She finds it very challenging to read her school textbooks, which are provided online on her Chromebook with a bad screen. I bought her paper versions of the same books.

There are more and more cases where my personal experience seems to contradict with science. And I am not sure what to make of that.

Kuster et al. (2018) — Dyslexie font does not improve reading performance Journal of Learning Disabilities.

International Dyslexia Association (IDA) — Dyslexia Basics & Reading Interventions https://dyslexiaida.org

At face value, the idea of a dyslexic font makes sense. Dyslexia was long (and incorrectly) framed as a problem of letter flipping and visual confusion, so the logic followed that heavier, more distinctive, or asymmetrical letterforms might reduce perceptual errors. But modern research paints a different picture. Studies have found that the Dyslexie font did not improve reading speed, accuracy, or comprehension compared to standard fonts (1), while broader research synthesised by the International Dyslexia Association makes clear that the primary challenges in dyslexia lie in phonological decoding and language processing, not simply confusing a b for a d [2]. Changing letter shapes alone doesn’t meaningfully address how the brain processes written language. That doesn’t make these fonts useless. Some individuals genuinely prefer them, and personal preference matters. They’ve also been valuable in prompting conversations about dyslexia, readability, and inclusive design, which is undeniably a good thing. But when dyslexic fonts are positioned in sales decks as a meaningful accessibility intervention, scepticism is warranted. If you’re serious about investing time and money in accessibility, the evidence consistently suggests that effort is far better spent on content clarity, spacing, layout, plain language, and overall usability than on a font that promises far more than it can deliver.

In short: an interesting conversation starter, but if someone’s selling it as a silver bullet, there’s a strong chance you’re being sold snake oil.

I do have two friends who like it. Maybe it's subjective?

Either way, I'm very happy people put effort in developing reading aids like this.

The more I hear about dyslexia the more it sounds like the result of not being taught to read properly rather than any kind of neurological issue.

I always assumed the visual processing limitations were part of the issue with the reversal/transcription problem. A sort of neurological sequencing disorder swapping out the correct visual sense with a mistake. Xerox style. One that the dyslexic font wouldn't help with.

If that's apparently not dyslexia, or part of their spectrum, what is it if it is a processing disorder that remains into adulthood?

They come across rather dismissively when their own links, as far as I clicked at least, were less firm. I do appreciate that visual aids hawked to parents are not going to help for this issue either. I would like a name for the thing which is so importantly not Dislexia.

There is so much bullshit out there about how kids should be taught to read, and too many schools unfortunately still use wrong methods disproven by science.

What works is phonics, old, tried and true. If your school isn't teaching it, you need to do it yourself at home or your kids risk never being good readers.

Fast forward a few years and I've had my eyes checked and found that I have mild astigmatism (0.25 left and 0.5 right).

Now I have a font that I can still read without glasses (but mostly in bed and with slightly larger text).

Therefore, the only things that will "work" for all dyslexics are things that fundamentally make reading and writing easier for everyone and not just dyslexics. So something like a font can help in the same way some fonts are easier to read than others, but the idea of a "dyslexia font" is a little silly.

So, I'm a believer