Dislexia en Estudiantes

Multimedia Tools and Applications
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-7273-5
Testing web-based solutions for improving reading tasks

in dyslexic and neuro-typical users
Rossana Damiano 1 & Cristina Gena 1 & Giulia Venturini

1
Received: 11 May 2018 / Revised: 10 January 2019 / Accepted: 24 January 2019
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
This study investigates the readability of web sites for users with dyslexia as well as neuro-typical
readers. The aim of the paper is twofold: on the one hand, it is aimed at assessing whether and
how we can improve the level of web pages accessibility for users with dyslexia, and to determine
which new requisites could be added to the current ones proposed from the WCAG guidelines for
web accessibility. In order to achieve this goal, we designed a test targeted to students diagnosed
with dyslexia (N = 26). Results showed that further modifications to the page style beyond those
considered by WCAG (e.g., font type, size and column width) were appreciated by users with
dyslexia and may be considered as additional personalization options for this kind of users. On
the other hand, we would like to discover if the exploitation of a specific font designed for users
with dyslexia would be also welcomed by neuro-typical users in reading tasks. The results of a
second on line experiment highlight that neuro-typical users (N = 199) and users with dyslexia
(N = 30) prefer this font for reading tasks, compared to a regular sans-serif font.
Keywords Accessibility . Dyslexia . Learning disorders . Reading
1 Introduction
The SLDs (Specific Learning Disorders) refer to all the specific difficulties encountered in
reading, writing, spelling, and calculating in a person with average or superior intelligence in
the absence of other pathologies, and having adequate learning opportunities [25].
* Cristina Gena
cristina.gena@unito.it
Rossana Damiano
rossana.damiano@unito.it
Giulia Venturini
giulia.venturini@unito.it
1
Dipartimento di Informatica, Università di Torino, Via Pessinetto 12, 10134 Torino, Italy
The WHO (World Health Organization) describes SLDs as a family of Specific Develop-
mental Disorders (code F.81 in ICD-101) and they include dyslexia in them. Developmental
dyslexia is a specific reading disorder, which creates problems in phonemic recognition, in
phonological reworking, in words decoding, in reading and in written expression [19]. It is also
important to say that SLDs tend to appear clustered2, so it would be a mistake to pay attention
to a specific category of disorders excluding the other ones. Moreover, they often remain into
adolescence and adult age.
The most commonly used parameters for diagnosing dyslexia are the following: reading
speed, i.e. the number of syllables that are read per second, and accuracy, namely the number
of errors made during this reading. Obviously there are other criteria that affect deeper aspects
such as attention and/or memory [5]. In particular, a line of research has investigated the role of
executive functions, such as inhibition, attention and memory, in dyslexia, leading to hypoth-
esize that they are a contributing factor to dyslexia [1, 27].
It is important to emphasize that, like any SLDs, the diagnosis of dyslexia must be made
with the help of a multidisciplinary team [10]. Today, this diagnosis is usually confirmed
during school age, with the help of teachers, tutors, and other professional figures.
Students with dyslexia have trouble in reading accurately and fluently, but in their life there
are some other less predictable difficulties related, for instance, to their experience with the
digital world. One of these difficulties is related to the accessibility of Web sites and web-based
applications [2, 15]. One day, one of the authors was surfing the Web with a 12 year old girl
with dyslexia, trying to find useful information for a schoolwork, and they came across a text
so unreadable that the only viable solution was to copy and paste the entire Web page onto a
text editor page, on which they could then change colours, fonts, and sizes, etc. in order to
make the text more readable for the girl.
This example is useful in order to explain that is extremely important for a person with
dyslexia to have access to information on the Web, and to do so without excessive effort.
Dyslexia is widespread, around over 10% of the world population and estimates are growing,
with increased attention to the disorder and with the possibility of having a diagnosis more
easily3. Additionally, although each person with dyslexia has absolutely unique and individual
characteristics, it is possible to find common difficulty elements in this type of users, thus it is
possible to find strategies to overcome them all. Access to information and communication
technologies has been recognized by the United Nations as one of the fundamental human
rights4, and this should also apply to users with dyslexia.
Many web sites are still incomprehensible to a user with dyslexia and this inaccessibility
makes a downward spiral. The user finds her/him frustrated by the inability to find the
information she/he wants, her/his frustration leads to a decrease in her/his self-esteem with
different consequences, such as an increase in perception of the difference between her/himself
and others and a progressive departure from the Web. Accessibility therefore becomes
important also in an inclusion perspective as well as in the perspective of a more democratic
Web. Working for a more accessible Web for users with dyslexia means giving more attention
to an important topic and, above all, working for a better web in general, and not just for users
with special needs.
1
http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2016/en#/F81.0
2
https://dyslexiaida.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/DITC-Handbook.pdf
3
http://www.dyslexia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/DI-Duke-Report-final-4-29-14.pdf
4
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html
Based on an extended survey of the accessibility guidelines issued by scholars and

