1

Maya Grigorovich-Barsky Research Seminar – EDU-607 (Fall 2013) Dean Sarah Belson December 4, 2013

The Effects of Fonts on Reading Performance for Those with Dyslexia: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Abstract

A few studies have been conducted that show evidence that document design, the presentation of

text, and font type all have a significant effect on a text's accessibility, however none of these studies

have specifically addressed the impact of the font type on reading performance for those with reading

disabilities such as dyslexia. With the introduction of fonts that are specifically designed to increase

text accessibility and readability for individuals with dyslexia, interest surrounding the idea of improving

readability through improved document design has come under consideration. This study is one of the

first to measure the effect of font type on reading speed in people with reading disabilities. The effect

was measured by asking 4 subjects officially diagnosed with dyslexia to read 9 distinct passages of text

presented in 9 different fonts. According to the data collected, sans serif, non-italicized, and

proportioned font styles only slightly improved overall reading fluency over serif, monospaced and

italic fonts. However, when asked for personal preferences, the results differed dramatically.

Keywords

Dyslexia, font types, typography, readability, legibility, text presentation, document design, accessibility

Introduction

As many as 15-20% of the world’s population have some symptoms of dyslexia, a neurological disability

which impairs a person's ability to read and write fluently (International Dyslexia Association, Fact

Sheets). These symptoms can include slow or inaccurate reading, poor spelling, poor writing, or mixing

up similar words. Not everyone who exhibits these symptoms qualify for special education and the

related accommodations, however they still may struggle with many aspects of academic learning. To

help prevent much of this struggle, it is a widely accepted believe and practice of teachers that

systematic, explicit instruction in reading and writing benefits individuals with dyslexia, however very

little research has been done to show that text presentation can be an important factor regarding

reading performance as well [Rello, Kanvinde & Baeza-Yates, 2012).

  2

While little research has been dedicated to the effects of typeface on legibility and readability of text in

adult populations, even fewer studies have been applied to these topics and how they affect children’s

reading abilities (Hughes & Wilkins, 2000). Furthermore, most research on document design has focused

on readers of average reading ability, mainly for purposes such as marketing and advertising (Schriver,

1996). But despite best intentions and quality design, the needs of those with reading disabilities such as

dyslexia have not necessarily been addressed in previous studies. Publishing companies have stylistic

guidelines, but these are often based on font types and sizes deemed most aesthetically pleasing rather

than on empirical data investigating legibility and readability (Lannon, 2000). But font type and size are

only two of many typographic parameters that affect reading performance. Others include inter-

character spacing, word spacing, line spacing, justification and line length to name a few (Tinker, 1968).

Because a large majority of teaching material (i.e., textbooks, standardized tests, literature) is still found

in printed form, it is particularly important to examine readability of printed text for children, and

specifically, children with dyslexia. Furthermore, although more material may be readily available via

electronic platforms such as tablets or e-readers, text remains the primary mode of content delivery.

Many students who struggle to learn to read are able, with appropriate instruction, to compensate for

initial reading problems by becoming accurate decoders, however many fail to reach a level of sufficient

fluency to become fast and efficient readers. Thus, the development of techniques for improving

automaticity and fluency is critical. Although current research has given us some direction about

effective methods for increasing fluency (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development,

2000), further systematic research is needed to give us more comprehensive answers to questions

concerning the best methodologies, types of materials, and length/intensity of interventions necessary

for optimal gains to increase reading fluency.

Even as knowledge about dyslexia has evolved over the past few decades, as little as 10 years ago, many

teachers did not have methods to help those with dyslexia to read effectively. This has gradually changed

and now more attention is being given to provide accommodations to these students. As a result, a few

graphic designers have architected new fonts to help with the ease of reading (Gonzalez, OpenDyslexic;

Boer, Dyslexie). One of these new typefaces is called OpenDyslexic. Introduced in 2003, OpenDyslexic is

offered as a free and open source typeface for anyone to download and use at www.OpenDyslexic.org.

However, as word spreads about this new tool, a debate is also emerging about whether a typeface such

as OpenDyslexic can really help those with dyslexia read more fluently.

  3

Abelardo Gonzalez, designer of OpenDyslexic, claims that the font increases readability for people with

dyslexia by emphasizing certain characteristics in letters such as creating heavy weighted bottoms to

indicate direction. Gonzalez argues that it is because of this emphasis of top and bottom that the reader

is more easily able to identify the directionality of the letter. Perceiving the top and bottom of the letter

aids in recognizing the correct letter, and may sometimes help prevent the brain from rotating the

character, which may be a process that individuals with dyslexia experience while reading. Gonzalez

goes on to argue that consistently weighted bottoms can also help reinforce the line of text. The unique

shapes of each letter can help prevent confusion through flipping and swapping (Gonzalez,

www.OpenDyslexic.com).

Despite the fact that there have been no known formal studies counter-arguing Gonzalez’s claims about

the benefits of using OpenDyslexic, there are those who remain skeptical of its effectiveness. A few

informal polls conducted by journalists on individuals who have experienced reading with the typeface

first hand reveal a different sentiment. In her article for the online publication of The Examiner,

(www.Examiner.com) reporter Tina Burgess interviews a teacher and a number of students with

dyslexia who have had a chance to interact with the new font, and the conclusions of her interviews

contradict what Gonzalez is asserting. When asked the question, “Does the new dyslexia font help?”

the majority of the answers indicated that in general, it didn’t help their reading abilities. Journalist

Rebecca Williams, for KnoxNews (www.KnoxNews.com), experienced similar responses. “"I thought it

was more difficult to read because I had to think about the letters more, and try to see them in the

proper order," said 14 year-old Stockton Dempster, a homeschool student with dyslexia. Another

interviewee, Emily Dempster, President of the Tennessee branch of the International Dyslexia

Association, would rather err on the side of caution over attempting another gimmick or “quick-fix.”

