Inclusive Sans: Text font designed for accessibility and readability

Any font that's designed for accessibility should always run an actual study to measure whether they managed to hit their mark or not. There's countless fonts out there designed to ameliorate dyslexia and other similar conditions that are in practice actually worse than a regular font, despite best intentions. This is something you can measure, you don't have to guess.

Another great accessible font – Atkinson Hyperlegible [0]<p>[0] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brailleinstitute.org&#x2F;freefont" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brailleinstitute.org&#x2F;freefont</a>

Did anyone else find the green background and the white text clash in a way that made it difficult to read? I found that ironic given the article.

This font looks radically different on my two monitors, being significantly worse on my &#x27;standard&#x27; DPI monitor compared to my other high DPI monitor.<p>On my main, 1x monitor, the lowercase i has an anti-aliased &quot;half pixel&quot; at the bottom that extends past the baseline. A few other characters have this, but it&#x27;s especially noticable on the lowcase i.

It does look pleasant to me. But the x-height is not large enough which makes it harder to be legible on smaller text sizes. Also, lack of additional weights discourages me to use it on any webpage. I&#x27;d have given it a shot if a bold weight were also present.<p>Inter (with disambiguation features enabled) [1], Atkinson Hyperlegible [2], and IBM Plex Sans [3] are still better fonts to me.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rsms.me&#x2F;inter&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;rsms.me&#x2F;inter&#x2F;</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brailleinstitute.org&#x2F;freefont" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brailleinstitute.org&#x2F;freefont</a><p>[3]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ibm.com&#x2F;plex&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ibm.com&#x2F;plex&#x2F;</a>

&gt;Clear distinction between I, l and 1<p>The problem with that is that in this font, the l (lower case L) is just a vertical line. It&#x27;s true there is a distinction between the 3, but seeing the l on its own you can&#x27;t tell which it is.

Any reason why &quot;Pp&quot; is missing from the typeface sampler?

Another good font for this is OpenDyslexic <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opendyslexic.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opendyslexic.org&#x2F;</a>

Obligatory: the most accessible font is usually a font your readers are already familiar with. This font looks distinctive, and personally I kinda like it, but it&#x27;s not a magic wand you can wave over a document to make it more accessible.

Is there evidence that this is more legible? Because we don&#x27;t read individual characters (but chunks) so making them individually distinguishable doesn&#x27;t seem like it would have much of an effect.

It&#x27;s probably the nostalgia talking, but I miss OCR-A.

Oh wow, the text is so much easier for me to read! Thanks for sharing!

The `i&#x27; looks like an Inverted Exclamation Mark.

Where is the letter P in the second image?

This typeface bears more than a passing resemblance to Circular, whose owner is known for litigating unauthorized usage. I&#x27;m concerned this will become a problem for Inclusive Sans or its users.