Font Best Practices

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Yes but that's just marketing. Sick marketing, but marketing.

Fonts for dyslexia almost always look very weird to others and cost a large amount to license yet don't have a single academic study demonstrating they work better than other sans-serif fonts. They look odd different because it makes people think that there must be a valid reason why the oddness was chosen.

The reality is dyslexia is very complex and what works well for one does not work as well for another, so someone with dyslexia needs the ability to change the fonts specified. Thus DRM that prevents altering the CSS is bad because some people need to be allowed to do just that in order to benefit from what they paid for.

Given what Amazon put into the creation of the first font--Caecilia--which was really ridiculous--I suspect that they put just as much effort into the font for Dyslexia. Either creating it, or licensing it, or research, or what-have-you.

Sure--maybe it doesn't work. But are you saying it never works? It doesn't suit anyone with dyslexia?

Hitch

[Tex2002ans]

All the more reason to leave ebooks up to the user's preferences.

[AliceWonder]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Given what Amazon put into the creation of the first font--Caecilia--which was really ridiculous--I suspect that they put just as much effort into the font for Dyslexia. Either creating it, or licensing it, or research, or what-have-you.

Sure--maybe it doesn't work. But are you saying it never works? It doesn't suit anyone with dyslexia?

Hitch

Not saying that it never works, just saying that when I asked about dyslexia in a11y groups the responses I got from academics is that there are no peer reviewed studies to back up the claims that these "special" fonts are better than just using sans-serif fonts for the body content, nor is their peer reviewed research demonstrating the odd letter shapes often used in these specialty fonts make a difference.

They can charge more by claiming it makes a difference, but the consensus seemed to be the funny shapes were more about making people believe there was science behind the font, even though there isn't. Marketing gimmick allowing them to charge a lot.

They likely are better than serif fonts, but the question is whether or not they are better than any other sans serif fonts, and that is where peer reviewed academic research is needed to substantiate the claims but doesn't seem to exist.

[lumpynose]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Given what Amazon put into the creation of the first font--Caecilia--which was really ridiculous

Hitch

Caecilia or Bookerly? My dodgy old eyes love Bookerly. I wish there was something as good that's public domain that the other ereader makers would use.

https://www.monotype.com/resources/f...caecilia-sans/

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Tex2002ans

All the more reason to leave ebooks up to the user's preferences.

True--but if there is any reason to think that the so-called Dyslexia font does work--then why not offer it? de Leeuw's study indicated that they MAY help with reading-related errors. Anecdotal information relayed by some of the studies indicated that some dyslexics like it--and given that we who don't have dyslexia get to choose our fonts, why shouldn't they?

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Not saying that it never works, just saying that when I asked about dyslexia in a11y groups the responses I got from academics is that there are no peer reviewed studies to back up the claims that these "special" fonts are better than just using sans-serif fonts for the body content, nor is their peer reviewed research demonstrating the odd letter shapes often used in these specialty fonts make a difference.

They can charge more by claiming it makes a difference, but the consensus seemed to be the funny shapes were more about making people believe there was science behind the font, even though there isn't. Marketing gimmick allowing them to charge a lot.

They likely are better than serif fonts, but the question is whether or not they are better than any other sans serif fonts, and that is where peer reviewed academic research is needed to substantiate the claims but doesn't seem to exist.

Whom is it you are saying is charging more? Who's this "they" that are charging a "lot" for the Dyslexia font? There's certainly no charge whatsoever for it on Amazon devices; is it charged for elsewhere? Open Dyslexic is a freely distributed font--which is the font on Amazon devices. As far as I know, Dyslexie--another font--is also free.

Originally Posted by lumpynose

Caecilia or Bookerly? My dodgy old eyes love Bookerly. I wish there was something as good that's public domain that the other ereader makers would use.

https://www.monotype.com/resources/f...caecilia-sans/

They put ducats into working on the final Caecilia font (not PMN) that ended up on the Kindles; the Bookerly they basically financed from the jump, AFAIK.

FWIW, I love Bookerly myself.

Hitch

[lumpynose]

Ah, ok; thanks.

[AliceWonder]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Whom is it you are saying is charging more? Who's this "they" that are charging a "lot" for the Dyslexia font? There's certainly no charge whatsoever for it on Amazon devices; is it charged for elsewhere? Open Dyslexic is a freely distributed font--which is the font on Amazon devices. As far as I know, Dyslexie--another font--is also free.

Fonts alleged to be dyslexia friendly fonts marketed for websites and for traditional book and magazine publishing (print). They aren't cheap.

I assume Amazon's is only available through their service, meaning you can't make it available in a DRM free ePub (you as the author/publisher don't actually get to license it)

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Fonts alleged to be dyslexia friendly fonts marketed for websites and for traditional book and magazine publishing (print). They aren't cheap.