NBC News’ Rita Rubin also reported further skepticism from dyslexia researcher Sally Shaywitz, who

has published more than 200 scientific articles, chapters, and books about dyslexia, including the

bestselling book "Overcoming Dyslexia." Shaywitz is also a physician who co-directs the Yale Center for

Dyslexia & Creativity. In the interview, she stated that “As a scientist, I go by evidence and data, and I’m

not aware of any” to support the notion that any of the special fonts improve reading ability in dyslexics.

She points out that dyslexia is not necessarily a visual problem; some individuals affected by dyslexia

have trouble matching the letters they see on the page with the sounds those letters and combinations

of letters make. “Reversing letters is not a sure sign of dyslexia; a child can be highly dyslexic and NOT

reverse letters.”

  4

The author of this study aimed to test the claims of Gonzalez and hoped to gain a better understanding

of what those with dyslexia really need to read more fluently and with more accuracy and prosody.

Additionally, the author hoped to find conclusive data supporting the notion that readability preferences

of people with dyslexia can vary greatly, however general principles of reading preference may be

formulated. The author expected to see similar results to the study conducted by Rello and Baeza-Yates

in 2013: fonts such as Arial, Verdana, and OpenDyslexic would have higher measures of legibility over

Times New Roman, Courier, and Garamond due to their greater length of letter strokes and cleaner lines.

Additionally, the author expected that there would be a difference in results between the commonly

used sans serif fonts (Arial and Verdana) and the specially designed font, OpenDyslexic, for two reasons:

(1) the subjects would feel more comfortable reading texts presented in the widely used Arial and

Verdana due to familiarity, and (2) the monospaced characteristic of OpenDyslexic would cause greater

spacing confusion to the dyslexic reader.

Participants

Four individuals (3 female, and 1 male) participated in the study, whose ages were 11, 12, 13, and 47

years. All had a confirmed diagnosis of dyslexia. Each participant was asked to present official clinical

results proving that dyslexia had been diagnosed. Additionally, three of the four participants required

prescription eyeglasses for corrected vision, but assured the examiner that their vision was corrected-

to-normal when glasses or contacts were used. It should also be noted that the socio-economic and

family backgrounds of all of the participants were very similar, each coming from a middle-to-upper class

family, with no history of serious medical conditions, therefore it is assumed that participants had similar

exposure to all of the commonly used fonts used in the study. The one subject who may have had more

exposure to the various fonts is the one adult. Lastly, the three younger participants are currently in

school, while the adult works full time. In order to participate, all participants must have submitted a

signed consent, with parents or guardians providing assent when the participant was under 18 years of

age.

Methodology and Materials

A font is derived from combinations of several font characteristics, including serifs, stroke width and

length, and letter height and width (Lannon, 2000). A font’s legibility or readability can be studied by

either analyzing these individual characteristics or by studying differences among entire fonts (Woods,

David & Scharff, 2005). Both approaches to studying a font’s legibility have limitations and can lead to

very different conclusions. Systematically studying individual characteristics (such as stroke width or the

use of serifs) of a particular font requires manipulation of individual characteristics while holding others

  5

constant. While this approach allows direct assessment of the influences specific font characteristics

have on legibility, it often proves impractical because it may require construction of artificial fonts

(Lockhead & Crist, 1980). Fonts such as OpenDyslexic were derived from this type of study. Conversely,

studying whole fonts that have already been established, such as Times New Roman or Arial, though easily

used in practical application, limits the ability to draw generalized conclusions with respect to the

specific characteristics of that font; only fonts closely resembling the studied font may be included in the

generation of conclusions and new theories.

This study followed the whole font analysis approach described above by asking the four participants to

read nine comparable passages in varying font types. Readability was measured through fluency,

accuracy, and prosody only. At this stage of the study, comprehension was not assessed. Lastly, the

participants’ preferences were gathered with the simple closing question of “Please rate the nine font

types you read by placing them in order from easiest-to-read to hardest-to-read.” In this study, font

types served as the independent variables: Garamond, Arial, Times New Roman, Verdana, Courier,

OpenDyslexic, Arial Italic, Times New Roman Italic, and OpenDyslexic Italic (see Table 1 below).

Fonts Used in Study and Their Characteristics

Test Type Font Name Serif/

Sans Serif Monospaced Point (size) Sample Text

Font 1 Garamond Serif No 14 The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Font 2 Arial Sans Serif No 14 The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Font 3 Times New

Roman Serif No 14 The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Font 4 Verdana Sans Serif No 14 The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Font 5 Courier Serif Yes 14 The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Font 6 OpenDyslexic Sans Serif Yes 14 The quick brown fox jumps

over the lazy dog.

Font 7 Arial Italic Sans Serif No 14 The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Font 8 Times New Roman Italic

Serif No 14 The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog.

Font 9 OpenDyslexic Italic

Sans Serif Yes 14 The quick brown fox jumps

over the lazy dog.

Table 1 – Fonts used in the study.

