Free Font Helps People With Dyslexia 151
Thornburg writes "There is a free font available which has been designed to make it easier for people with dyslexia to read. DailyTech has a piece which pulls together a BBC interview and blog postings by the designer, Abelardo Gonzalez, who received a C&D letter from another font designer who charges $69 for his dyslexia related font."
Uhhh well, shit. (Score:5, Informative)
Never thought I had dyslexia, never imagined I had problems reading, but holy crap reading a page in anti-dyslexia fonts like this one http://www.pixelscript.net/gilldyslexic/ is like all the words leap off the page making sudden sense in an instant.
*random expression of surprise at finding something new at age 44*
Re:Uhhh well, shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Uhhh well, shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh well a different view... (Score:5, Informative)
Probably replying to a troll, but anyway:
As a teacher, I can tell you that dyslexia is definitely not "an excuse". A pupil with dyslexia has been a member of my tutor group for the last four years. He struggles with reading, although use of a reading ruler [thedyslexiashop.co.uk] is of tremendous help. His handwriting is difficult to decipher, and contains many mirrored letters (e.g. b/d, p/q, backwards s). However that difficulty aside he is one of the most intelligent and articulate 16-year-old's I have had the pleasure of teaching.
Re:Uhhh well a different view... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always wondered why people feel the need to post shit like this. It's as though suggesting you have anything to do with teaching forces a bunch of random pricks to analyze every character you write, desperately looking for any grammatical mistakes just so they can point out "herp derp hope you don't teach English!"
We're not in class, and your response is old and tired.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they weren't talking about teaching English, or even teaching in general. They just mentioned that they were a teacher.
Re:Uhhh well a different view... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not an English teacher, although of course all teachers have a responsibility for incorporating literacy into their lessons. Strangely enough, I take far more care over my lessons than I do with Slashdot comments.
Just in case you ever do consider teaching as a career, can I recommend that you look to improve your method of giving feedback? A snarky comment is humorous, but does not maximise the potential for learning. It would be much better to write something along the lines of:
"That was a good post, and expressed your point clearly. However, you have missed a comma and used an apostrophe unnecessarily in your final sentence. Please re-write the sentence with the grammar corrected below."
This sort of formative assessment rewards the learner (with praise) for their achievement as well as providing guidance on how to improve in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of a reply would however have earned GP a snarky "You must be new here" comment in turn.
It's Slashdot. Polite feedback is generally expressed in a way that starts with "you're either an idiot or a shill, and ..." hereabouts. ~
Re: (Score:2)
> I wonder if dyslexia is like ADHD -- *everyone* has a little bit of it, and officially "having it" merely means that one has it beyond a clinically significant level.
That makes the huge and unproven assertion that everyone has some degree of ADHD. I reject that premise until it can be proven otherwise.
I'd like to help you, son... (Score:2)
But they all look alike too. You know, with all the domes and columns and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if dyslexia is like ADHD -- *everyone* has a little bit of it, ...
If you read some of the testimonials from the font website, they read as "I never thought I had dyslexia, but reading this is so much easier". I have the opposite experience, the font is as annoying as reading in comic sans, being distracting and blocky, and reminds me of some really bad home-brewed free fonts. So if the font is viewed as a test for dyslexia, making things better for diagnosed dyslexics, I sure don't see any degree of benefit at all. There are clearly normal reading people and then those wi
Re: (Score:1)
Accusing people of making excuses is just an excuse.
Re: (Score:1)
Who out there think that the whole dislexia thing is an excuse? Sort of like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
You forgot to sign your post:
Sincerely,
Mitt Romney
Re: (Score:2)
I often have the impression that people who don't spell well use dyslexia as an excuse. I am very much aware that dyslexia is a real thing and a big burden to many people, but I have seen too many university students who just are too lazy to check their spelling and then use the dyslexia excuse. So I think you have a point here, Anonymus Cow person. Having a hard time reading and spelling or being too lazy to invest time and effort into that does not make you dyslectic per se.
Re: (Score:2)
Go stand in the corner with The Earth is Flat society, and global warming deniers.