institutions, this paper aims to evaluate, by means of an empirical evaluation with users with
dyslexia, if and in what measures it would be possible to further improve the quality of
accessibility of web sites for this category of users. The results showed that there are actually
specific features, beyond standard accessibility guidelines, that may improve the level of
accessibility of web sites for users with dyslexia. Given the significant preference expressed
for a specific font type by the participants, then, and the relevance of this topic in the literature,
we decided to further investigate users’ preferences about the font, which we assessed also
with neuro-typical users. With respect to the previous work presented in [32], this paper
extends the discussion of the preferences expressed by the users with dyslexia about the
accessibility of web pages, and reports about a new evaluation of their preferences about fonts,
including also neuro-typical users.
This paper is organized as follow: Section 2 overviews the related work in the field of web
accessibility for users with dyslexia. Section 3 describes the first empirical evaluation, carried
out in order to assess our proposed integration to standard guidelines, and describes the results
of the evaluation. Section 4 describes the second experiment, conducted on line, aimed at
assessing the preferences of the neuro-typical users and users with dyslexia about the fonts.
Conclusion ends the paper.
2 Related work
The W3C5 and in particular its section WAI6 (Web Accessibility Initiative) publishes and regularly
updates the WCAG 2.07 (which stands for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) that are the
guidelines for creating content for the web that are accessible to impaired users and are targeted at
developers, designers and industry insiders. In addition to general WCAG guidelines for disabil-
ities and national laws (as for instance in Italy we have the Stanca Act8), there have been several
studies aimed at evaluating and improving the concept of accessibility for people with dyslexia.
McCarthy and Swierenga [22] reported data from one of the largest studies in this field,
conducted in UK by the Disability Rights Commission (DRC)9: in this study, different groups
with different disabilities were required to perform a set of tasks on 100 different web sites.
The group of people with dyslexia experienced a 17% failure rate, a lower value than blind and
visually impaired users but higher than deaf people or people with physical disability. The
main problems encountered, common to most Internet users, were: confusing layouts, unclear
navigation, incorrect choice of colours, small fonts and complicated language. If these features
are perceived as irritating by a user without disabilities, of course they increase the level of
difficulty for users with dyslexia. This study also revealed that only 19% of the analysed web
sites could be characterized as accessible web pages. From this experiment, we got some ideas
for our research: for example, we chose to test two different layouts, in order to figure out
which one was better, and to include a glossary in the experimental condition, in order to verify
its accessibility its comprehensibility.
5
https://www.w3.org/
6
https://www.w3.org/WAI/
7
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
8
http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/04004l.htm
9
Disability Rights Commission (DRC): The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled people. A formal
Investigation conducted by the Disability Rights Commission. DRC, London (2004)
Also the study of Kurniawan and Conroy [17] compared, according to several parameters,
the textual understanding of people with dyslexia and neuro-typical students, in order to
establish in what ways computer devices may aid in improving their reading skills. The most
significant result from their study was that users with dyslexia improve their reading perfor-
mance when they have the opportunity to choose their own preferred colour schemes. Also
Harrison [15] noticed that BWhen struggling readers learn to benefit from the often inbuilt
possibilities of changing fonts, font size, synthetic speech, spelling suggestions in search
engines, recording of their own voice when reading, and the opportunity to find the definition
of words, the Internet can be an important and compensatory learning tool for struggling
readers^. Even if we believe that this finding is relevant, we decided to not leave our
experimental subjects the opportunity to choose their colour schemes since we could not
assume that all of them could do it autonomously (notwithstanding the importance of
configurability stressed also by [15]).
Rello et al. [29] made experiments (qualitative interviews and reading tasks analysed
through an eye-tracker) with users with dyslexia in order to establish a set of guidelines to
make the web more accessible to this kind of users. Many finding emerged from their study:
completely black text with a white background is not recommended, because the contrast is
too high and this can confuse users with dyslexia making the words blurred. The colour
combination preferred by users with dyslexia was yellow/black, probably because it presents a
stronger contrast at first glance, and it could actually seem easier to read, even if eye
measurements showed the opposite (namely that this colour combination is one of the most
difficult to read). Concerning font size, even if according to the recommendations for people
with dyslexia the optimal size lies in the range from 12 pt. to 14 pt., all users selected a bigger
font size then recommended. Furthermore 75% of the participants preferred the standard space
between the characters, with the motivation that it was easier to decode the single words, and
65% of users expressed a preference for a blank line between paragraphs, even when
paragraphs consisted of a single line. In our experiment, we chose to test the same parameters,
in order to validate their findings: font size, line spacing and background/text colours.
Almost the same difficulties were found by Freire et al. [14] during an empirical study with
thirteen users with dyslexia, who were asked to surf sixteen web sites and then to comment
them. In fact, the authors reported that there were a lot of difficulties concerning the reading
tasks due to: the frequent use of Italics, inadequate spacing between lines and paragraphs, too
small font size, inappropriate fonts and background colours. Besides, the authors also reported
about layout and info-architectural problems: the information was not on the page where users
expected it to be and navigation elements did not help users to find what they were looking for.
Last but not least, 4.2% of the problems were about the difficulty in making sense of page’s
contents, and particularly because most information was out of the context, such as abbrevi-
ations without explanation and CAPTCHA codes. This is the reason why we decided to insert
a glossary in our experiment design and to test if this solution may help users with dyslexia.
Concerning the multimedia elements, as surveyed by Anmarkrud et al. [2], they represent
both an opportunity and a risk for users with dyslexia, due to the redundancy that may arise
when several media convey the same information at one time. Beattie et al. [5] claim that,
when an audio content of a Web page plays automatically for more than three seconds, it must
be provided the possibility of a pause or stop. This is particularly important for users with
dyslexia, which often tends to get confused and make a greater effort in the presence of sound
stimuli during the process of reading [5]. Also, since the reading time is longer for a user with
dyslexia, she/he needs more time to consume time-based information: so a web-based system
must allow the user to extend or adjust the time limit (as also highlighted by WCAG 2.0).
However, due to the peculiar features of hypermedia, we did not include multimedia elements
in our experiments.
The use of a glossary (or, more generally, of electronic dictionaries) has been acknowledged
for more than a decade as an accommodation for people with dyslexia in learning contexts, as
advised by the guidelines issued by the International Dyslexia Organisation (IDA). According
to the handbook published by IDA in 2017, Bstudents often benefit from a glossary of content-
related terms^10. Glossaries and dictionaries have also proven to be useful in second language
learning by students with learning disorders, as surveyed by [21]. Radovan and Perdih [26]
propose the use of glossaries as a tool for adapting accessible web-based learning materials. De
Beni et al. [8] suggest providing additional content or a simplified version if the text requires
complex reading skills (higher than the one required in the lower secondary education level).
Starting from the aforementioned studies and many others, De Santana et al. [11] gave
some guidelines, which also implement accessibility standards, such as: text must have a
size that allows a comfortable reading; avoid all headers in uppercase; if it is necessary to
highlight portions of text, it is better to use a different colour background than changing
the text colour; prefer a pastel colour for background (for example beige with dark blue
text); text columns should have a maximum width of 60 or 70 characters. Based on these
guidelines, we decided to introduce headings in uppercase and different text/background
colour in our experiment.
In our research, we also compared two different fonts, Arial and EasyReading, a font
specifically designed for users with dyslexia. For this reason, we refer to a study in
which researchers created two reading tasks (for students with and without dyslexia)
aimed at comparing the Dyslexie font, specifically designed for people with dyslexia,
with Arial and Times New Roman [18]. Both experiments showed that Dyslexie was not
preferred by the children with or without dyslexia, in contradiction with the findings
reported by de Leeuw [9]. The results obtained from this research also contradicted the
results obtained by Marinus et al. [20], who recorded a faster reading in font Dyslexie
than in Arial. Also Rello et. [28] compared different fonts, including Open Dyslexic: it
did not lead to a better or worse readability, it was not read faster, nor was selected as
users’ favourite font.
The study described by Bachmann [3] compared EasyReading with Times New Roman
font. This research was structured in two phases: for first, a qualitative questionnaire was
submitted to children with reading difficulties to evaluate some font characteristics. In the
second phase, a reading task was performed for children with or without dyslexia in order to
check if EasyReading led to improvements in reading performance. The results show an
increased reading accuracy and an improvement in reading speed in texts, words and
pseudowords in EasyReading; these improvements have also been registered in users without
reading difficulties, showing that EasyReading is a font that can be useful for all types of
readers.
Following all these controversial results that we decided to insert font as a variable, in order
to compare the readability of Arial with the readability of the EasyReading as perceived by
users with dyslexia and users with typical reading development. Differently from the exper-
iment with children described in [3], we decided to direct the research on a sample of adult
users, to look for new results and correlations.
10
(BDyslexia in the classroom^, https://dyslexiaida.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/DITC-Handbook.pdf)
3 The SLD experiment
Given the survey of the research on the adaptation of web sites to people with dyslexia
provided in previous section, we designed a test targeted to students diagnosed with dyslexia.
The experiment was aimed to assess whether and how we can improve the level of web
accessibility for users with dyslexia, and to analyse which new parameters may be considered
in addition to the current standards proposed from WCAG 2.011 guidelines for disabilities, or
which, among the current parameters, are either more relevant to users with dyslexia or should
be slightly modified. In particular, we identified 9 features that, never in conflict with
accessibility guidelines, could further enhance the level of accessibility: font type and size,
column width, line spacing, paragraph spacing, title and menus, text and background colour,
glossary and layout (see Table 1).
3.1 Overview
The test consisted of reading two narrative texts (copied from [8]) presented into two different
web sites, followed by a textual understanding analysis and by a preference questionnaire. The
two web sites, called from now on, Site A and Site B, differ in their style: Site A is structured
to meet the current requisites of WCAG 2.0, while Site B adds the specific solutions listed in
Table 1.
3.2 Experimental details
Hypothesis The hypothesis was that users with reading disorders would find easier to use the
Site B (experimental condition) than Site A (control condition). Moreover, we hypothesized
that participants would be more facilitated in reading the text presented in Site B (since they
would have a better chance of understanding its contents), they would have taken less time,
they would have used more times the glossary, and they would have given more positive
response in the preference questionnaire.
Design Single factor within-subjects design. The independent variable is the web page style,
obtained by setting the parameters illustrated in Table 1 according to two different configura-
tions, as represented in the column labelled respectively as BSite A^ and BSite B^.
Subjects 26 students, aged between 8 and 15 years, 16 males and 10 females, previously
diagnosed with dyslexia. The subjects were actually divided into two groups, depending on
age as follows: the first range between 8 and 11 years, the second range between 12 and
15 years. For the identification of the age groups, we referred to [8]. The age groups underwent
two different versions of the text to be read (taken from [8]) so that the text was suitable to the
level of education of the participants (primary school and first grade of secondary school).
The participants were selected according to a purposive sampling strategy (a sampling
method in which the participants selected for the sample are chosen according to the judgment
of the researcher) with a fundamental requirement for diagnosis of reading disorder.
11
WCAG 2.0 have been recently superseded by the release of WCAG 2.1 (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21);
however, in this paper, we refer to WCAG 2.0 since they were in force when the experiments were designed, and
we refer to WCAG 2.1 only when changes are significant for our work.
Table 1 Web page style configuration in site A (control condition) and B (experimental condition)
SITE A SITE B
FONT Arial Easy Readinga

COLUMN WIDTH Max 80 characters Max 60 characters
FONT SIZE 14 pt. 18 pt.
LINE-SPACING 150% 200%
PARAGRAPHS SPACING 1.5 x line-spacing 2 x line-spacing
TITLE AND MENU Uppercase Lowercase
TEXT/BACKGROUND Black/White Dark Blue/Beige
COLOUR
GLOSSARY On click, link to a new page Hover over the link
LAYOUT Different colour background between Different colour background and
page sections bordered page sections
a http://www.easyreading.it/it/ As reported on official website, Easy Reading is Ba hybrid font – with an essential
design – because it has both serif and sans-serif letters. The specific design of the letters with dedicated serif,
useful in avoiding mistaking letters with similar form, has led to wider calibrated spacing that counteracts the
perceived crowding effect, thus facilitating reading^
Apparatus and materials We designed and implemented two web sites (see Figs. 1 and 2)
distinguished by the features described in Table 1. Each web site consists of three pages: index,
text, and glossary page. Notice that we decided to insert a glossary page also in Site B, with the
complete list of words that were defined in pop-up text blocks.
We used a MacBook Pro to administer the test to users, who could choose whether to use
the track pad or the mouse that we provided. We implemented the web sites with HTML5 and
CSS3 languages, and users accessed the web site by using Chrome Web browser. We
administered the tests in elementary and middle schools, mostly in computer classroom or in
isolated and silent classrooms.
Procedure The two web sites were presented to the participants in a random order. As
described above, each web site consists of three pages (index, text and glossary page). In
Fig. 1 The narrative text in Site A