  6

The fonts Arial, Verdana, Courier, and Times New Roman were selected due to their popularity, as they

tend to be the most common fonts people encounter (Chapman, 2011). They also are common

representatives of both serif and sans serif fonts. Additionally, after correspondence with the

Educational Testing Service (ETS), the largest private nonprofit educational testing and assessment

organization, it has been confirmed that the majority of their tests are printed in either Arial or Times

New Roman. Garamond was selected as another serif font as it seems to most closely resemble the font

used in the Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Assessment Test (see Figure 1 below). The font typeface for

the test was never confirmed, however, despite several attempts to contact the publishing company,

Riverside. OpenDyslexic was selected to test the creator’s claim that it promotes legibility and ease of

reading for those with dyslexia.

Figure 1 – Left side: Sample page from the Woodcock-Johnson III Assessment Test featuring a font similar to font type Garamond. Right side: same text transcribed in font type Garamond.

In order to ensure that the variables covered common variations in each font, the fonts were also

chosen based on the following criteria:

§ Italics served as an independent variable where the text was presented in a more “cursive”

format. Arial, Times New Roman, and OpenDyslexic were all tested in italic form.

§ Serif/San Serif served as an independent variable where the text was presented with either serifs

(small lines trailing from the edges of letters and symbols) or sans serif (typefaces without

  7

serifs). Arial, Arial Italic, Verdana, OpenDyslexic, and OpenDyslexic Italic are the three sans serif

fonts, and Times New Roman, Times New Roman Italic, Garamond, and Courier are serif font types.

§ Monospace/Proportional served as an independent variable where the text was presented using

a monospaced type, that is, a font whose letters and characters each occupy the same amount

of horizontal space, and proportional, where the text was presented using proportional fonts.

OpenDyslexic, OpenDyslexic Italic, and Courier are considered monospaced type fonts. The others

used are considered proportional fonts.

Since the overall presentation of the text may have an effect on reading speed for people with dyslexia

as well, precautions were taken to use the same layout for all of the passages. All characteristics of each

page remained constant, save for the font difference. All passages were left-justified, and all text was

printed in 14-point font size. The color that was used reflects the most frequently used in printed text:

black text on white background. All passages were presented on a single sheet of paper for reading,

with nothing else nearby to cause any distractions. Lastly, the fonts were all presented in the same

order. This order is reflected in Table 1.

Each reading was timed for 60 seconds and all passages were read in one sitting. To ensure that all texts

used in the study met the comparability requirements, the passages themselves were pulled directly

from a program called EasyCBM® (www.EasyCBM.com). EasyCBM® was designed by researchers at the

University of Oregon as an integral part of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model (Tindal & Alonzo,

2006). The assessments on the system are what is known as curriculum-based measures (CBMs). CBMs

are standardized measures that sample from a year’s worth of curriculum to assess the degree to which

students have mastered the skills and knowledge deemed critical at each grade level.

According to the authors Tindal and Alonzo, the reading tests in this system include measures of

Alphabetic Principle (Phoneme Segmenting, Letter Names), Phonics (Letter Sounds), Fluency (Word

Reading Fluency, Passage Reading Fluency), Vocabulary, and Comprehension (Multiple Choice Reading

Comprehension). These measures are based on the “Big Five” from the National Reading Panel. For this

study, only the Passage Reading Fluency test was used.

Each passage shared the following characteristics:

§ Same genre and same style

§ Similar passage length

§ Similar word length

§ Absence of numerical expressions, acronyms, and foreign words

  8

Pulling passages from a pre-established reading test helped to ensure that they would be comparable in

difficulty level, and specifically designed to test reading fluency at certain grade levels.

Sessions were one-on-one between the examiner and each participant. The sessions took place in a

quiet room, where only the examiner and the participant being tested were present, to allow for

participant concentration throughout the 30-minute period. During this time, each participant was asked

to perform two steps: (1) the participants were given specific verbal instructions along with hand cues,

and were asked to read nine separate passages out loud while the examiner recorded their readings, and

(2) each participant was asked to provide his/her preference ratings on the nine fonts by placing them in

order of preference.

As this study was designed to measure the effect of font type on reading fluency, the assessments of

reading fluency are discussed in terms of three components: (1) speed, (2) accuracy, and (3) prosody (or

expression). The CBM approach to assessment requires the reader to read grade-level text orally.

Because the assessment of each passage lasts only 60 seconds, it can be repeated in one sitting on

different passages. Although such quick assessments may not be definitive, by asking participants to read

nine separate grade-level passages for one minute each, it is possible to obtain a quick sense of their

readers' levels of accuracy, speed, and prosodic reading.

To measure a person’s oral reading speed and accuracy, researchers have developed a simple and very

brief procedure that uses passages of text to determine the number of words that a person can read

correctly in one minute. To obtain a words-correct-per-minute (WCPM) score, participants are

assessed individually as they read aloud for one minute from an unpracticed passage of text. To calculate

the WCPM score, the examiner subtracted the total number of errors from the total number of words

read during the reading time. An error includes any word that is omitted, mispronounced, or

substituted for another word. Words transposed in a phrase count as two errors (e.g., reading "laughed

and played" instead of "played and laughed"). Each time a word is read incorrectly it is counted as an

error. Words read correctly that are repeated more than once, errors self-corrected by the student,

words inserted by the reader that do not appear in the text, and words mispronounced due to dialect

or speech impairments are not counted as errors. They do, however, impact the final score since they

slow the reader down and, therefore, reduce the number of words that are read correctly in one

minute (Shinn, 1989).