Re: (Score:2)
It would also be interesting to study if certain letter-combinations can be optimised (e.g., specialized ligatures). Or perhaps optimizations at the word-level.
Re:Uhhh well, shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Uhhh well, shit. (Score:5, Funny)
The last time I saw a web page with a narrow enough column width that I could read a line at a time was... well, do you remember Netscape Mosaic?
Re: (Score:1)
The last time I saw a web page with a narrow enough column width that I could read a line at a time was... well, do you remember Netscape Mosaic?
Hold the control key, and press plus or roll the mouse wheel upwards. HTH, HAND...
I learned to speed-read with a speed-reading machine in elementary school. I apparently automatically focus on a few words at a time, but not a whole line.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in WebKit-based browsers, that only works up to a point. Beyond a certain point, you can't zoom further without editing the page CSS because the column width extends past the edge of the window.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out http://readability.com/ [readability.com]
It's made the web readable again for me.
Re:Uhhh well, shit. (Score:5, Informative)
Eulexics prefer simple and clean sans-serifs over the spectrum from serifs to ornamental. This font distracts by its irregular features (especially noticeable in g and p).
The same applies on a larger scale where eulexics prefer undecorated text over the highlighted, underscored, colored and fontful, and a white sheet over magazine style.
Apparently dyslexics need variety, while eulexics prefer uniformity. Interesting.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, that font actually slowed me down. Maybe it helps on average, with a bigger sample on the side of dyslexic
Re: (Score:3)
Can you give me a link or something on eulexia? Googling it does not seem to give results. But I have been feeling like a white crow because of my dislike of serifs...
Re: (Score:2)
You are not alone.
Down with serifs!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you will see the testing for and the sale of tinted lens.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Groovy, Man (Score:2)
This font makes me wonder if some of the Sixties and Seventies [microsoft.com] poster designers were dyslexic.
Maybe it's just the vocabulary... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe it's just the vocabulary... (Score:5, Funny)
I typed newlines... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's your settings.
If you have "post in HTML" (or something like that) enabled, you have to put a paragraph in front of each paragraph to get a new line. Line breaks work too.
As often as I use P r e and boldface or whatever here, I should set mine back... but I code HTML a lot for work so banging out yet another paragraph tag is fast and I don't have to think about it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, I'm going to make sure that my support group DAM (Mothers Against Dyslexia) hears about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Never thought I had dyslexia, never imagined I had problems reading, but holy crap reading a page in anti-dyslexia fonts like this one http://www.pixelscript.net/gilldyslexic/ [pixelscript.net] is like all the words leap off the page making sudden sense in an instant.
I wonder how much simply the font weight (line thickness) affects here. For example, on Windows, try how much the "semi-bold" variant (included in the font) of Segoe UI makes it nicer to read.
Re: (Score:2)
The letters seem to be somewhere between a true serif and a sans serif font and the typesetter took it easy on the kerning too. I also find it amazingly easy to read, especially because it takes the "straightness" (I don't really know how to describe this) away from most of the letters, especially noticeable in the lowercase "i" and the "l". I have the feeling I can use less brain cycles on deciphering the lettering and I can focus more on the meaning. It looks ugly, and I wouldn't use it for a billboard or
Re: (Score:2)
The letters seem to be somewhere between a true serif and a sans serif font and the typesetter took it easy on the kerning too. I also find it amazingly easy to read, especially because it takes the "straightness" (I don't really know how to describe this) away from most of the letters, especially noticeable in the lowercase "i" and the "l". I have the feeling I can use less brain cycles on deciphering the lettering and I can focus more on the meaning. It looks ugly, and I wouldn't use it for a billboard or anything, but text passages are written to bring a message through and this font seems to be very good at that.
That has got to bee the ugliest, worst-kerned rendition of the letter "I", I have ever seen. It actually makes the other text less readable because it unduly distracts on account being so ill-fitting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, you designed the font, eh? ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it seems that I'm obviously not dyslexic, because I can't notice any speed improvement. It all seems the same to me.
Re: (Score:2)
That is immensely interesting. (No sarcasm)
For the sake of further experiences with the font, here is mine: I'm normally a self-proclaimed fast and proficient reader and reading this font is no different. No harder and no easier. So it does seem to have very individual and seemingly only beneficial results which is very cool.
