3 ms·

To be honest, I don't believe we should adapt defaults to fit a single digit percentage population. I'm not dyslexic and the fonts suggested are horrible to rea

To be honest, I don't believe we should adapt defaults to fit a single digit percentage population. I'm not dyslexic and the fonts suggested are horrible to read in my opinion. I'm totally for the option to set different fonts as default so dyslexic users have an easier life, but the global default should not be changed because of this.

AtNightWeCode 5y ago
Wrong, tools on the web should follow basic web design rules. The font should be replaced. You can not have bad UX because somebody thinks it looks cool.
rkangel 5y ago
There is an important school of design thought that you should design for the people with the biggest handicaps, and by doing that you make it the best for everyone. E.g. If you're making a car, make it easy to get in and out for the elderly and then it'll be joyously easy for everyone else. Another classic example of this is the "Oxo Good Grips" range of kitchen utensils.
- arkades 5y ago
  You’re applying it over-liberally. That school of thought is to apply accessibility features that maximize accessibility for /everyone/ - eg, automatic door openers. Features that improve accessibility for a subpopulation while decreasing it for the broader population are /not/ part of that thesis. The topic of dyslexia friendly fonts falls somewhere in between. Some fonts are considered friendlier than others and are fine for the general population (verdana), others are friendlier to dyslexics but hideous to the general population (open dyslexia). I call it a gray area because they’re ugly, and do not improve readability for the general population, but not overtly inaccessible to the general population.
wolverine876 5y ago
> I don't believe we should adapt defaults to fit a single digit percentage population. I'm not dyslexic and the fonts suggested are horrible to read in my opinion. I'm totally for the option to set different fonts as default so dyslexic users have an easier life, but the global default should not be changed because of this. This philosophy is based on the red-hot idea that the protecting the needs of someone in the majority is as important as doing it for the minority.[0] It also sets up the false dichotomy, part of the same rhetoric, that it's one or the other, them or me. It's not the same at all: The majority doesn't need protection: Almost everything is built for and by the majority; the engineers, executives, funders, and reviewers are generally in the majority; everything they do is from that perspective, automatically. Including people who aren't in the room is a real effort. Also, there's productivity, stress, and basic equality: Almost everything people in the majority encounter is built for them. If you are in the minority, your day is filled with obstacles, problems, and ignorance, which not only slows you down but wears you down; it pushes you to the margins and makes you an outsider. It's not a zero-sum tradeoff; you can help both groups. And generosity toward those who need it is a virtue; it's about justice and fairness, and their freedom to maneuver in society. I'm not sure what to call generosity toward those who have the power. [0] Really, rather than majority and minority, we should be saying those with power and those without, but that adds another dimension to the conversation.

AtNightWeCode 5y ago

Wrong, tools on the web should follow basic web design rules. The font should be replaced. You can not have bad UX because somebody thinks it looks cool.

rkangel 5y ago

There is an important school of design thought that you should design for the people with the biggest handicaps, and by doing that you make it the best for everyone. E.g. If you're making a car, make it easy to get in and out for the elderly and then it'll be joyously easy for everyone else. Another classic example of this is the "Oxo Good Grips" range of kitchen utensils.

arkades 5y ago
You’re applying it over-liberally. That school of thought is to apply accessibility features that maximize accessibility for /everyone/ - eg, automatic door openers. Features that improve accessibility for a subpopulation while decreasing it for the broader population are /not/ part of that thesis. The topic of dyslexia friendly fonts falls somewhere in between. Some fonts are considered friendlier than others and are fine for the general population (verdana), others are friendlier to dyslexics but hideous to the general population (open dyslexia). I call it a gray area because they’re ugly, and do not improve readability for the general population, but not overtly inaccessible to the general population.

wolverine876 5y ago

> I don't believe we should adapt defaults to fit a single digit percentage population. I'm not dyslexic and the fonts suggested are horrible to read in my opinion. I'm totally for the option to set different fonts as default so dyslexic users have an easier life, but the global default should not be changed because of this. This philosophy is based on the red-hot idea that the protecting the needs of someone in the majority is as important as doing it for the minority.[0] It also sets up the false dichotomy, part of the same rhetoric, that it's one or the other, them or me. It's not the same at all: The majority doesn't need protection: Almost everything is built for and by the majority; the engineers, executives, funders, and reviewers are generally in the majority; everything they do is from that perspective, automatically. Including people who aren't in the room is a real effort. Also, there's productivity, stress, and basic equality: Almost everything people in the majority encounter is built for them. If you are in the minority, your day is filled with obstacles, problems, and ignorance, which not only slows you down but wears you down; it pushes you to the margins and makes you an outsider. It's not a zero-sum tradeoff; you can help both groups. And generosity toward those who need it is a virtue; it's about justice and fairness, and their freedom to maneuver in society. I'm not sure what to call generosity toward those who have the power. [0] Really, rather than majority and minority, we should be saying those with power and those without, but that adds another dimension to the conversation.