[From a comment I made in the original submission.]
I read the tables in the thesis. There are 12 comparations between the Arial and the Dyslexie fonts, but only 2 of then have p<.1 and none of them has p<.05. So it is very difficult to know if the differences between the fonts are real or come from random noise.
Could I use this on a webpage?
EDIT: think about those who made great software (Linux, emacs, etc.) and made it available for everyone, for free, and think about a guy who ask 2$ for a font that might help sick people.
The scaled down version is a little harder to read: http://imgur.com/Xh3Mt. (ctrl + mousewheel to resize the image on the page direct)... and here again, I'm not sure how much of the difficulty to read the smaller version comes because of quality lost from scaling.
It would be nice to see a screen-shot the font as it is rendered in a smaller typeface.
last one is original for reference. original text: http://www.economist.com/node/18958397
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2815786
But I'm not dyslexic.
I was looking for a font like this after seeing this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLtYFcHx7ec. Two dollar is a steal!
edit: I had 2$ to spare and it seems to work. it is easier for me to read with this font. not sure if it is better than time new romans
edit2:
screen shots in smaller font http://imgur.com/a/HEADE
last one is original for reference. original text: http://www.economist.com/node/18958397
To me, this font just looks like Comic Sans. I see no added benefit in terms of readability.