Fig. 2 The narrative text in Site B
the home page, the participants found the instructions for the tasks to be performed, in order to
be independent in carrying out the required tasks.
The two web sites presented two different narrative texts (one for Site A and one for Site B)
selected from a workbook for children with dyslexia [8], which had same lexical complexity
and length.
During the reading and browsing phases the tester just observed the work of the partici-
pants. She took notes on problems, difficulties and observations, timing activity and scored the
number of times participants used the glossary.
After reading, participants did two comprehension texts (one per narrative text) and a final
questionnaire aimed at checking the preference for the manipulated levels of the independent
variable. Regarding the comprehension text, users were asked to complete a questionnaire
composed of 5 multiple-choice questions, with the aim of verifying the level of understanding,
and checking if users had successfully used the glossary. The implicit goal of the questionnaire
was to give a purpose to the reading itself, so that users would pay more attention during the
reading phase.
At the end of the comprehension tests, a semi-structured interview was proposed to
participants in order to collect qualitative opinions and preferences about the accessibility
criteria under study (i.e. organization of information, used colours, fonts, and the others
elements differing in Site A vs. Site B).
These questions (both comprehension test and interview) were read aloud by the researcher,
as an accommodation aimed at overcoming the reading difficulty of the participants in a phase
where reading was not the object of the experiment. Accommodations are instructional or test
adaptions that do not change the content of instruction, do not give students an unfair
advantage, or change the skills or knowledge that a test measures12. Accommodations include
compensatory tools and dispensatory measures. Compensatory tools, including reading aloud,
are technological or didactic instruments that facilitate student’s tasks in areas where they are
more difficult, for example, the use of the calculator. Dispensatory measures lift students from
12
https://dyslexiaida.org/accommodations-for-students-with-dyslexia/.
particularly difficult tasks: for example, copying a mathematical exercise before carrying out
the exercise (for a comprehensive list of accommodations for people with dyslexia, see [33]).
3.3 Experimental results
Regarding the dependent variables, we measured the time needed by the participants to
complete the reading tasks, the number of times they consulted the glossary, the level of text
comprehension, and the preferences for the features proposed in the two web sites.
The reading task performed in Site A obtained an average time to be completed of 11.5 min
(SD = 6.36), while the average time in Site B was 10.92 min (SD = 5.09). A repeated measures
ANOVA with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction determined that differences between the two
conditions were not significant (F(1,25) = 5,15, p = .48). Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni
correction confirmed that the differences were not statistically significant (p = .48). The
hypothesis was that the set of variables on Site B would have positive effects on the reading
time, but the data do not confirm the assumption. Although the style solutions proposed on
Site B were often preferred by users, as we will discuss in the following, they did not
significantly affect the duration of reading. These data leave other open questions that would
be worth analysing further in a new context of study, aimed at identifying other variables, not
considered so far, that can reduce the reading time for a user with dyslexia, or assessing if the
number of glossary consultations have influenced the duration of reading (as will be further
discussed in Section 3.4).
Regarding the usage of the glossary, the users in condition A consulted the glossary on
average 2.65 times (SD = 2.51), while the users in condition B consulted the glossary more
frequently, namely 4.77 times on average (see Figs. 3 and 4). A repeated measures ANOVA
with a Greenhouse-Geisser correction determined that mean differed statistically significantly
(F(1, 25) = 20.978, p < 0.0001), and this is also confirmed by a good value of the power
(n’ = .993). Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction confirmed the significant differences
(p < 0.001). We will try to give a clearer explanation to these results when we analyse users’
preferences about glossaries.
Fig. 3 The glossary in Site A

