Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inclusive Sans: Text font designed for accessibility and readability

oliviaking.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Inclusive Sans: Text font designed for accessibility and readability

#31

Post by flymasterv »

jraph wrote: post #17
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #7

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's not a magic wand you can wave over a document to make it more accessible.

Yeah, on the web, just use font-family: sans-serif (or, now that browsers don't systematically default to a serif font anymore, just nothing at all) and let the user see the default font, or the font they picked. It also improves everything else in contrast with a web font: it saves bandwidth and therefore cost, it saves page load time and therefore SEO and user retention. And it's not worse, nay better, than the fon…

This font is yet another case of accessibility advocates entirely missing the point of web accessibility.

Re: Inclusive Sans: Text font designed for accessibility and readability

#32

Post by RobotToaster »

echoangle wrote: post #29
RobotToaster wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it want my e-mail? It doesn't seem very inclusive to require a signup just to download a font. Also no information on the licence that I could see.

It’s available on google fonts.

Thanks, I just saw the link further down this thread.

Weird it's not on their website, but it seems to be just a case of poor communication rather than anything nefarious.

Re: Inclusive Sans: Text font designed for accessibility and readability

#35

Post by madeofpalk »

flymasterv wrote: post #31
jraph wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, on the web, just use font-family: sans-serif (or, now that browsers don't systematically default to a serif font anymore, just nothing at all) and let the user see the default font, or the font they picked. It also improves everything else in contrast with a web font: it saves bandwidth and therefore cost, it saves page load time and therefore SEO and user retention. And it's not worse, nay better, than the fon…

This font is yet another case of accessibility advocates entirely missing the point of web accessibility.

Is it actually? Or is it a font designer, who doesn't know much about 'accessibility' give it a go?

Re: Inclusive Sans: Text font designed for accessibility and readability

#36

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

flymasterv wrote: post #31
jraph wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, on the web, just use font-family: sans-serif (or, now that browsers don't systematically default to a serif font anymore, just nothing at all) and let the user see the default font, or the font they picked. It also improves everything else in contrast with a web font: it saves bandwidth and therefore cost, it saves page load time and therefore SEO and user retention. And it's not worse, nay better, than the fon…

This font is yet another case of accessibility advocates entirely missing the point of web accessibility.

But letting the recipient’s browser decide means they wouldn’t be able to show everyone else how inclusive that are.

Re: Inclusive Sans: Text font designed for accessibility and readability

#37

Post by jcotton42 »

Etheryte wrote: post #5

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.

It is not a good sign that the first thing on that site is an eye-searing white-on-red banner.

Re: Inclusive Sans: Text font designed for accessibility and readability

#39

Post by Brian_K_White »

ppbjj wrote: post #11
kps wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not because of the hue, but because the page doesn't respect `prefers-color-scheme`, which makes it hard to take any claim of ‘accessibility’ seriously. Edit: nor `prefers-reduced-motion`, neither.

Oh, come on. They're using Squarespace. Maybe complain about the state of WYSIWYG editors before dismissing someone's work.

It doesn't matter what tools and facilities they used, they still designed and produced a web page. They are the ones who chose to use squarespace, and use that template, and be ok with the end result.

It's not like a pizza shop or a hairdresser who never claimed that their very reason for existing and mission and product was accessibility.

This is a completely topical and fair challenge.

Re: Inclusive Sans: Text font designed for accessibility and readability

#40

Post by madeofpalk »

This font looks radically different on my two monitors, being significantly worse on my 'standard' DPI monitor compared to my other high DPI monitor.

On my main, 1x monitor, the lowercase i has an anti-aliased "half pixel" at the bottom that extends past the baseline. A few other characters have this, but it's especially noticable on the lowcase i.

Post reply on HN