I assume Amazon's is only available through their service, meaning you can't make it available in a DRM free ePub (you as the author/publisher don't actually get to license it)

Again, as I said in my post, Open Dyslexic font--the one that Amazon uses--is 100% free. Dyslexie (not the font that Amazon uses; another so-called Dyslexic-friendly font) is, I believe, $90/user, but that's to use the font on your own computer, etc.

I don't know of others--but Amazon's font is free and you can download it and use it yourself, on websites, etc. It's not created BY Amazon, it was created by someone else and you can have it for the asking: https://opendyslexic.org/

Read Regular is also free. I'm not 100% sure about Sylexiad, but it seems to be freely downloadable, too.

So, other than the Dyslexie font, it seems that they are all quite free.

Hitch

[AliceWonder]

That particular font though wouldn't be seriously considered except for special purposes because it isn't readable for the majority of people.

Maybe for some people with dyslexia it is more readable, but it is not very readable for most people, so it should only be used by users who personally have a need for that font - while using a font like Intel Clear Sans helps many with dyslexia without making the text unreadable for those without dyslexia.

The FAQ for that font btw notes the lack of studies, and also notes that some people with dyslexia find other fonts better (Comic Sans MS is often chosen by dyslexics, that font's FAQ notes that too).

[AliceWonder]

Found a study that includes OpenDyslexic :

The fonts designed specifically for dyslexia, OpenDys and OpenDys It., did not lead to a better or worse readability.

http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/sites/...exia_study.pdf

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

That particular font though wouldn't be seriously considered except for special purposes because it isn't readable for the majority of people.

Right. And your point is? Of course it's for special purposes. What are you saying???

Maybe for some people with dyslexia it is more readable, but it is not very readable for most people, so it should only be used by users who personally have a need for that font - while using a font like Intel Clear Sans helps many with dyslexia without making the text unreadable for those without dyslexia.

Again, what? Of course, only people who have a need would use it. It's hardly intended for Susan Smith, non-Dyslexic, to use. I'm not sure, at all, what your gist is. You make it sound like Amazon and others are foisting the use of this font onto people that don't have Dyslexia, which they very obviously aren't. What is it, exactly, that you're trying to say here?

The FAQ for that font btw notes the lack of studies, and also notes that some people with dyslexia find other fonts better (Comic Sans MS is often chosen by dyslexics, that font's FAQ notes that too).

Which we've all already discussed, and which has nothing to do with its price, or the price (free) of the other 3 fonts I listed. You want to say that there aren't any studies? Fine. But that has nothing to do with your assertions that the fonts were used to make money--which they patently are not, certainly not by Amazon. You further stated that they couldn't be used for someone's ePUB, which they can. All 3 of the free fonts I listed are freely downloadable.

As I said upthread--people with normal vision have a choice of fonts. Anecdotal evidence by those studying the viability of the Open Dyslexic font, amongst others--as stated in the articles about those studies--indicated that some of the Dyslexic study participants like those "for Dyslexic" fonts. Why not make it available, then, if some Dyslexics like it or even prefer it?

I mean, what's the bloody harm, if some--even only a handful--of Dyslexics prefer to use it? Should Amazon just remove it? Why? If nobody's using it--what's the harm? If only 10 people are using it, why not keep it for those 10? I think you'll find that Amazon keeps a pretty close tab on their use statistics and they are very bloody ruthless about removing fonts and features that people do not use. That alone should tell you something about the use of that Open Dyslexic font.

I think it's daft that some people like to read in some of the provided sans serif fonts; but that's their choice and it's good of Amazon to offer a wide variety of usable base fonts, so that people can pick what they prefer. As there is at least anecdotal evidence that some dyslexics like the Open Dyslexic font, what's the problem? Amazon certainly didn't do it to make money; they don't charge for the font, contrary to what was said upthread earlier. The font creators, by and large, didn't do it to make money; the fonts are Open Source and free.

I'm sure when some dedicated researcher comes up with BETTER fonts for those afflicted with Dyslexia, Amazon and the others will be delighted to put it on their devices.

Hitch

[AliceWonder]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Right. And your point is? Of course it's for special purposes. What are you saying???

I'm sorry.

I was referencing why I chose Intel Clear Sans as my main font, it's a good readable general font that also works better than serif fonts for dyslexia - which is what brought Amazon's dyslexia font into the discussion.

So the context to me was font to use in the eBook itself.

Of course users should always be able to switch the fonts to whatever works best for them. I wish ePub allowed specification of main text font in the *.opf file so that readers could over-ride it with a GUI but they don't.

But anyway, I was under the impression that you were suggesting that if dyslexia was my concern I should use something other than Clear Sans in my ePub archive.