  9

Although researchers such as Karen Whalley and Julie Hansen at Queensland University in Australia

would argue prosody to be important, the subjectivity of judging peoples' prosody makes it a difficult

component of fluency to study. Many researchers have focused on the more easily quantifiable

components of fluency (speed and accuracy) (Whalley & Hansen, 2006). Nevertheless, prosody should

be seen as additional and important data that can influence instructional decisions. Once a person's

reading speed and accuracy are at appropriate levels, reading with proper phrasing, expression, and

intonation should be the subsequent goal.

One reason for the lack of information about the role of prosody in reading is the technical difficulty of

measuring prosodic renderings historically. For practical reasons, fluency rating scales have often been

used in lieu of direct measurements of prosody. These scales often incorporate oblique references to

prosody as a way of distinguishing fluent from less fluent reading. For this study, to measure the quality

of a student's reading prosody, I referred to the four-level scale first developed for the 1992 National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading (Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, and Oranje,

2005). This scale focuses on the level of skill a student demonstrates in phrasing and expression while

reading aloud (see Table 2 below). After listening to participants read aloud, the reading was rated

according to the level that best describes the overall performance.

National Assessment of Educational Progress Fluency Scale

Fluent Level

4

Reads primarily in larger, meaningful phrase groups. Although some regressions, repetitions, and deviations from text may be

present, these do not appear to detract from the overall structure of the story. Preservation of the author's syntax is

consistent. Some or most of the story is read with expressive interpretation.

Fluent Level

3

Reads primarily in three- or four-word phrase groups. Some small groupings may be present. However, the majority of

phrasing seems appropriate and preserves the syntax of the author. Little or no expressive interpretation is present.

Non-

Fluent

Level

2

Reads primarily in two-word phrases with some three- or four-word groupings. Some word-by-word reading may be present.

Word groupings may seem awkward and unrelated to larger context of sentence or passage.

Non-

Fluent

Level

1

Reads primarily word-by-word. Occasional two-word or three-word phrases may occur but these are infrequent and/or they

do not preserve meaningful syntax.

Table 2 – National Assessment of Educational Progress Fluency Scale

In addition to the four-level scale above, a checklist developed by Hudson, Lane and Pullen (2005) was

also utilized when assessing the subject's prosody:

§ Student placed vocal emphasis on appropriate words.

§ Student's voice tone rose and fell at appropriate points in the text.

  10

§ Student's inflection reflected the punctuation in the text (e.g., voice tone rose near the end of a

question).

§ In narrative text with dialogue, student used appropriate vocal tone to represent characters'

mental states, such as excitement, sadness, fear, or confidence.

§ Student used punctuation to pause appropriately at phrase boundaries.

§ Student used prepositional phrases to pause appropriately at phrase boundaries.

§ Student used subject-verb divisions to pause appropriately at phrase boundaries.

§ Student used conjunctions to pause appropriately at phrase boundaries.

These scales, however useful as they may be practically, are not direct measurements of the prosodic

aspects of reading and may not disentangle the relative contributions of decoding speed and accuracy

from prosodic aspects of fluent reading.

Results

Table 3 (below) outlines the results of each of the font types when measuring words correct per minute

(WCPM) or reading speed.

Words Correct Per Minute

Test Type Font Name Serif/

Sans Serif Monospaced Point (size)

WCPM

John Doe #1 Jane Doe #1 Jane Doe #2 Jane Doe #3

Font 1

Garamond Serif No 14 116 94 158 115

Font 2 Arial Sans Serif No 14 122 99 162 120

Font 3

Times New Roman Serif No 14 118 96 161 107

Font 4 Verdana Sans Serif Yes 14 121 96 160 113

Font 5

Courier Serif Yes 14 111 95 159 105

Font 6

Open Dyslexic

Sans Serif Yes 14 113 96 159 101

Font 7 Arial Italic Sans Serif No 14 100 98 158 105

Font 8

Times New Roman Italic Serif No 14 97 93 162 103

Font 9

OpenDys. Italic

Sans Serif Yes 14 95 89 160 101

Table 3 – Study Results: Words Correct Per Minute

  11

This information is presented in the above table is presented more clearly in Chart 1 (below). As is

evident, the effect of font types on reading speed is less acute for the one adult tested. Although the

learning strategies and study approaches of typically achieving people have been studied extensively (e.g.,

Biggs, 1987; Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983), little is known about the methods that people with dyslexia

employ to cope with their academic responsibilities. The study completed by Kirby and Sylvestri (ed.) in

2008 demonstrated that postsecondary students with dyslexia report learning strategies and study

approaches that are distinct from that of other students (Kirby, Sylvestri, et. al. 2008). Based on their

conclusions, it is possible that the reading speed of the adult participant in this study may not have been

as affected as that of the younger subjects simply due to the adult having developed reading strategies

and coping mechanisms for reading. Meanwhile there are slight variations in the results for the younger

subjects. Two of the three student subjects had slightly faster reading speeds when reading texts

presented in Arial and Verdana, and slightly slower reading speeds when reading texts presented in Times

New Roman and Courier.

Chart 1 – Reading Speed for Respective Font Types

Although there are slight differences in reading speed between the sans serif fonts Arial and Verdana and

the serif fonts Times New Roman and Courier, it seems that the actual WCPM rates seem to be fairly

constant from font-to-font. However a closer look at the results reveals that font types may have a

80 90

100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170

WC

PM

Font Type

Reading Speed (Words Correct Per Minute)

John Doe #1

Jane Doe #1

Jane Doe #2 (adult)

Jane Doe #3

  12

greater impact than depicted above. If the results are presented highlighting the other factors that are

considered in reading fluency (prosody and accuracy), the impact of font types on readability is clearer.