Re: (Score:2)
If I read more than half a page I'd like totally barf.
Wohoo! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
No more comic sans? Please?
Having said this, you'll be pleased to note that yes, there is a Comic Sans Dyslexic version, with the same "weighting" as Gill Dyslexic adds to Gill.
Internet Rule 135 -- Any sufficiently bad idea provided as an example of what not to do will be done by someone, if only to say someone did it.
Internet Rule 135, Corollary A -- This goes doubly true for MMORPG players.
Re: (Score:1)
Comic sans is one of the best fonts to use for people learning English.
I'm not really sure why you're bitching about it, it's just a damned font.
Re: (Score:3)
I actually like the font, myself. The problem most people (myself included) have with it is that EVERYBODY* used it for about 3 years when setting up their first webpage.
That, animated gifs, and black backgrounds are completely ruined forever in many people's minds.
And auto-playing music, but that's inherently wrong** while the others are - in theory - possible to do correctly.
*Not actually everybody.
**I never speak in absolutes***, but auto-playing music the first time you visit a page is wrong. Always.
***
Well, it doesn't work... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm pretty severely dyslexic, and I just plain cannot read his website in that font. The weird shading from top to bottom makes it look like it's been printed on a daisywheel with the platen out of alignment.
It's so hard to read I had to turn off the stylesheet to make my way through the page.
Re: (Score:2)
Teh ehll you are ydslexic!
Re: (Score:3)
He points out in the comments on his blog post that he has not tested the font completely on Windows browsers. Apparently different browsers in Windows are rendering the font differently though, and he's working on the issue when he has time available. A specific complaint was the appearance that the font is faded at the top for some readers.
The problem very well may be render-er specific though. The assumption that not all browsers on windows are using the windows font rendering feature. I suspect that thi
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using Firefox 15 on Linux, so it's not a Windows issue.
Re: (Score:2)
well, the "secret sauce" in it _is_ the weird shading(making the letters thicker at bottom).
Re: (Score:2)
That can only mean one thing: You're CURED!
Re:Well, it doesn't work... (Score:5, Insightful)
What a shame the guy never thought to test it on any dyslexics, instead of making up a load of random shit about how he thought his font would work. I mean, that must be what happened, since you're dyslexic and you've declared that it doesn't work. And all dyslexics must all be the same, since you didn't just say "it doesn't work for me."
He more or less did say "it didn't work for me", so I fail to see why you'd treat him with sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It would be interesting to see results of blind testing of hundreds of dyslexics vs. control group, with that font and a normal one.
Re: (Score:2)
That might be hard, since part of the "blind" process should involve people not knowing which font they're looking at. The other part would be the experimenters not knowing if they're working with a dyslexic or a member of the control group, but a dyslexic is quite likely to be slower with either font (albeit quicker with the new one).
There are probably some objective ways of sorting it out - maybe some FMRI while you show words in either font will tell you how quickly the words are being understood by the
Re: (Score:2)
He more or less did say "it didn't work for me",
Look at the title and the tone of the post - it's typical of the attitude of a lot of posts around here. If an idea can't help them, it's useless. If they can't understand how something will work, it must be rubbish.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Notice the weasel words in the post, claiming that the new font works on "some" dyslexics, but never tells us how small the population is. Is it 80% of the total or one 20th of one percent? Good luck finding that useful tidbit with google, because the hack writer also never bothers to tell us the name of the factor that distinguishes between those on whom it works and those whom it doesn't. In other words, intelligent readers are too stupid to understand a new buzzword, since only doctors can understand
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
For a dyslexic friendly font that actually looks like it was designed with input from dyslexic people try Dislexie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexie [wikipedia.org]
Sock puppet much? Dyslexie is the closed-source font OpenDyslexic is based on (which you'd find if you actually read through the original link).
Torn (Score:3)
I'm torn on this. On the one hand, the OpenDyslexic guy specifically states he intended his project to infringe on the other Dyslexic fonts.
On the other hand, This Christian Boer guy comes across as having tried to stake a claim on the very idea of using a weighted font to combat Dyslexia.