Fig. 4 The glossary in Site B
The text comprehension questionnaires (inspired by the ones proposed in [8]) consisted of
five closed questions with multiple answers: in four questions the user had to identify the
correct answer out of 4, in a question she/he had to identify 4 correct answers out of 10. For
each questionnaire it was possible to get a maximum score of 10 points out of 10 and a
minimum of 0 points.
Our initial assumption was that the textual understanding of the text in Site B would be
easier, and that the results of its understanding would be significantly better. However the
difference between experimental (Site B) and control condition (Site A) did not produce the
results that we expected. In fact, although, in some case, by comparing the two scores of the
same user there are often many points of difference, the final results are quite balanced. The
average score obtained after reading Site A is 6.69 (SD = 2.36), while after reading Site B is
6.9 (2.70) and the differences are not significant (F(1,25) = .161, p = .691). Thus we can
conclude that the experimental condition did not improve text comprehension.
Finally, during the preference questionnaire users were asked to express their preferences in
closed questions by choosing between Site A, Site B, or no particular preference (see Table 2).
Also, we gave them the possibility to explain their response. Regarding the significance of
results, we calculated the chi-square test of goodness-of-fit13 in order to determine whether the
three preferences (Site A, Site B, None of them) were equally distributed in the population of
interest or not, and whether, in the latter case, the differences from expected values were
significant. We reported the values of chi-square test of goodness-of-fit, and their correspond-
ing probability values, in Table 2. We resume the answers and the user’s comments in the next
paragraphs, grouped by question.
1) By looking at the preferences for the two fonts (Arial / Easy Reading) and no preferences,
the differences between observed and expected distributions are highly significant. Thus
preferences for the three options were not equally distributed in our sample, while are in
favour of the dyslexia-friendly font, EasyReading. Comparing the preferences by calcu-
lating the one-sample binomial test against random chance, the preference for
EasyReading results to be highly significant (p = 0.0012).
13
In Chi-Square goodness of fit test, the term goodness of fit is used to compare the observed sample distribution
with the expected probability distribution. Chi-Square goodness of fit test determines how well theoretical
distribution (such as normal, binomial, or Poisson) fits the empirical distribution. [6]
WCAG guidelines do not give recommendations about specific fonts to be used for users
with dyslexia, so the choice may fall on an even less suitable font than Arial. We think that this
feature should be subjected to more detailed studies in order to add a font indication to the
current parameters. Among the ones who preferred Arial, we have to highlight that 3 users, in
the open answers phase, said that they preferred Arial font because of habit; we think this
opinion is very interesting because, as we will explain later, habit is one of the criteria that
users employed to explain their own preferences.
2) By comparing the preferences for the colour schemes (black and white/dark blue and
beige, no preferences) the differences between observed and expected distribution of
preferences are highly significant. The emerged preferences are significant: calculating the
one-sample binomial test against random chance, the preference for Site A colour scheme
results to be significant (p = 0.0033).
However, this result do not confirm our hypothesis. Three users said they preferred Site A
because of habit. Although for us this is an unexpected result, we think it has a clear
explanation. In fact, both in terms of fonts and colour schemes, our everyday readings are
similar to the ones in Site A. In the majority of textbooks, books in general, but also in Web
sites and magazines or newspapers, we find white/black colours combination for background/
foreground contrast. Three other users said they preferred Site A colour scheme because the
contrast between dark blue and beige was not enough. The hypothesis was that, although in the
current standards there is a minimum limit of contrast between text and background, it would
be advisable to add a maximum limit to this contrast, or at least to avoid a white background,
due to its excessive brightness. Based on previous work [11, 29] that showed that even a too
high contrast could make reading more difficult, and based on the comments made by our
users, we think that research in this field should continue in order to verify if there are specific
colour schemes, with lower contrast than white/black but higher than the ones we presented,
which can be preferred by users with dyslexia.
3) Looking at the preferences for the length of text columns (80 characters vs. 60 characters,
no preferences) the differences between observed and expected distributions are highly
significant, and the one-sample binomial against random chance confirms that the pref-
erence for site B column length results to be significant (p = 0.0002).
Text columns that respect the parameters established by WCAG (80 characters) are still too
long for users with dyslexia, as suggested by De Santana et al. [11]. Modifying this type of
parameter, in addition to help a user with dyslexia, does not adversely affect the accessibility of
other users and does not excessively modify the presentation of the content. We consider that
this criterion, providing only advantages, could be altered, thus an accessible Web page may
further improve its accessibility by following it.
4) Comparing the distribution of preferences for line spacing (150% vs. 200%, no prefer-
ences) the differences between observed and expected are highly significant, and the one-
sample binomial against random chance confirms that the preferences for site B line
spacing results to be highly significant (p = 0.000), thus confirming our hypothesis. Five
users said they preferred line spacing in Site B because in Site A it was too small and they
struggled to keep the focus on the line (but here we cannot single out the role of the
Table 2 Results of the preference questionnaire
Site A Site B No pref. X2(2,N = 26)
1) Which font was easier to read? 9 users (34.61%) 17 users (65.38%) 16.69 p < 0.0002
2) Which colour scheme was easier to read? 16 users (61.53%) 9 users (34.61%) 1 user (3.84%) 13 p = 0.002
3) Which column length was easier to read? 6 users (23.07%) 18 users (69.23%) 2 users (7.69%) 16 p < 0.000
4) Which line spacing was easier to read? 4 users (15.38%) 22 users (84.61%) 31.69 p < 0.0001
5) Which space between paragraphs 12 users (46.15%) 12 users (46.15%) 2 users (7.69%) 7.692 p = 0.021
was easier to read?
6) Which font size was easier to read? 26 users (100%) 52 p < 0.0001
7) Which title and menu were easier to read? 17 users (65.38%) 5 users (19.23%) 4 users (15.38%) 12 p = 0.002
8) Which glossary was easier to use? 1 user (3.84%) 22 users (84.61%) 3 users (11.53%) 31 p < 0.000
9) Which layout was more intuitive? 9 users (34.61%) 15 users (57.69%) 2 users (7.69%) 9.769 p = 0.008
10) Which site was easier to use overall? 6 users (23.07%) 20 users (76.92%) 24.3 p < 0.0001
different font size in the two sites). The line spacing presented in Site A respected current
accessibility criteria14, but it resulted not only less preferred, but also absolutely inade-
quate. From this answer it emerges that the current accessible standard for line spacing is
probably not large enough for users with dyslexia, especially if the text is very long. As
we said before about text columns, higher line spacing improves the reading for users with
dyslexia, but does not decrease accessibility for other users or worsen presentation of the
content. Thus, we believe that this parameter could be modified, in the guidelines, in order
to make a web page even more accessible for a user with dyslexia.
5) By comparing the distribution of preferences for paragraphs spaces (1.5 times (150%) the
line-spacing vs. 2 times (200%) the line-spacing, no preferences) even if the differences
between observed and expected frequencies are significant, the one-sample binomial
against random chance confirms that distribution of preferences for Site A or Site B space
between paragraph is not significant (p = 0.2104). This does not confirm the hypothesis.
Users did not prefer a higher space between paragraphs, thus in this case the criteria
established by WCAG are sufficient.
6) By comparing the observed distribution of preferences for font sizes (14 pt. vs. 18 pt., no
preferences) with expected frequencies highly significant differences emerged: 100% of
users chose the largest dimension. The one-sample binomial test confirms the hypothesis
since the preferences for site B font size result to be highly significant (p = 0.000).
One of the possible moves against the proposal to increase the minimum size in the current
accessibility criteria is that an accessible Web page must offer resizable font and therefore, if a font
does not appear to be sufficiently large, it can always be revised users and modified as needed.
Although this is absolutely true, we also stress that not always a user with higher accessibility needs
can work autonomously or easily on browsers and that in any case a font that has a default greater
size cannot but increase accessibility for some types of users, like people with visual impairments
or those who are forced, for work purposes, to read on a screen at a considerable distance.
7) By comparing the preferences for uppercase and lowercase (in titles and menus) and no
preferences, the differences between observed and expected distributions are significant,
but the one-sample binomial test does not confirm the hypothesis: the preferences for site
A titles and menus (in uppercase) result to be highly significant (p = 0.0012).
Users preferred title and menu on Site A, in capital letters, in opposition to what we
hypothesized following the advice from De Santana et al. [11]. In the initial assumptions, it
was not only believed that a lower-case reading would be preferable in any situation (com-
prised menus and titles), but also that the transition between uppercase and lowercase would
make decoding even more difficult. The data do not confirm the hypothesis, and therefore the
criterion, which is currently not present, does not prove necessary.
8) By comparing the distribution of preferences for the two glossaries (see Figs. 3 and 4) and
no preference at all, the differences between observed and expected ones are highly
significant. The one-sample binomial confirms (p = 0.000) the hypothesis: users preferred
the pop-up glossary.
14
Notice that WCAG 2.1 requires setting the spacing following paragraphs to at least 2 times (200%) the font
size (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/text-spacing.html).
Eight users said they preferred the hover glossary because it was easier to use: in fact it did not
interrupt the reading. For a user with dyslexia, abandoning a page to find the definition of a term
and then return reading the text, it is a considerable waste of time and often involves a loss of
context. This is an explanation for the significant differences that emerged between the numbers
of times users consulted glossary in Site A and Site B, too (on average 2.65 times vs. 4.77 times).
We think that users consulted the glossary more frequently in Site B because it was easier to use.
Glossary in Site A, though it helped users to understand the meaning of the words, has the
drawback of interrupting the reading. Moreover, for those that are not expert in using browsers
and surfing, it is difficult to use external links and browser’s buttons continuously. In WCAG 2.0
there is no explicit requirement about the need of inserting a glossary in web pages, apart from
abbreviations (which should be marked with the <abbr> tag15 to encode the meaning of the
abbreviation, thus for a different purpose), but we think this is a useful tool and it should be made
as intuitive as possible, in order to increase web pages’ accessibility for users with dyslexia.
9) By comparing the distributions of preferences for layouts, significant differences emerged