Chart 2 (below) shows the number of errors (both uncorrected and self-corrected) each subject

committed while reading each passage in the respective font types. Although self-corrected errors are

not usually counted when calculating WCPM, they do reflect a certain amount of difficulty a reader

experiences when reading, and for the purposes of this study, including them in the number of total

errors made more accurately reflects true legibility of each font.

Chart 2 – Errors Made (including Self-Corrected) with respective font types

As is evident from Chart 2, there are clear variations in the results. When the data is presented from

this perspective, it seems that proportioned, sans serif, non-italicized fonts (Arial and Verdana) caused the

fewest amount of reading errors across the board. The font specifically designed for dyslexics,

OpenDyslexic, also seemed to help with avoiding errors for all participants except for the adult subject,

who made significantly more mistakes when reading the passage written in this font over all others save

for Times New Roman. This may be in part to the subject’s being completely unfamiliar with this font, and

having not had a chance to develop the reading strategies mentioned previously due to having never

been exposed to the font. In her familiarity study conducted in 2009, Beier was able to conclude that

immediate exposure to a font influences reading performance - her findings clearly indicate the presence

of a familiarity effect (Beier, 2009).

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16

Err

ors

Mad

e

Font Type

Errors Made (Including Self-Corrected)

John Doe #1

Jane Doe #1

Jane Doe #2 (Adult)

Jane Doe #3

  13

Table 4 (below) provides the averages for each of the categories: (1) serif versus sans serif font types,

(2) monospaced versus proportioned font types, and (3) non-italicized versus italicized font types.

Average Errors Made By Category (including self-corrected errors)

Subject Serif/Sans Serif Monospaced/Proportioned Non-Italic/Italic

Serif Sans Serif Mono Prop Non-Italic Italic

John Doe #1 8 6 6 7.6 6.8 7

Jane Doe #1 4.75 4 4 4.6 3.7 5.6

Jane Doe #2 3.75 3 3.75 3 3.5 3

Jane Doe #3 11.25 8.6 9.25 10.2 9.5 10-.3

Table 4 – Study Results: Averages errors made by category (including self-corrected errors)

As is evident from the average results, there is a significant effect on legibility when the three factors

measured are measured independently. Sans serif fonts seem to cause fewer reading errors than serif

fonts. Additionally monospaced fonts generally elicited fewer errors than proportioned fonts, and lastly,

italicized fonts proved to be more challenging to read.

Chart 3 (below) is a visual depiction of the results of serif versus sans serif font types, and compares the

average results to further illustrate impact of serif and sans serif fonts on legibility.

Chart 3 – Errors made comparing serif and sans serif font types

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Serif Fonts Sans Serif Fonts Nu

mb

er

of

Err

ors

Mad

e

Font Type Serif and Sans Serif Fonts

Errors Made (Serif vs. Sans Serif Fonts)

Jane Doe #3

Jane doe #2

Jane Doe #1

John Doe #1

  14

Chart 4 (below) illustrates the average results between monospaced and proportioned font types to

further illustrate the impact of spacing.

Chart 4 – Errors made comparing monospaced and proportioned font types

Lastly, chart 5 (below) illustrates the average results between italicized and non-italicized font types.

Chart 5 – Errors made comparing non-italicized and italicized font types

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Monospaced Proportioned

Nu

mb

er

of

Err

ors

Mad

e

Font Type Monospaced and Proportioned Fonts

Errors Made (Monospaced vs. Proportioned)

Jane Doe #3

Jane Doe #2

Jane Doe #1

John Doe #1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Non-Italicized Italicized

Nu

mb

er

of

Err

ors

Mad

e

Font Type Non-Italicized and Italicized

Errors Made (Non-Italicized vs. Italicized)

Jane Doe #3

Jane Doe #2

Jane Doe #1

John Doe #1

  15

Prosody, the defining feature of expressive reading, comprises all of the variables of timing, phrasing,

emphasis, and intonation that speakers use to help convey aspects of meaning and to make their speech

lively. Despite its presumed status as being one of the hallmarks of fluent reading, we currently know

little about the nature of reading prosody per se. To read effectively and with prosody, children must be

able to do more than decode the text and translate punctuation into speech. They must also

incorporate the ordinary rise and fall of pitch in ordinary conversation. This would include a series of

speech features that jointly would be perceived by the listener as an expressive rendering of a text

(Allington, 1983; Dowhower, 1987; Schreiber, 1980, 1987, 1991).

When considering reading styles, it must be noted that some people read more slowly, but with greater

accuracy, while others read more quickly, and make more errors. This is the case for two of the four

participants. Jane Doe #3 read at a much faster pace than did Jane Doe #2, but in doing so, often read

words incorrectly without self-correcting, or simply omitted entire words, leading to a greater number

of uncorrected errors. Chart 6 (below) depicts the participant’s prosody levels, as interpreted by the

examiner.

Chart 6 – Reading prosody

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16

Re

adin

g P

roso

dy S

cale

Font Types

Reading Prosody (Based on National Assessment of Educational Progress Fluency Scale)

Jane Doe #3

Jane Doe #2

Jane Doe #1

John Doe #1

  16

These interpretations are based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress Fluency Scale

mentioned earlier; the one adult subject scored in the highest category for each font type, however,

there was a slight effect on reading prosody for the student subjects. This of course is a subjective

interpretation conducted through the examiner’s lens. While prosody has been examined directly in a

few studies (Herman, 1985; Dowhower, 1987), this study was not designed to focus on prosody as its

own entity and so the measurements are strictly subjective.