On the, er, foot, the comparison image [apathyonline.net] that Boer shows off does have quite a few similarities. And beyond merely the "well duh, they're the same letters" level of similarities.
On the er, other foot, Holy cow, did not know that you cannot copyright a font. That explains all those $10 CDs with 5000 fonts on them and the like. I presume this means I can go find a copy of WildWord for free online instead of having to pay $TEXAS to replace the old digital download files I lost back in the day?
US: fonts not protected / font files are (Score:3, Informative)
see, that's were the misunderstanding lies: wikipedia summarises quite well:
Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. Typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e); Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer). However, this finding was limited in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc., wherein it was held
Re: (Score:3)
see, that's were the misunderstanding lies: wikipedia summarises quite well:
Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. Typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations, Ch 37, Sec. 202.1(e); Eltra Corp. vs. Ringer). However, this finding was limited in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc., wherein it was held that scalable computer fonts, i.e., the instructions necessary to render a typeface, constitute a "computer program" for the purposes of copyright law and hence are subject to protection. Hence the computer file(s) associated with a scalable font will generally be protected even though the specific design of the characters is not.
So in the US I would assume Boers has not claim, but you still can not distribute those CDs :)
Ah, so you can get around this copyright by simply downloading a PNG (or some form of open Vector format file) of the font, and then converting that to an actual font file?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it means that the vector description of the scalable glyphs is software. There is some justification to that, as vector drawings consist of paths that are made up of very basic instructions: start here, go there in a straight line, curve to that there using these two control points, end here.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it's the PARTICULAR vector description. A different one separately created that has the same visual result is not an infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that any vector image is considered "software" under US law?
Does it imply that you could theoretically patent it, or infringe an existing software patent by drawing or rendering a picture?
Re:US: fonts not protected / font files are (Score:4, Interesting)
As I understand it, basically, yes, so long as all you start with is the shape of the font at some size and not the specific set of points that define the lines and curves. You'll also have to choose all the kerning, tracking, and leading values, though, so it isn't quite as trivial as you seem to be suggesting. That said, some tools such as Fontographer can do a halfway decent job of guessing those values....
Re:US: fonts not protected / font files are (Score:5, Insightful)
Fonts are a lot more complicated than you think. You're not going to easily be able to convert a given imagefile into a font.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you do, with all the hard work it entails, you're good to go (in the US) even if the font is pixel-identical on all sizes to a proprietary font.
Let me clarify (Score:3, Informative)
The typeface design isn't copyrightable, the specification of that typeface *is* copyrightable. This is like saying a classical piece of music isn't copyrightable, but a recording of the BBC Symphonic Orchestra playing the classical piece *is*.
So if you printed and traced the typeface, even if the design is identical, as long as the control points, rendering hints etc. aren't the same it's not an infringement. The font file is different, the copyrightable parts are different.
Then to Christian Boers 'moral'
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. That's the reason a lot of early computer systems came with Arial as their default font. Arial = Helvetica clone, but apparently the copyright holder charged less for licenses than Helvetica's copyright holder. Later, Microsoft commissioned Verdana (Helvetica almost-clone) and Georgia (Times New Roman almost-clone) so they wouldn't have to get licenses
Verdana looks like Frutiger, not Helvetica (Score:2)
Later, Microsoft commissioned Verdana (Helvetica almost-clone) and Georgia (Times New Roman almost-clone) so they wouldn't have to get licenses for Windows' default fonts.
I thought Verdana was a "humanist" (that is, Frutiger-clone) font, not a "neogrotesque" (Helvetica-clone) font.
Re: (Score:2)
Torn? That nicely shows the problem with the whole idea of copyright.
We want to compensate people for their hard work.
But, we don't want the method of compensation interfering with progress, improvements, fair competition, distribution, and availability.
Copyright does too well at hindering adoption, and too poorly at compensation. It's become a tool to keep artists under the thumbs of powerful rent seekers. Copyright is hardly the only means of compensating artists. We can do better.
Use the font
Re: (Score:3)
Not really to infringe, but to use the technique known to be more readable to many dyslexics. In fact, he made sure NOT to infringe by re-deriving the whole thing from a free font. The similarities are necessary to the technique. Any font that applies the unusual weighting and asymmetry is going to look similar.