between observed and expected ones. Also the binomial test confirms (p = 0.016) that
users significantly preferred the Site B layout that featured the various page elements with
board attributes, so that they were well separated from each other.
About layout, WCAG do not give very precise indications, but emphasizes the importance of a
simple layout in order not to confuse users. This hypothesis is in line with the findings
described by Miniukovich et al. [23] in their research on the visual complexity of graphical
users interfaces, i.e., that spatial organization, together with quantity of information, plays a
key role in determining the perception of visual complexity of web pages in users with
dyslexia.
Perhaps the significance that emerged in the results of this question suggests that it would
be interesting to continue research in this field in order to decide which more detailed and
specific guidelines should be included in layout criteria of accessibility.
10) By comparing the distribution of preferences for the two sites as a whole the differences
emerged are significant and the binomial test confirms our hypothesis (p = 0.000). The
set of style manipulations included in Site B has made it the most preferred by users. The
explanation for this preference can be found in the preferences expressed by the users in
the single answers, but it also tells us that the additional criteria as a whole have created a
site that is preferable in its entirety.
3.4 Discussion
This research represents a new effort for validating and proposing specific guidelines to
improve accessibility criteria for users with dyslexia. The attention to dyslexia was born
relatively in recent time, thus it is also a researcher’s responsibility to deepen this topic in
all its perspectives, including web accessibility. One of the great values of the Web has always
been its democratic nature and this cannot exist without full and complete accessibility for any
type of user.
15
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H28.html
The results emerged in this research have not always confirmed our initial hypothesis and
suggest that what we have to do next is to continue investigating web accessibility features for
users with dyslexia. In particular, in order to find an explanation for the lack of a significant
difference in text comprehension in the experimental condition, we investigated more carefully
the role of the glossary, given the huge differences about its use observed in the two sites. The
preference for the glossary type (Question 8, BWhich glossary was easier to use?^) shows a
clear preference for the glossary in the experimental condition, preferred by 22 users out of 26.
Remember that the glossary in Site B was implemented as a pop up, while in Site A it was
situated in a different page. The use of the glossary in Sites A and B shows that the participants
were much more inclined to use it in Site B (4.77 times on average in Site B vs. 2.65 times on
average in Site A, see Figs. 3 and 4), thus setting the expectation of a benefit for text
comprehension in Site B. Also, the use of glossary in Site A shows a strong correlation with
the execution time, measured with Pearson correlation, suitable to evaluate the linear relation-
ship between two continuous variables: the value of the correlation was 0.684 for the glossary
use/time relation (p = 0.01, 2-tailed) for Site A and 0,472 (p = 0.05, 2-tailed) for Site B -
despite the lack of statistically significant difference in the execution time between the two
conditions16. This correlation is not unexpected given the longer time required by moving
forth and back from the text page to the glossary page, which seemingly makes the use of
glossary more time consuming in Site A, despite its lower use. No correlation between the use
of the glossary and the comprehension was found.
While the pop up glossary seems preferable in terms of affordance and time with respect to
the glossary on a separate page, the preferability of the pop up glossary is more blurred from
the point of view of attention management. According to the model of focus put forth by
Castiello and Umiltà in their pioneering work [7], when the size of the attentional focus is
enlarged, the processing efficiency decreases. The findings reported by Facoetti et al. [13]
show that people with dyslexia tend to distribute their attentional resources more diffusely, but
this Bdiffuse-distributed mode^ has negative consequences in information processing. If we
consider the relation between focalisation and processing efficiency, the pop up glossary may
be not preferable, since it may promote a distributed attention mode that, intrinsic to people
with dyslexia, is disadvantageous for information processing. On the contrary, the glossary on
a separate page, although it requires more time and may break the reading flow, may favour the
focalization and help the readers with dyslexia to retain and process the lexical information;
also, it is less subject to accidental activation, differently from the pop-up glossary activated by
the hovering function. However, if we consider the reader’s ability to shift the focus from an
element to another, an executive function that according to some authors is impaired in people
with dyslexia [1, 24], the trade off may change again in favour of the pop-up. To conclude, the
case of the glossary, independently of the specific design issues it raises, is valuable because it
calls for further empirical research aimed at investigating the role of executive functions in the
high-level tasks involved in the access to web pages by people with dyslexia.
Considering the overall results, we have also to highlight the limit of this first experiment: it
has of course be replicated in order to generalize and extend its conclusions, maybe consid-
ering a between subjects design with control and experimental group of the same and restricted
age range. Also, the single features may be tested independently or at least gathered in small,
16
Notice that the glossary use/time correlation is stronger if measured with Spearman correlation (for Site A
0.727, p = .010, 2-tailed, for Site B 0,427 p = .05, 2-tailed), showing that correlation is monotonic but not linear, a
finding that calls for further investigations.
consistent configurations. At current stage, the most interesting results are related to expressed
user preferences, and not to the objective measurement of text comprehension.
Based on the insights provided by the experiment, we think that our results can be used as a
basis to meet the preferences of users with dyslexia beyond the compliance with the compli-
ance with the WCAG 2.0 (and WCAG 2.1).
In particular, in the following we summarize the guidelines that, in our opinion, may be
offered to users with dyslexia as further options, in line with the findings reported by
Kurniawan and Conroy [17] and Harrison [15] about the advantages of personalisation for
struggling readers.
1. Font type: despite the preference expressed by a minority of users for Arial and Black/
White, we advise to consider the use of EasyReading, which was the most preferred font,
as discussed above. This recommendation is supported also by the findings that we
illustrate in the next section.
2. Background/foreground contrast: the foreground/background contrast is very important
for a user with dyslexia, who needs to be able to clearly distinguish letters and numbers.
Based on our results, we cannot confirm the requirement that the foreground/background
contrast in text and images must have minimum relationship of 4.5:1, even if we think that
the role of habit is worth investigating in more detail (see below).
3. Text columns: the column width should not be greater than 60 characters per line, as it
clearly emerged from the preferences expressed by the users with dyslexia.
4. Line spacing: the line spacing should be at least 1.5 (150%) the font size, with a preference
for 2 times (200%) the font size.
5. Space between paragraphs: although the most recent version of the guidelines requires the
space between paragraphs to be at least 2 times the font size17, in our experiment no clear
preference for a larger spacing than 1.5 times (150%) was expressed by users with
dyslexia: in this case, we think that the highest possible level of adaptation (2 times the
font size, 200%) should be enforced whenever possible.
6. Font size: small characters make the reading process more difficult for people with
dyslexia, so a size of 18 pt. is advisable based on the preferences we collected from the
users.
7. Glossary: in addition to the standard guidelines (such as identifying abbreviations and
adding definitions of words and phrases used in an unusual way, technical, idiomatic or
slang expressions), it is useful to add complete, exhaustive, and intuitive glossaries18 (with
a preference for hovering activation modality).
In addition, we would like to underline that, in case the design of the web page complies with
the accessibility guidelines but does not follow the guidelines above, users with dyslexia
should still be given the possibility of modifying some features, such as increasing the
minimum font and line spacing size (up to 200%), without the use of an assistive technology.
Finally, the role of habit in the preferences of the users with dyslexia deserves some
further comments. The preference for Arial, and Black/White colour scheme as well, was
17
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/text-spacing.html
18
Notice that WCAG 2.1 set new requirements for content on hover (see https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21
/Understanding/content-on-hover-or-focus.html), which were not implemented in Site B since we followed
WCAG 2.0 at the design time.
explicitly justified by some users with habit. Habit certainly has a very important role for
a user with dyslexia: the effort to adapt to new characteristics (like the new fonts or new
colour schemes) lengthens working times and makes the act of reading more complex.
However, we believe that some changes can bring long-term improvements. In fact, like
any compensatory tool, adapting to a more suitable font (or a different colour scheme)
takes time. One of the metaphors that is most frequently used to explain the importance
of compensatory tools (like software, maps, calculator and many others) for SLDs is that
they are like glasses. Asking a short-sighted person to read from afar without wearing
glasses is unthinkable, just as it is unreasonable to ask a user with dyslexia to read
without his own compensation tools. The same metaphor is useful in this context: after
wearing glasses for the first time, some symptoms can appear, such as headaches or
discomfort in general, but, once overcome the initial difficulties, the benefits given by
the instrument far outweigh the initial disturbances.
4 The online experiment
Among all the discussed results, the previous experiment highlighted a user preference
for the EasyReading font, a font specifically designed for users with dyslexia. Many
Italian web-based systems, both educational and cultural, editorial and public adminis-
trations are adopting it as default font19, for all the users, and it is also attracting the
attention of prestigious international corporations, probably due to its high legibility and
pleasantness, compared to other fonts for dyslexia, being inspired by the poetics of the
famous artist and designer Bruno Munari.
For these reasons, we decided to investigate the preferences of users about fonts in web
interfaces by asking them to execute reading tasks. Thus, we organized an on line reading
