|
Top-level
@abuseofnotation @Tusky no; that's personal anecdote, it's not data. Everyone already has the freedom to use what they like locally. Vendors or projects telling the public that a font improves or solves their condition when the research shows that it doesn't is different. That's spreading potentially harmful misinformation. 5 comments
@abuseofnotation @Tusky Read the actual studies linked to in the issue that I posted, then: there is no effect. I can see from your other post on this thread that you're actually getting involved to promote your own similar work. The same conditions apply. Good intentions may be nice, but making unsupported medical claims is misleading. @n8 @Tusky Not familiar with Open Dyslexiv and trying to have a go, but if we want to follow scientific standards, the claim that "there is no effect" is also misleading - that no effect was observed in a particular study does not mean that there is no effect in general. Rather we can say that the effect is not confirmed. I, personally, don't make any "medical" claims, I just summarize some of the things that I noticed and formed a hypothesis (that's part of the scientific process). Unfortunately, it has already been found that OpenDyslexic worsens readability on average for people with dyslexia compared to Arial.  @antontartz @abuseofnotation @n8 @Tusky yup. i don't know if it's because i had to learn everything about fonts so i could see not only my CMS pages but what i published on my blogs, but it gives me a headache. fonts with variability of widths & thickness like NOTO, DROID and ROBOTO is really the way to go. |
Gregory's Server
@n8 @Tusky If the percentage of people that say it helps them are statistically significant, then it *is* data.