Lastly, after reviewing the results of the subjects’ preferences, Arial and Verdana overwhelmingly were

the most favored out of all, with Courier, OpenDyslexic, and Times New Roman being the least favored.

Discussion

After reviewing the various studies on document design and analyzing the results of this quasi-

experimental study, it seems that document design for individuals with reading disorders is not strikingly

different from that for individuals without reading disabilities. Recommendations for many document

design issues are currently posted on websites created for people with dyslexia, such as “Dyslexia, The

Gift” (www.dyslexia.com/library/webdesign.htm) and the British Dyslexia Association

(www.bdadyslexia.org.uk), however it is important to note that these recommendations have not yet

been researched.

Despite not having been empirically studied from the dyslexia standpoint, it is generally accepted in the

publishing industry that the design of a document can affect its readability. Typographic factors such as

font, serifs, and point size can affect the legibility of type (van der Waarde, 1999). It is also commonly

recognized design convention that serif fonts should be sued for body text and sans serif fonts should be

used for headings and titles. The theory behind this is that serif fonts lead the eye along the page and

sans serif fonts make text stand out, so serifs aid the person when reading dense text and sans serifs pull

the reader’s eye towards the important points (Kostlenick & Roberts, 1998). It is also not known

whether the difficulties in reading associated with dyslexia originate in the perception of letters on the

page, in the conversion of letter shapes into mentally audible words, or in the processing of words in the

brain (Malatesha & Aaron, 1982). All of this research has been approached from a design perspective,

and not from an accommodations perspective.

The various results on reading performance in this study provide evidence that different font types do

indeed have an effect on readability. Overall, the participant’s reading rates when reading the passages

  17

written in the italicized fonts tended to be slower than when they read the passages written in the non-

italicized fonts, reflecting the common assumption that cursive letters are harder to read for individuals

with dyslexia. The one exception was the one adult tested, indicating that this individual may have simply

had more exposure to italicized fonts, and has adopted a strategy for reading text presented in italicized

fonts. Although texts written in sans serif, non-italicized, and proportioned fonts lead to reading with

greater prosody, there was only a slight effect on actual reading speed. Hence, conclusions involving

these particular characteristics on reading speed cannot be firmly substantiated.

Although Arial is commonly the most recommended font for printed text (British Dyslexia Association,

Evett & Brown, 2005, & Lockley, 2002), and was the preferred font of three of the four of the test

subjects, it is not possible to conclude from the results of this study that this font type leads to better

readability because there were no significant differences in reading speed and accuracy found between

Arial and the other common sans serif font Verdana. As hypothesized, the fonts designed specifically for

dyslexia, OpenDyslexic and OpenDyslexic Italic, did not lead to a better readability and in fact, for one

participant, caused greater difficulty than other more familiar fonts–a similar finding to that of Burgess’s

quick study for her article in The Examiner referenced earlier. It seems that the monospaced

characteristic of OpenDyslexic, OpenDyslexic Italic, and Courier made it more difficult for the readers to

track where they were in the passage. They claimed that the letters seemed to run together, and the

spacing between words was difficult to decipher. Lastly, the participants significantly preferred Arial,

Verdana, or Garamond for reading over Times New Roman, Courier, Times New Roman Italic, OpenDyslexic

and OpenDyslexic Italic.

While the subject’s attitudes towards the font OpenDyslexic were generally positive, all indicated that

they would not use the font if they were given a choice, simply because they believed the font

OpenDyslexic would not be well received by teachers or other students. This is an important factor for

the decision of using a font or not (Watts & Nisbet, 1974). Regardless of how effective the font may be,

if the users do not like it, the chance that the font would be used significantly decreases. What was

interesting in the responses of the subjects is that they all indicated that they would not use the font on

written assignments, because they felt that others who would have to read their work would not like

the font. This gives the impression that many people with dyslexia are concerned more about other’s

impressions, over the use of an adapted font.

People with dyslexia vary in the specific types of reading problems they face, so while one person may

need to spend time understanding each written word, another person for whom the understanding of

each word may be impossible, might need to rely on context. Therefore, it is important to note the

  18

preference of the readers. These are a few remarks made by each of the participants regarding the font

OpenDyslexic:

§ John Doe #1: “I like the spacing between the letters and the words, but I don’t like the thickness

at the bottom of the letters.”

§ Jane Doe #1: “I think I read ok with this font, but I feel more comfortable with this one

[indicating to Garamond] because this is what my school uses, and I’m used to it.”

§ Jane Doe #2: “I feel tired, but where can I get the font? I would like to try it on a longer passage

to see if I can get used to it.”

§ Jane Doe #3: “It’s Halloween font! It’s kinda hard, but I think I can do it.”

After seeing the various results from this study, it is apparent that further research on optimal

typographic design for people with dyslexia is necessary.

Conclusion

After reviewing the results of this study, it seems that font type and other design elements do in fact

play a role in the readability of documents for people with dyslexia. Many websites with information for

people with dyslexia give advice on hard copy and web design text configured for a dyslexic audience,

however the advice provided seems to be based more on personal experience and less on controlled

research. Also, it is important to note that there seems to be a very wide variety of personal preference

among people with dyslexia when it comes to page design, therefore, the information on these sites may

be confusing or even misleading for some, as it may not apply to them.

