Greg Kearney wrote:
Another page on accessible web design this one dealing with the use of
fonts. http://www.cucat.org/projects/navigation/fonts/
Another good article Greg, to which I'd like to add a couple comments.
The article makes some specific claims about the advantages of serif
over non-serif typefaces. As far as I can tell, this is a much more
contentious topic than the article would suggest. The article states
that "Dyslexic users on the other hand need serif type to help them
distinguish letter forms." Is there research that backs up this claim?
Some other published advice disagrees:
http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/extra352.html
Again the article states that "Readers with no disability also benefit
from serifs as they read whole word shapes and serifs tend to accentuate
that feature of the word." Is this really true? Some research seems to
suggest otherwise:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.06.013
The other comment was that, IANAL, but there are legal pitfalls to
@font-face as a potential solution for rendering content in specialist
fonts designed for low-vision users. It's only useful if you have a
licence that allows you to redistribute the font. Many of the fonts in
question have licences that exclude such redistribution. For example,
the licencing for Terminal Design's fonts, apparently including
ClearviewADA, seems to exclude redistribution:
http://www.terminaldesign.com/licensing/
The same is likely to be true for all fonts that are sold. APHont seems
to be free as in beer, but it's not really clear if we are allowed to
redistribute it. To download it in the first place, you are required to
certify it will be used for low-vision users, which would seem to
militate against free redistribution.
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
