Does anyone understand the ECU's specific interpretation of SENDA to advise sans-serif font usage (see below)?
Following from
Special Education Needs and Disabilities Act (SENDA, 2001), the
Equality Challenge Unit has provided practical guidance for academic staff to use sans-serif fonts. Certain academic establishments have now enacted policies that embargo serif font use in examination papers. This feeds through to academic publishers of core text-books, that use both serif and sans-serif fonts. Thanks in advance.
Comments
As for why they recommend sans serif, it is certainly true that for some visual impairments, a low contrast humanist sans will perform better than most alternatives, and there is hardly anyone for whom it would perform worse.
The most interesting part is this: “on coloured paper to enhance contrast.” That implies the opposite of reality. Black on white (or white on black) maximizes contrast.
There seems to be some popular wisdom that less-than-maximal contrast is desirable, but the actual research suggests otherwise. It varies by type of impairment, but in general, overall, higher contrast enhances legibility rather than detracts from it, as long as the overall brightness of the reading condition does not exceed about 3x the brightness of the surrounding environment. This is true for the general public on average, and is true for many (but not all) people with visual impairments.
You sing the praises of low contrast in one paragraph, and exemplify high contrast in another. My understanding was that the evidence is inconclusive? Or is the difference by types of impairment?
The query is based on an email we received from a Lecturer. His university has embargoed the use of serif in examination papers and resource material, including his use of TNR and Courier for equations and econometrics. Arial is specified as the University's permitted sans-serif, Verdana is ok as a "compromise".
Do you think this is worth informing the design of text-book specification? If so, I'll make some notes as guidance for our cross-divisional groups.
This is empirical evidence, of a kind (market forces), that those with reading difficulties prefer it that way.
[|:o)