The Dyslexia The Gift website, which promotes a teaching strategy for educators of students with

dyslexia, provides information about general preferences of individuals with dyslexia. They assert that

many people with dyslexia prefer text on a colored background because it reduces contrast, and that

sans serif fonts are confusing because distinguishing a lower-case “l” from an upper-case “I” can be

difficult. However, the website also keeps a running online poll of which fonts people with dyslexia

prefer, and with 4417 total votes counted as of November 26, 2013, Arial is preferred over Times New

Roman by 51.75% to 26.53% and 15.8% for “other” and 6.63% for “no preference.” They also assert that

background patterns and images make the text difficult to read, that paragraphs should be kept short,

and that text should be left-justified.

  19

The British Dyslexia Association (BDA) provides a “Dyslexia Style Guide” on their website for dyslexic

readers, with a caveat that they supply the information without the knowledge of any empirical evidence

supporting the effects of the fonts. According to the “Dyslexia Style Guide,” sans serif fonts such as

Arial, Comic Sans, Sassoon, and Verdana should be chosen for texts printed for a dyslexic audience, and

that the point size should be a minimum of 12 or 14. Matte, off-white paper that is heavy enough to

prevent bleed-through from following pages should also be used. Line length should be limited to 60-70

characters, and lines of type should have 1.5 to 2 points of leading between them with extra space

between paragraphs. Margins should be wide and headings should be spaced out. Words should not be

underlined or in italics. Lines of text should be left-justified with an unjustified right margin. Sentences

and paragraphs should be short. The text should be direct, in plain English and, if possible, it should

involve the reader by using the second person. All relevant information should be grouped together on

the page. Page design should be simple and text should be short.

As for ideal fonts for dyslexic readers, The British Dyslexia Association lists the Microsoft Office fonts

Arial, Comic Sans, Century Gothic, Verdana and Trebuchet as being good fonts for individuals with dyslexia,

and also lists OpenDyslexic and other fonts designed specifically for dyslexia such as Lexia Readable,

Sassoon, Dyslexie, Gill Dyslexic, and Sylexiad. Lastly, although it is not empirical, the author would like to

note the comments written by a dyslexic reader, (BDA user name: Dirty Gloves) in response to the list

of suggested fonts. Dirty Gloves says:

I have difficulty reading a serif font, even though I am old enough to have

most of my early reading experience with a serif font. The serif font

significantly slows my reading, makes me have to strain so much that it tires

my brain more quickly. Also, straining to just read a serif font makes it more

difficult for me to concentrate on the actual material to understand and

remember the information.

I would like to see a clinical study with dyslexic participants and the

comparison of sans serif and serif font types. I believe almost every study in

this area has not considered the impact of typeface for the dyslexic

population.

With the incredible speed at which technology is developing, more and more attention is being drawn

to digital reading - reading on electronic devices versus traditional paper and books (Bernard &

Chaparro, Mills & Halcomb, 2002). Teachers are using more devices such as laptops, iPads, smart

  20

boards, and other electronic readers such as Kindle in their classrooms. Ray and Ray (1998) describe

adaptive technologies for the visually impaired such as screen-reading technologies that are also used by

individuals with dyslexia. Although the authors focus on online information design and screen readers

such as Kindle™ and iPad™, this author believes that much of their argument can hold true for hard

copy documents. Their arguments include: (1) keeping page layouts and designs simple, (2) developing

informative text alternatives such as figures and tables, (3) using readable fonts, (4) using high-contrast

colors, (4) keeping enhancements such as bold, underlined, and italicized texts to a minimum, and (5)

using consistent document navigation (Ray & Ray, 1998). Perhaps a further study can be conducted on

legibility of text presented on screen versus on paper, and a further study done to determine the effects

of visual distractions commonly encountered when reading on a screen (such as pop-up advertisements).

While it should be acknowledged that the sample size of this study is small, and perhaps

unrepresentative of the larger dyslexic population, the methodology and application of the study can

easily be replicated on a larger sample size to help shed more light on a generalized effect. It is the hope

of the author that the results of this study on legibility provide a foundation for further studies to build

upon when testing for readability for children. Because readability encompasses other factors, such as

leading and page layout (Tinker, 1963), additional studies should be conducted before final

recommendations can be made regarding reading material. While the fact remains that many other

characteristics must be accounted for when studying readability, the findings herein are of significant

import. After all, a word or passage cannot be read unless the letters are legible. This is of particular

importance when considering a population of readers with dyslexia. The author recommends using the

results of this study to further conduct investigations on the readability of fonts for children.

  21

References

Allington R.L. (1983). “Fluency: The neglected reading goal.” The Reading Teacher. (36): 556–561.

Beier, S. (2009). Typeface Legibility: Towards defining familiarity.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis.

Royal College of Art.

Bernard, M., Chaparro, B., Mills, M. & Halcomb, C. (2002). “Examining children’s reading

performance and preference for different computer-displayed text.” Behaviour & Information

Technology, 21(2), 87-96.

Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne, Australia: Australian

Council for Educational Research.

Boer, C. T. (2012). “Dyslexie Regular Research.” Retrieved September 18, 2013 from

http://www.studiostudio.nl/download/files/Dyslexie%20Regular%20Research%202012.pdf

Boer, C. T. (2009). Dyslexie Lettertype. Retrieved September 2013, from

http://www.studiostudio.nl/

British Dyslexia Association. Dyslexia style guide, January 2012. Retrieved November 26, 2013

from http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/

British Dyslexia Association. Typefaces for Dyslexia. Retrieved November 26, 2013 from

http://bdatech.org/what-technology/typefaces-for-dyslexia/

Burgess, T. (2012). “OpenDyslexic: Does the new Dyslexia font help?” Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/opendyslexic-does-the-new-dyslexia-font-help-review-by-teacher-

and-students

Chapman, C. (2011). “The most popular fonts used by designers.” Retrieved September 25,

2013 from http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2011/08/the-most-popular-fonts-used-by-designers/

  22

Daane, M.C., Campbell, J.R., Grigg, W.S., Goodman, M.J. & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-Grade

Students Reading Aloud: NAEP 2002 Special Study of Oral Reading (NCES 2006-469). U.S. Department

of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office.