-=-

My basic philosophy is to use fonts that match the purpose and are as friendly as possible while clearly commenting the .css file to make it easy for the end user who needs to change them to do so.

e.g.

/* This color emulates the classic pulps - feel free to nuke
 * this if it bothers you...*/ 
body {
	background-color: #EBE8D9;
}

/* This is the font used for most of the content. If you need
   to change it to make the book readable for YOUR eyes, this
   is where. Just removing the font-family line should result
   in your reader default font being used instead, or you can
   specify an alternate font installed on your system. */
article p {
  font-family: 'Clear Sans', sans-serif;
  widows: 2;
  orphans: 2;
}

/* Definition lists - the font used for the definition. If you
 * are changing the default font above, you probably should do
 * so here as well. */
dl dd {
	font-family: 'Clear Sans', sans-serif;
	font-style: normal;
}

etc.

(btw OT I don't know what widows and orphans options actually do, was just suggested I should have them - but in my limited testing the readers I usef seem to ignore them as I still had widows and orphans so I may remove them)

Whatever font works best for someone, comment the CSS so that it is easy for those who want to modify it to do so. That's my philosophy. Everyone has different reading preferences. Some may want Times just because they like Times, for example.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

(btw OT I don't know what widows and orphans options actually do, was just suggested I should have them - but in my limited testing the readers I usef seem to ignore them as I still had widows and orphans so I may remove them)

This is all my opinion so likely not be worth much to anyone else.

Widows and orphans are remnants of printed books and should not be used for ebooks. Widows happen when the last line of a paragraph is forced to the next page or column while orphans are when the first line of a paragraph is on one page/column and the rest of the paragraph is on the next page/column. The widows/orphans setting says how many lines will have to be kept together -- the 2 says two lines so a minimum of two lines would be kept together. My personal preference is setting both to 1 (by definition, the value must be a positive integer so 0 is not permitted though I've seen it used all too often) to override any default values (usually 2 or 3) used by the renderer.

As for remembering which are orphans and which are widows? Orphans are left alone at the beginning, widows are left alone at the end.

[Turtle91]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

...

My basic philosophy is to use fonts that match the purpose and are as friendly as possible while clearly commenting the .css file to make it easy for the end user who needs to change them to do so.

e.g.

/* This color emulates the classic pulps - feel free to nuke
 * this if it bothers you...*/ 
body {
	background-color: #EBE8D9;
}

/* This is the font used for most of the content. If you need
   to change it to make the book readable for YOUR eyes, this
   is where. Just removing the font-family line should result
   in your reader default font being used instead, or you can
   specify an alternate font installed on your system. */
article p {
  font-family: 'Clear Sans', sans-serif;
  widows: 2;
  orphans: 2;
}

...

Whatever font works best for someone, comment the CSS so that it is easy for those who want to modify it to do so. That's my philosophy. Everyone has different reading preferences. Some may want Times just because they like Times, for example.

I think you'll find that it's pretty rare for individuals to know how to change the css in their books (MR readers excepted)...and even more rare for those to care to take the time to do so...

I would recommend leaving the body font undefined in your css...at worst specific titles and/or sections of text could have a font defined when it helps tell the story. Let the user choose their own font via the device settings...then everyone is happy.

Yes, Jon, I know some dinosaur devices can't display different fonts, but those are the repercussions of their device choice... They can get a newer device if font choice is a concern to them.

[Tex2002ans]

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

Of course users should always be able to switch the fonts to whatever works best for them. I wish ePub allowed specification of main text font in the *.opf file so that readers could over-ride it with a GUI but they don't.

There's no need... because CSS already do that for you.

You can just push the "font" button on your reader, and... change the font.

The problem with making the embedded font the body font is that some devices don't let you override the publisher's font.

Which is why using embedded fonts very sparingly (Maths, signs, ornaments, headings, [...]) is be better. Those readers who can't override still get to read (the vast majority of the text) in their preferred font.

Originally Posted by AliceWonder

(btw OT I don't know what widows and orphans options actually do, was just suggested I should have them - but in my limited testing the readers I usef seem to ignore them as I still had widows and orphans so I may remove them)

widows/orphans are the amount of lines at the bottom/top of pages, making sure you don't get something like this:

This is a longer paragraph at the
end of a superduper extra longer

[Flip page]

page.

Just remove the widows/orphans in your CSS, there's no need for your to specify, devices have their own defaults.

Note: Although before JSWolf posts... he prefers widows/orphans to be set at 1 for ebooks, so that if there's space for it, the ebook always shoves a line there.

Note #2: Be careful with setting background color, that potentially interferes with Night Mode on many devices (or may look atrocious on e-ink). Again, most color devices/readers have settings that can do that for you, and readers choose their own background+text color preferences.