experiment in order to know the opinions of both neuro-typical users and users with dyslexia.
As the reader will notice, despite our efforts to include users with dyslexia, the two groups
differ with respect to the number of involved subjects, but do so in a way that somehow
reflects the distribution of users with dyslexia across the population: although an accurate
estimate of the prevalence of dyslexia worldwide is difficult, also due to definitional and
diagnostic discrepancies over the available reports, the survey by Siegel [31] reports a
prevalence between 5% and 10% of the population; for Italy, a recent study report a prevalence
from 3.1% to 3.2% [4] (thanks also to the phonological transparency of Italian). However,
these rates increase if we consider more general categories such as reading and comprehension
difficulties.
4.1 Experimental details
Hypothesis The hypothesis was that users with no reading disorder (namely neuro-typical
users) would prefer a regular sans-serif font, i.e. Arial, than EasyReading, which is a font
specifically designed for users with dyslexia and not so familiar for standard users with respect
to sans-serif fonts, which are considered the best fonts for reading on the web according to the
review provided in Section 2; conversely, we hypothesized that users with dyslexia would
prefer EasyReading.
19
http://www.easyreading.it/it/clienti/
Design Mixed design with one between-group independent variable with two levels (neuro-
typical vs dyslexic) and two within-group independent variables each with two levels (Arial
vs. EasyReading; pre-test vs. post-test).
Subjects 229 users participated in the on line experiment. 199 (Group 1) were neuro-typical
users, 30 users declared to have diagnosis of dyslexia (Group 2).
& Group 1 included 199 users, 140 females (70.35%) and 59 males (29.65%), aged between
18 and more than 65 years old, in particular: 59 users were in the range 18–15 (29.65%),
36 users were in the range 26–35 (18.09%), 60 users were in the range 36–45 (30.15%), 32
users were in the range 46–55 (16.08%), 9 users were in the range 56–65 (4.52%), 3 users
were more than 65 years old (1.51%).
& Group 2 included 30 users, 26 females (87.67%) and 4 males (13.33%), aged between 18
and 45, in particular: 15 users were in the range 18–15 (50%), 7 users were in the range
26–35 (23.32%), 5 users were in the range 36–45 (16,67%), 3 users were in the range 46–
55 (10%).
& Group 1 showed a good level of education (54% had at least a degree): 81 users had a high
school diploma (40.70%), 75 had a degree (37.69%), 38 a post-graduate specialization
(19.10%), 5 middle school diploma (2.51%). The majority of them had a job (121 users,
60.80%), 64 users were students (32,16%), 8 were unemployed (4.02%), and 6 retired
(3.02%).
& Group 2 showed a lower level of education (only 30% had at least a degree): 16 users had
a high school diploma (53.33%), 4 had a degree (13.33%), 6 a post-graduate specialization
(20%), 4 a middle school diploma (13.33%). Most users were students (16, 53.33%), 11
had a job (36.67%), 3 were unemployed (30%).
The participants were selected according to an availability sampling strategy20.
Apparatus and materials We have designed the experimental tasks by means of Google
Forms21, an on line product by Google that easily lets users to create on line surveys.
The experiment was accessible through web browsers (via desktop and mobile) to all the
users knowing the URL.
Procedure We contacted the users by advertising the experiment through an email campaign
via social networks, such as Facebook, and through the email facilities made available by our
e-learning tools. Invitations to take part in the experiment were sent also to self help groups on
social media for students with dyslexia and their relatives.
Users could access the anonymous test through its URL22. First of all, users had to answer a
series of questions to collect socio-demographic data (gender, age group, education, employ-
ment) and on the possible diagnosis of dyslexia. Then, in a pre-test phase, we showed them
20
Even though random sampling is the best way of having a representative sample, these strategies require a
great deal of time and money. Therefore much research in psychology is based on samples obtained through non-
random selection, such as the availability sampling—i.e. a sampling of convenience, based on subjects available
to the researcher, often used when the population source is not completely defined [30]
21
https://www.google.com/forms/about/
22
https://goo.gl/forms/xdKkef1VpUFTRuNE3 and https://goo.gl/forms/lrwJVeiHkwj3v41X2
Fig. 5 An extract of the first sentence of text proposed in the on line experiment (Arial)
two meaningless texts, i.e. lorem ipsum, one written in Arial and the other one in EasyReading,
asking them which one they preferred to read at first glance.
After the pre-test, the real test started, which consisted of reading two short stories, of the
same length and difficulty, of an Italian writer for children (La famosa pioggia di Piombino e
L’uomo di burro by Gianni Rodari), see Figs. 5 and 6.
In the post-test phase, we asked again which of the two fonts they preferred, and finally a
series of closed questions about their reading experience with both fonts, aimed at investigat-
ing the difficulties that are usually reported by people with dyslexia (such as difficulty in
keeping the place or understanding the punctuation23). When users where asked about the font
preference, an extract of the two stories in two screenshots was displayed in the upper part of
the page as a reminder.
Notice that the order in which the two fonts were presented to the users was randomized.
4.2 Experimental results
As dependent variables we collected the results of pre- and post-test preferences towards one
of the two fonts (dichotomous preference), and the user answers of closed questions that
investigated preferences towards font-related features, collected by means of 5-points Likert
scales24.
Pre-test. During the pre-test, we showed the users two texts, in random order, containing a
meaningless content (BLorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod
tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.B) and we asked them
without actually reading the text and relying only on the difference of the characters, which of
the two texts they would read.
In Group 1, 141 users out of 199 chose (70.85%) Arial and 58 users chose EasyReading
(29.15%). The one-sample binomial test against random chance shows that the preference for
Arial results to be highly significant (p < 0.000001), as expected.
In Group 2 (users with dyslexia), 17 users out of 30 chose (56.67%) Arial and 13 users
chose (43.33%) EasyReading. Although Arial is the most frequently chosen font type also in
this group, the preferences are more evenly distributed between the two fonts, and the one-
sample binomial test against random chance shows that there is no preference for a specific
font type (p = 0.585). In other words, our initial hypothesis that the users with dyslexia would
prefer EasyReading was not confirmed, but at the same time no clear preference for Arial
emerged.
23
See for example the BIndications, hints and tips^ published by the British Dyslexia Association (https://www.
bdadyslexia.org.uk/educator/hints-and-tips-secondary)
24
Since our data where not normally distributed, we used non parametric measurement: in fact Shapiro-Wilk
tests showed a significance smaller than 0.05
Fig. 6 An extract of the first sentence of text proposed in the on line experiment (EasyReading)
By comparing the results obtained in the two groups a Mann-Whitney test showed that the
differences between groups are not statistically significant (U = 2561.500, p = 0.118).
Post-test. The first post-test question asked again which of the two fonts they preferred. In
Group 1, this time 97 users chose for Arial (48.74%), while 101 users for EasyReading
(51.26%). The one-sample binomial this time shows that the preference for EasyReading does
not result to be significant (p < 0.443628). However we noticed that the number of preferences
for Arial, after the test, fell down dramatically, unlike what we expected.
In Group 2 (users with dyslexia), this time 11 users chose for Arial (36.66%), while
19 users for EasyReading (63.33%). The one-sample binomial shows that the preference
for EasyReading, as in Group 1, is not significant (p = 0.2). Similarly to Group 1, the
number of preferences for Arial, after the test, fell down, as it can be expected in this
group, being EasyReading specifically designed for people with dyslexia. In other words,
the preference for the font type follows similar patterns in the two groups, with the
difference that in the group of users with dyslexia it shifts from a moderate preference for
Arial to a clear preference for EasyReading (instead of shifting from a clear preference
for Arial to a barely noticeable preference for EasyReading as in Group 1). Also, notice
that no user in this group changed her/his preference from Arial to Easyreading:
preference changes were unidirectional, always from Arial to EasyReading.
A Mann-Whitney test showed that the differences between the two groups are not statis-
tically significant (U = 2828,500, p = 0.596).
Therefore we were interested in comparing the preferences before and after the reading task
on the same participant in order to discover if a statistically significant change occurred
between pre- and post-test preferences, meaning that the reading tasks causes a significant
change in the user preferences for one of the two fonts.
In order to do that we calculated both a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test and a McNemar’s
test25.
For calculating Wilcoxon Signed-Rank, we converted the user preferences into identical
binary values for both pre- and post-test: we coded as 0 the preference for Arial, and as 1 the
preference for EasyReading. In Group 1, Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that the reading
task determines a statistically significant change in individual preferences (Z = −5.236, p =
0.000). Indeed, in a 0–1 scale, the average value was 0.29 (SD = 0.456) in the pre-test and
0.513 (SD = 0.4645) in the post-test. An asymptotic McNemar’s test also determined that there
was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of preferences for EasyReading pre-
and post-test (p = 0.000).
25
Notice that we have chosen to use a non-parametric, paired test such as the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank, since it has
fewer distributional assumptions than the paired-t test and may be more applicable since our data are not
normally distributed. While, the McNemar is a statistical test used on paired nominal data, used to determine if
there are differences on a dichotomous dependent variable between two related groups, and suitable for testing
consistency in responses across two variables [16].
In Group 2, Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed that the reading task elicits no statistically
significant changes in individual preferences (Z = −1.87 p = 0.086). In a 0–1 scale, the average
value was 0.43 (SD = 0.51) in the pre-test and 0.57 (SD = 0.47) in the post-test. On the
contrary, the asymptotic McNemar’s test determined that there was a statistically significant
difference in the proportion of preferences for EasyReading pre- and post-test (p = 0.031).
Post-test regarding font-related features During the post-test phase we also asked the user
more specific questions regarding the two fonts. The answers were collected by means of a 5-
points Likert scale:
