accessible font research - results

Thanks all for your replies over last couple of months.

The user testing survey was carried out via an accessible PDF reply form accessed via my website. If you want to see how this worked please go to www.raincharm.com/survey.php
The form itself provides a far more accessible way to return feedback than anything survey monkey provide (or so my BBC web colleague tells me) so possibly some scope to develop this in the future.

As regards the results these again are all opinion based and not rooted or monitored by any strict or defining test criteria. Of the 4 fonts offered (Trebuchet, Frutiger, Lucida Sans and Verdana) Frutiger was the preferred option followed by Verdana. It seems to me that Trebuchet itself is not a particularly inaccessible font (as noted by Thomas [email protected] and Mark Barratt of textmatters). The issue doesn't seem to be the font itself but what the organisation are willing to commit to and work with as part of their accessibility policy. The disability organisations I consulted as part of the exercise would have preferred all printed and web based information in Arial. Where does this lead us? Also is it acceptable to have a font like Trebuchet used as part of an organisation's logo but have a different font for everyday use? Does the logo by its very nature of being a piece of design exempt itself from the 'rules' of accessibility?

Thoughts welcome and thanks again for your interest.

Katie Grant

Raincharm Communications Ltd 
Tel 07971 909007
Registered No. 6267862 
www.raincharm.co.uk

___________________________________________________________________

Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers: 
 [email protected]

To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
 http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe

For all Information Design matters:
 http://InformationDesign.org

Problems? Write to:
 [email protected]
___________________________________________________________________