# Designing for people with reading disabilities > [!question] Lingering Questions > - Does the 9–11 reading-age target hold across technical/specialist audiences (developers, legal, medical), or does it need a separate calibrated target per domain? > - How do the layout rules (line length, heading hierarchy) interact with responsive/mobile layouts where line length is already viewport-constrained rather than design-chosen? > - How does hyperlexia (strong decoding, weak comprehension) get designed for differently than dyslexia, given the article groups both under one recommendation set? > [!tip] Article Ideas > - "The font myth": a piece on why letter-feature criteria (x-height, open counters, distinct glyphs) outlast any single "accessible font" recommendation — applies even to a brand's existing typeface. > [!link] Cross Reference > - [[3. Resources/Permanent Notes/Visual Layout Must Preserve Sequential Meaning and Focus Order]] — same accessibility-genre concern (structure carrying meaning) from a different angle: DOM/focus order there, reading-decode effort here > - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Personal Knowledge Management MOC]] > [!quote] Vocabulary > - **Hyperlexia** — strong letter-to-sound decoding without matching comprehension; the inverse problem from dyslexia > - **Alexia** — an acquired, often stroke- or injury-related loss of reading ability; the one condition in this piece where reading ability changes after a baseline is already established ## Corpus thesis Reading disabilities (dyslexia, hyperlexia, alexia) sit on a spectrum of decoding effort rather than a pass/fail skill, and accommodating them is largely free — plain language, layout rules (line length, left-align, heading hierarchy), and letter-feature typography criteria rather than a redesign — with the curb-cut effect extending the same benefit to anyone reading quickly, under stress, or in a second language. ## Key arguments (≤3) 1. **Reading disabilities are processing differences, not intelligence deficits**, and that framing shapes tone for any UX copy or error message aimed at these users. 2. **Font guidance replaces a single prescriptive answer with checkable criteria.** Rather than naming a winning typeface, the piece gives letter-feature criteria (distinct glyph shapes, tall x-height, open counters) that apply even to a brand's already-committed font — a more durable recommendation than a font pick. 3. **The layout rules are unusually testable for a design blog post.** Line length in characters, heading case, heading size hierarchy — falsifiable/checkable enough to become a lint rule or design-review checklist directly. ## Claim atoms ### Reading disabilities reflect brain processing, not intelligence > [!quote] > "Reading disabilities have nothing to do with intelligence. They are a difference in how the brain processes written information." Where/why: early framing section — sets the non-pathologizing tone the rest of the article's recommendations build on. #xref ### Plain language opens access, it doesn't dumb content down > [!quote] > "If you make your content easy to read, you aren't 'dumbing down', you are opening up your information to anyone who wants to read it." Where/why: Sarah Winters (Content Design London) quote, "Use plain language" section — the reframe to reach for whenever a stakeholder resists simplifying copy. #xref #aphorisms ### Letter features beat font branding for readability > [!quote] > "Research shows that letter features matter more than using a specific 'accessible' font." Where/why: opens the "Prioritise font features" section — replaces "pick this typeface" with checkable criteria that apply to any existing brand font. #xref ## Permanent candidates - **Designing for reading disabilities widens access for everyone** — strongest candidate; the curb-cut-effect claim, generalizable past accessibility work specifically. See companion Permanent note. ## Processing checklist - [ ] Run Hemingway (or similar) reading-level check as a standard editorial step - [ ] Audit flagship site's default body font against x-height/open-counter/distinct-glyph criteria - [x] Connect into the relevant MOC — [[3. Resources/MOCs/Personal Knowledge Management MOC]] ## Links - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Personal Knowledge Management MOC]] — plain-language and structural-clarity guidance applies directly to how notes and documentation get written for future re-reading - [[3. Resources/MOCs/Accessibility & Disability Inclusion MOC]] — applies-in: Covers accessible design for reading disabilities, a core accessibility topic. ## Metadata - Source: [[3. Resources/Readwise/Articles/Designing for people with reading disabilities - TetraLogical]]