are quick to embrace inclusive design. Adding OpenDyslexic to a user interface or offering Dyslexie as a toggle option signals awareness and empathy. Globally, this trend is growing—not only in Europe but also in North America, Southeast Asia, and Australia.

Yet when form outweighs function, it’s time to ask hard questions.

Are we choosing design features that feel helpful or those that are proven to help?

If the goal is genuine support for readers with dyslexia, the focus has to shift to what works: structured instruction, early screening, and trained support staff.

Typography might be part of the accessibility conversation—but it should never be the headline.

A Design Strategy Grounded in Evidence

A clear message is being transmitted to the global brands for education, publishing, and accessibility: do not patronise the cause of clarity for the novelty. The branding of a font as dyslexia-friendly should be backed with independent research or should not be done at all.

Instead, we should encourage choice, allowing users to pick from a suite of readable font types. Clarity of the interface should be the focus. There should be no marketing language that overstresses the role of visual design as an aid for reading.

Let evidence rule the decision-making of design rather than assumptions.

Personal Preference Isn’t Performance

In user feedback sessions, some individuals say they feel more comfortable using OpenDyslexic or Dyslexie. Comfort matters. Give people a choice. But don’t mistake comfort for increased comprehension.

A 2021 study reviewed how dyslexic university students interacted with various fonts. While a minority preferred dyslexia-specific designs, their reading speed and retention didn’t change. Familiarity played a larger role in their font preferences.

One student told researchers, “I like the look of it. But when I’m revising, I go back to Calibri. It’s just easier.”

That’s an insight worth paying attention to.

Practical Decisions for Educators and Brands

If you’re working in a space where font choice matters—be it educational materials, UI/UX design, or accessibility policy—here’s what the data supports:

Stick with fonts that are clear and familiar. Avoid making unverified claims about font benefits. Always pair accessibility features with proven literacy support. Give users the tools to personalise their experience without overselling the impact.