& Is the font easy to read? In Group 1, the average value regarding Arial has been 3.56
(SD = 0.832), while the average value for EasyReading has been 3.45 (SD = 0.935).
Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no significant differences in the user answers (Z =
−1.517, p = 0.129). In Group 2 (users with dyslexia), the average value regarding Arial has
been 3.03 (SD = 1.060), while the average value for EasyReading has been 3.33 (SD =
0.88). Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no significant differences in the user answers
(Z = −1.039, p = 0.229) in this group as well. By comparing the results obtained in the two
groups a Mann-Whitney test showed that the differences between groups are statistically
significant as far as the preferences expressed for Arial are concerned (U = 2135.500, p =
0.007), with the users in Group 1 finding Arial easier with respect to the ones in Group 2.
While the difference between groups regarding EasyReading preferences are not signifi-
cant (U = 2807,500, p = 0.578).
& The letters are well seen? In Group 1, the average value regarding Arial has been 3.49
−0.21, p = 0.983). In Group 2, the average value regarding Arial has been 3.13 (SD =
1.06), while the average value for EasyReading has been 3.27 (SD = 0.994). Wilcoxon
signed-rank test showed no significant differences in the user answers (Z = −0.446, p =
0.656). By comparing the results obtained in the two groups a Mann-Whitney test showed
that the differences between groups are not statistically significant both regarding the
preferences expressed for Arial (U = 2427.500, p = 0.079) and for EasyReading (U =
2590.500, p = 0.279).
& The font help focussing on the current line? In Group 1, the average value regarding
Arial has been 3.33 (SD = 0.909), while the average value for EasyReading has been 3.48
(SD = 0.947). Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed no significant differences in the user
answers (Z = −1.356, p = 0.175). In Group 2, the average value regarding Arial has been
2.87 (SD = 1.042), while the average value for EasyReading has been 3.40 (SD = 1.070).
−1.695, p = 0.190). By comparing the results obtained in the two groups a Mann-Whitney
test showed that the differences between groups are statistically significant as far as the
preferences expressed for Arial are concerned (U = 2217.00, p = 0.034), with the users in
Group 1 finding Arial more helping to the ones in Group 2. While the difference between
groups regarding EasyReading are not significant (U = 2722.00, p = 0.600).
& The font tires the eyes? In Group 1, the average value regarding Arial has been 2.77
−1.031, p = 0.303). In Group 2, the average value regarding Arial has been 2.63 (SD =
signed-rank test showed no significant differences in between the user answers (Z =
−0.727, p = 0.467). By comparing the results obtained in the two groups a Mann-
Whitney test showed that the differences between groups are not statistically significant
both regarding the preferences expressed for Arial (U = 2818.500, p = 0.381) and for
EasyReading (U = 2713.00, p = 0.279).
& Is punctuation well seen? In Group 1, the average value regarding Arial has been 3.22
Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed, in this case, significant differences in the user answers
(Z = −2.084, p = 0.037). However a post hoc test with the Bonferroni correction did not
confirm that the differences were statistically significant (p < = .0083). In Group 2, the
average value regarding Arial has been 2.90 (SD = 0.923), while the average value for
EasyReading has been 2.93 (SD = 0.944). Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed, in this case,
no significant differences in the user answers (Z = −0.291, p = 0.771). By comparing the
results obtained in the two groups a Mann-Whitney test showed that the differences
between groups are statistically significant as far as the preferences expressed for
EasyReading are concerned (U = 2181.500, p = 0.012), with the users in Group 1 prefer-
ring EasyReading’s puntaction more than the ones in Group 2. While the difference
between groups regarding Arial’s puntaction are not significant (U = 2404.000 p = 0.70).
& Is it boring to read? In Group 1, the average value regarding Arial has been 2.64 (SD =
signed-rank test showed no significant differences in the user answers (Z = −1.118, p =
0.264). In Group 2, the average value regarding Arial has been 2.63 (SD = 1.159), while
the average value for EasyReading has been 2.43 (SD = 1.165). Wilcoxon signed-rank test
showed no significant differences in the user answers (Z = −0.711, p = 0.477). By com-
paring the results obtained in the two groups a Mann-Whitney test showed that the
differences between groups are not statistically significant both regarding the preferences
expressed for Arial (U = 2937.000, p = 0.877) and for EasyReading (U = 2556.000, p =
0.171).
The results of this second on line experiment show that at first glance most neuro-typical
users prefer, for a reading task, a classical sans-serif font, as Arial, according to their
habits. However, after the reading tasks, we registered a significant change in the user
preferences towards EasyReading. As far as specific features of the fonts are concerned,
results show just one significant difference in the perception of the punctuation, which is
perceived to be better seen in the EasyReading text. Concerning the users with dyslexia,
a preference at first glance for Arial can be observed as well, but an inversion occurs
after the reading tasks, setting a clear preference for EasyReading. In this group,
probably also due to its smaller size, no significant differences can be found in the user
preferences about the two fonts. However, the rating expressed by the users with dyslexia
for EasyReading are higher than the ones expressed for Arial for all the considered
features. Also, if we consider the comments of the users with dyslexia, we can find some
useful insight for future research on font design: although EasyReading is considered by
users with dyslexia slightly easier to read and less boring, some of them expressed their
concern for the spacing between the letters in the words and the lighter weight which
characterize, according to them, EasyReading. Also, a user mentioned being user to Arial
as standard font.
Thus these results suggest that at first glance EasyReading appears not so readable, so
probably it may be not convenient using it as default font, also because users are not familiar
with it and it is not consistent with the de facto web standards. However, for reading tasks it
could be a good choice also for neuro-typical users so it may be provided as an option. This
assumption is supported by the fact that the comparison between the preferences expressed by
the two groups does not show significant differences between them, except for two specific
features, namely focussing on the current line and seeing the punctuation clearly. We hypoth-
esize that these differences in reading experience between the two groups can be explained by
the particular relevance of these two tasks for users with dyslexia, who more easily loose the
place when reading than neuro-typical users and often struggle with punctuation.
Even if these results are significant and let us to draw interesting conclusions, we should
highlight the limit of our study: the sample of users with dyslexia (Group 2), due to its size, is
not representative of the population of interest (and this may threaten the external validity of
the experiment), and the reading tasks are short and easy. Since the availability sampling may
cause a loss of external validity, we would try to generalize our results by duplicating our
experiment in the future on a larger sample of users with dyslexia, and also by performing an
in-depth study involving users performing real reading tasks on the two fonts.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, we described two experiments on the access to webpages by users with dyslexia
and neuro-typical users. The experiments were aimed at a two different but tightly related
goals: the first experiment was aimed at assessing a set of accommodations for web sites,
targeted at users with dyslexia, taking into account not only their outcomes in terms of
effectiveness, but also the explicit preferences expressed by the users. The second experiment
was aimed at collecting the feedback of the neuro-typical users about the font employed for the
accommodation: although specifically conceived for people with dyslexia, the design of this
font is targeted at the general public, and, as such, can be adopted as default for web sites26.
Although the results of the experiment did not show any effects of the accommodations in
terms of text comprehension, the preferences expressed by the users with dyslexia were clearly
in favour of the accommodated site. This finding is in line with the position expressed by
Anmarkrud et al. [2], who argue that, contrary to what happens with the layout of a normal
textbook, the internet, crossing different types of media and using usually short texts, gives the
possibility to users with reading difficulties to check their own training path.
Based on the preferences expressed by the users with dyslexia about the single
features that were accommodated in the experimental web site, we proposed a prelimi-
nary set of guidelines about the use of font, spacing and glossary, suggesting also to give
users with dyslexia the possibility of customising the accessibility features according to
their own preferences, as a way to encourage their path to web access. Also, by relying
on user profiling techniques, it would be possible to recommend to users with reading
difficulties the configuration of style parameters that we found to be preferred, leaving to
them the choice of selecting it if desired.
26
See for example https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/typography-designer-claims-new-font-can-help-
peoplewithdyslexia-to-read-and-improve-road-signs-22pm3r39d
The guidelines identified and tested in this research do not contradict those of Evett et al. [12].
Evett et al. compared two sets of guidelines, those for people with dyslexia, drawn up by the
British Dyslexia Association (BDA), and those drafted by The Royal National Institute of the
Blind (RNIB), designed for blind and partially sighted users. Many of the recommendations
overlap and were in line with what was verified in this research. On the other hand, some
guidelines were in contradiction, for example for visually impaired people a higher contrast is
recommended: in these cases, the researchers emphasize the importance of giving users the
possibility of choice. We think that this is one of the most important points to work on for a greater
accessibility: the widest possible choice of characteristics must be given to each user, whether she
or he has a disability or not, so she/he can customize the web page according to her/his needs.
Secondarily, the lack of clear-cut results about text comprehension emerged from our
experiments calls for further investigations on the specific cognitive profile of users with
dyslexia in relation not only with text, but also with multimedia sources that go beyond textual
format. The advantages offered by Internet to users with dyslexia, in fact, may be seriously
hampered by the complex interplay of partly impaired executive functions and the features of
web pages: the latter, in fact, are often characterised by the co-existence of multiple and
sometimes redundant media, such as text and graphics, which may challenge the ability of
people with dyslexia to manage the focalization and shift of attention and the integration of