De Leeuw, R. (2010) “Special Font for Dyslexia?” Master Thesis. Retrieved September 18, 2013

from http://www.ilo.gw.utwente.nl/ilo/attachments/032_Masterthesis_Leeuw.pdf

Dowhower S.L. (1987). “Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional readers'

fluency and comprehension.” Reading Research Quarterly. (22): 389–406.

Dyslexia The Gift. Web Design for Dyslexic Users. Retrieved November 26, 2013 from

http://www.dyslexia.com/library/webdesign.htm

Entwistle, N. J., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

Evett, L. & Brown, D. (2005). “Text formats and web design for visually impaired and dyslexic

readers-clear text for all.” Interacting with Computers, 17:453-472.

Gonzalez, A. http://opendyslexic.org/

Fiske, D. (1994). “Removing Obstacles to Easy Reading.” Technical Communication. 41(2). 269-

275.

Herman P.A. (1985). “The effect of repeated readings on reading rate, speech pauses, and word

recognition accuracy.” Reading Research Quarterly. (20): 553–555.

Hook, P. & Jones, S. (2004). “The Importance of Automaticity and Fluency for Efficient Reading

Comprehension.” Perspectives, 16-21.

Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B., and Pullen, P.C. (2005). “Reading fluency assessment and instruction:

What, why, and how?” The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702–714.

  23

Hughes, L. & Wilkins, A. (2000). “Typography in children's reading schemes may be suboptimal:

evidence from measures of reading rate.” Journal of Research in Reading, 23(3), 314-324.

International Dyslexia Association. Fact Sheets, 2011. Retrieved on November 26, 2013 from

http://www.interdys.org/ewebeditpro5/upload/DyslexiaBasicsREVMay2012.pdf

Kostlenick, C. & Roberts, D. (1998). Designing Visual Language: Strategies for Professional

Communicators. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lannon, J. M. (Ed.). (2000). Chapter 15: “Designing pages and documents.” Technical

Communication. (8:304-322) New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Lockhead, G. & Crist, W. (1980). “Making letters distinctive.” Journal of Educational Psychology,

72(4), 483-493.

Lockley, S. (2002). “Dyslexia and higher education: accessibility issues.” The Higher Education

Academy.

Malatesha, R.N. & Aaron, P.G. (1982). “Reading Disorders: Varieties and Treatments.” Academic

Press. New York.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National

Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature

on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Ray, D.S. & Ray, E.J. (1998). “Adaptive Technologies for the Visually Impaired: The Role of

Technical Communicators.” Technical Communication. 45(3), 573-579.

Rello, L. & Baeza-Yates, R. (2013). “Good Fonts for Dyslexia,” Assets. Bellevue, WA. 2013.

Rello, L., Kanvinde, G. & Baeza-Yates, R. (2012). “Layout guidelines for web text and a web

service to improve accessibility for dyslexics.” In Proc. W4A '12, Lyon, France. ACM Press.

  24

Rubin, R. (2011). “Do dyslexics need a specially designed font?” NBCNews.com. Retrieved on

November 26, 2013 from http://www.nbcnews.com/health/do-dyslexics-need-specially-designed-

font-1C6437220

Schreiber P.A. (1980). “On the acquisition of reading fluency.” Journal of Reading Behavior.

(12):177–186.

Schreiber P.A. (1987). “Prosody and structure in children's syntactic processing.” In: Horowitz

R., Samuels S.J., editors. Comprehending oral and written language. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp.

243–270.

Schreiber P.A. (1991). “Understanding prosody's role in reading acquisition.” Theory Into Practice.

(30):158–164.

Schriver, K. (1996). Dynamics in Document Design: Creating Text for Readers. Hoboken, NJ. John

Wiley and Sons.

Shinn, M.R. (1989). “Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM Screening and eligibility

procedures.” Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children, 90-129. N.Y. Guilford.

Tindal, G. & Alonzo, J. (2006) EasyCBM. Based on a federal grant for a Model Demonstration

Project on Progress Monitoring in Early Literacy in a Response to Intervention Framework:

University of Oregon.

Tinker, M. A. (1969). "Legibility of Print." Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Tinker, M. A. (1968). “Suitable typography for beginners in reading.” Education, 88(4), 317–320.

Van der Waarde, K. (1999). “Typographic Dimensions and Conventional Wiscom: A

Discrepancy?” Technical Communication, 46(1), 67-74.

Watts, L. & Nisbet, J. (1974). Legibility in children's books: A review of research. Nfer Nelson.

  25

Whalley, K. & Hansen, J. (2006). “The Role of Prosodic Sensitivity in Children’s Reading

Development.” Journal of Research in Reading, 29(3), p 288–303.

Wilkins, A., Cleave, R., Grayson, N. & Wilson, L. (2009). “Typography for Children May Be

Inappropriately Designed.” Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 11.

Williams, R. (2012). “Locals question effectiveness of fonts created for those with dyslexia.”

Knoxnews.com. Retrieved on November 26, 2013 at

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/oct/22/locals-question-effectiveness-of-fonts-created/?print=1

Woods, R., Davis, K. & Scharff, L. (2005). “Effects of Typeface and Font Size on Legibility for

Children.” American Journal of Psychological Research. 1(1).