Not really a legal issue, but perhaps a moral one, $60 per use license is pricy for any font, and particularly for one that is meant to be assistive.
Re: (Score:2)
When you got to 'the foot', you should have used on the gripping hand [catb.org].
Ignore Christian Boer, he's an ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Your typeface doesn't look the same as his typeface. You can't copyright typefaces, and they're all derivative.
Typically what Adobe does is trademark the name, so there are many Palladins or Pallertrino's and the like, but only one Palatino (tm Adobe/Linotype).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatino
What Mr Boer is trying to do, is to bully competitors in an effort to block competition. This is not unusual. The world is full of little shits like this. You have to learn to get a thicker skin against them and just ignore him.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US. I think for this case the Spanish and Dutch laws are more relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Is this a particular provision of US law? In the UK, the design of a typeface may be protected by copyright as an artistic work. There are, however, special provisions of copyright law dealing with infringement of artistic copyright in the use of typefaces, in s54, Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 [legislation.gov.uk]:
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, in the United States, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection. Computer fonts, as a specific implementation of that typeface, however, can be protected as computer software. Though even with that in mind, people can still create visually similar work and distribute the fonts for free if they wish.
I'm more curious as to why she was quoting US law in her response to the man though regarding the C&D, opposed to Spanish law, seeing as they're both from that area.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the information — that's really appreciated. Always nice to learn something new.
I think that it is getting about time ... (Score:3)
... that frivolous sending of cease-and-desist letters would become illegal.
Frivolous C&D letters ARE illegal in some stat (Score:2)
Look up SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. A number of states now have anti-SLAPP laws, though whether this case would be covered under them would be better answered by a lawyer - like many things, it'd depend on the state statute and specifics not really mentioned here.
It might be part of the reason for dropping charging even a nominal fee for the font - becoming a non-profit activity might trigger more protection. It might even be deductible for even more tax savings than he was get
Re: (Score:2)
offtopic - web page in sig (Score:3)
offtopic -
p.s. your site expired -
NOTICE: This domain name expired on 09/23/2012 and is pending renewal or deletion.
http://kaoticevil.net/ [kaoticevil.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out he wasn't sent a C&D letter (Score:2)
The other guy sent him a D&C letter.
But I'm not sure what dilation and curettage have to do with free fonts.
Control freakery stopping a good thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of the control freakery that Amazon "needs" you can't actually read a book in it. I think Amazon and Google should get the support on this font super quick.
I am a big user of Amazon e-books and not having the ability to change the fonts kind of defeats a major selling point over old paper books. If Amazon started doing this I suspect they would be repaid several dozen times over with people who appreciate it.
I think users should be allowed to choose their own font. So what if it looks totally crap. Its personal preference and it doesn't affect anyone else. Let the "Marketing" droids go swivel.
BTW,I am a bit pissed because I never knew my reading was difficult until I used this font. It's kind of a realisation! And someone is trying to stop me being able to do things better.
I also understand that Amazon etc are working on licencing it, but if we could change our own font, we wouldn't have the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Control freakery? I really don't believe not being able to change your font is Amazon "needing to be a control freak". A good feature to have, sure, but never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity. I wouldn't be surprised if it probably never even crossed the minds of those in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
it also had a adjustable backlit indiglo display, which was only matched by this year's Nook with backlight
Re: (Score:2)
I use FBReader http://www.fbreader.org/ [fbreader.org] to read ebooks on my computer. Among many other good things (including the price: free) it has a setting to force an ebook to use the font(s) that you choose.
Team fortress 2? (Score:1)
First thing i thought of was that it looked like the Team fortress 2 fonts [teamfortress.com].
Fight lysdexia! (Score:1)
I can see why it is free (Score:1)
Compared to ( Mono || Gill ) Dyslexic it is appalling and doesn't even implement the asymmetry of letters that is key to parsing.
Thanks be to Dog! (Score:2)
We can like Yoda read better
$69 people? I smell something sinister. (Score:2)
Did you hear the one... (Score:2)
...about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac?
He used to lay awake at night wondering if there was a dog.