multiple, multi-modal information sources [2]. In this sense, the contribution of our work can
be seen as a first step for future empirical investigations on specific design issues that involve
the role of executive functions such as memory and attention.
Lastly, we would like to make one last consideration: SLDs are an extremely wide field of
research, and accessibility in this context, involves several perspectives. During our inves-
tigation we have read many books and articles written by highly specialized professionals.
Web programmers, psychologists, doctors, designers, educationalists, speech therapists and
many others academics have studied this topic, each from the point of view of their own
knowledge and professionalism. Unfortunately, we rarely read works written by these
different professional roles in collaboration. During this research we were fortunate to work
with and compare to several professionals from many disciplines, that were indispensable
for building the experiments and that made us understand the importance of interdisciplin-
ary work in a context such as accessibility Web. Therefore our hope is that, as in diagnosis
and assisted education for people with SLDs, it will possible to work in a direction of greater
cooperation among the several professionals, which certainly would improve the research in
this as wide as necessary field.
Acknowledgments We would like to thanks Federico Alfonsetti, the creator of the EasyReading font, for giving
us the chance to use the font for experimental purposes, and for his suggestions. We also thank Elisa Carrabs for
her insights and Sergio Rabellino for his support.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
References
1. Altemeier LE, Abbott RD, Berninger VW (2008) Executive functions for reading and writing in typical
literacy development and dyslexia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 30(5):588–606
2. Anmarkrud Ø, Brante EW, Andresen A (2018) Potential processing challenges of Internet use among
readers with dyslexia. In: Braasch JLG, Bråten I, McCrudden MT (eds) Handbook of multiple source use.
Routledge, New York
3. Bachmann C (2013) EasyReading™ as a compensating tool for readers with dyslexia: a comparison
between Times New Roman and EasyReading™ in good readers and dyslexic fourth grade children.
Dislessia. Giornale italiano di ricerca clinica e applicativa, Volume 10, no. 2. Scientific directors:
Giacomo Stella, Enrico Savelli. Edizioni Centro Studi Erikson, Trento (Italy)
4. Barbiero Barbiero C, Lonciari I, Montico M, Monasta L, Penge R, Vio C, Tressoldi P, Ferluga V, Bigoni A,
Tullio A The submerged dyslexia iceberg: how many school children are not diagnosed? Results from an
Italian study. PLoS One 7(10):e48082
5. Beattie RL, Lu Z-L, Manis FR (2011) Dyslexic Adults Can Learn from Repeated Stimulus Presentation but
Have Difficulties in Excluding External Noise. PLoS One 6(11):e27893. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0027893
6. Berenson ML, Levine DM, Szabat KA (2014) Basic Business Statistics (13th Edition). Pearson, London
7. Castiello U, Umiltà C (1990) Size of attentional focus and efficiency of processing. Acta Psychol 73:195–
209
8. De Beni R, Meneghetti C, Cornoldi C, Carretti B (2003) Nuova guida alla comprensione del testo (vol.1–4).
Erickson, Trento
9. de Leeuw, R. (2010) Special font for dyslexia? Unpublished master's thesis. University of Twente, Enschede
10. De Lima R Salgado C, Ciasca S (2010) Dislessia evolutiva. Aspetti neurobiologici ed educazionali. In:
Neuroscienze.net, Rivista di neuroscienze, http://www.neuroscienze.net/public/pdfart/1672.pdf
11. de Santana VF, de Oliveira R, Almeida LDA, Baranauskas MCC 2012) Web accessibility and people with
dyslexia: a survey on techniques and guidelines. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary
Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A’12). ACM, New York, 35, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145
/2207016.2207047
12. Evett L, Brown D (2005) Text formats and web design for visually impaired and dyslexic readers—Clear
Text for All. Interact Comput 17(4):453–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.04.001
13. Facoetti A, Paganoni P, Turatto M, Marzola V, Mascetti GG (2000) Visual–spatial attention in develop-
mental dyslexia. Cortex 36(1):109–123
14. Freire A. P., Petrie H., Power C. 2011. Empirical results from an evaluation of the accessibility of websites
by users with dyslexia. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Accessible Design in the Digital World (pp. 41–
53). Lisboa: CEUR-WS.org
15. Harrison C (2012) Literacy, technology and the Internet: What are the challenges and opportunities for
learners with reading difficulties, and how do we support them in meeting those challenges and grasping
those opportunities? In: Wyatt-Smith C, Elkins J, Gunn S (eds) Multiple perspectives on difficulties in
learning literacy and numeracy. Springer, New York, pp 111–132
16. Keppel G (1991) Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
17. Kurniawan S, Conroy GV (2007) Comparing comprehension speeds and accuracy of on line information in
students with and without dyslexia. In: Kuriawan S, Zaphiris P (eds) Advances in Universal Web Design
and Evaluation. Idea Group, Hersey
18. Kuster SM, van Weerdenburg M, Gompel M, Bosman AM (2017) Dyslexie font does not benefit reading in
children with or without dyslexia. Annals of dyslexia:1–18
19. Lyon GR, Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA (2003) A definition of dyslexia. Annals of dyslexia 53(1):1–14
20. Marinus E, Mostard M, Segers E, Schubert TM, Madelaine A, Wheldall K (2016) A special font for people
with dyslexia: Does it work and, if so, why? Dyslexia 22:233–244
21. McCardle P, Mele-McCarthy J, Leos K (2005) English language learners and learning disabilities: Research
agenda and implications for practice. Learn Disabil Res Pract 20(1):68–78
22. McCarthy J, Swierenga S (2010) What we know about dyslexia and Web accessibility: A research review.
Univ Access Inf Soc 9(2)
23. Miniukovich, A., Sulpizio, S. and De Angeli, A. 2018. Visual complexity of graphical user interfaces. In:
Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI’18). ACM, New
York
24. Moura O, Simões MR, Pereira M (2015) Executive functioning in children with developmental dyslexia.
Clin Neuropsychol 28(sup1):20–41
25. Pennington BF (2008) Diagnosing learning disorders: A neuropsychological framework. Guilford Press,
New York
26. Radovan M, Perdih M (2016) Developing guidelines for evaluating the adaptation of accessible web-based
learning materials. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 17(4)
27. Reiter A, Tucha O, Lange KW (2005) Executive functions in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia 11(2):116–
131
28. Rello L, Baeza-Yates R (2013) Good fonts for dyslexia. In: Proceedings of the 15th International ACM
SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (p. 14). ACM
29. Rello L, Gaurang K, Baeza-Yates R (2012) Layout guidelines for web text and a web service to improve
accessibility for people with dyslexia. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on
Web Accessibility (W4A’12). ACM, New York, Article 36, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145
/2207016.2207048
30. Royce A, Straits B (1999) Approaches to social research. Oxford University Press Inc, Oxford
31. Siegel LS (2006) Perspectives on dyslexia. Paediatr Child Health 11(9):581–587
32. Venturini G, Gena C (2017) Testing web-based solutions for improving reading tasks in students with
dyslexia. In: Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference on Italian SIGCHI Chapter. ACM
33. Wehmeyer ML, Patton JR (2017) The Praeger International Handbook of Special Education [3 volumes]
ABC-CLIO, LLC
Rossana Damiano is a Researcher in Computer Science Department of the University of Torino, where she
teaches Semantic Technologies for Cultural Heritage at the School of New Media and Arts. Her research interests
mainly focus on semantic models for cultural heritage and on the representation of affect in artificial intelligence.
She has taken part in several applicative projects, ranging from social semantic environments for learning and
cultural dissemination (150 Digit, www.150digit.unito.i, Labyrinth, http://di.unito.it/labyrinth - as the principal
investigator, and Invisibilia, http://www.invisibilia.unito.it) to semantic annotation of drama (Cadmos, cadmos.di.
unito.it) and character animation (Animatricks). She has published more than 90 papers in international
workshops, conferences and journals and is founder and organizer of the ESSEM (Emotion and Sentiment in
Social and Expressive Media) workshop series (http://acii2017.org/workshops). She is vice Director of CIRMA
and member of Europeana Tech.
Cristina Gena carries on research since 2000. In 2002, during her PhD, she has been visiting researcher at the
Institute for Software Research at University of California, Irvine. After receiving a PhD in Communication
Science in 2003, she has been postdoc researcher (2003–2005) at the Department of Computer Science,
University of Turin. From October 2005 to April 2014 she has been assistant professor in Computer Science
at the Department of Computer Science, University of Turin. After having received the national habilitation, in
May 2015 she became associate professor in Computer Science at the Department of Computer Science,
University of Turin. She is now teaching at the School of Multimedia and Arts, and at the School of ICT (social
Innovation Communication and new Technologies), of which she is also Vice-President. She published more
than 70 papers in international journals, books and conferences. She is heading the smart HCI lab of the ICxT
Innovation center of the University of Turin, and she is member of the CIRMA (Research Center on Multimedia
and Art) research centres. She is UM Inc. Advisory Board member (um.org), and she is member of the UMAP
(User Modelling, Adaptation and Personalization conference) steering committee. She is part of the PhD
committee of Ph.D. Program in COMPUTER SCIENCE, University of Turin.
Giulia Venturini after the experience as a tutor for students with SLDs, Giulia Venturini graduated in
Communication Studies, presenting her dissertation on web accessibility for users with dyslexia. She currently
a scholar at the University of Turin, working on projects related to e-learning.

Dislexia en Estudiantes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Dislexia en Estudiantes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dislexia en Estudiantes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multimedia Tools and Applications

Testing web-based solutions for improving reading tasks

Rossana Damiano 1 & Cristina Gena 1 & Giulia Venturini

Received: 11 May 2018 / Revised: 10 January 2019 / Accepted: 24 January 2019

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Keywords Accessibility . Dyslexia . Learning disorders . Reading

Based on an extended survey of the accessibility guidelines issued by scholars and

3 The SLD experiment

3.2 Experimental details

FONT Arial Easy Readinga

Fig. 1 The narrative text in Site A

Fig. 2 The narrative text in Site B

3.3 Experimental results

Fig. 3 The glossary in Site A

Fig. 4 The glossary in Site B

Site A Site B No pref. X2(2,N = 26)

9) By comparing the distributions of preferences for layouts, significant differences emerged

4 The online experiment

4.1 Experimental details

The participants were selected according to an availability sampling strategy20.

4.2 Experimental results

You might also like