Blog · Research
Serif vs sans-serif for dyslexic readers
Almost every dyslexia accessibility guide opens with the same line: "use a sans-serif font." It's repeated so often that most readers assume it must be settled science. It isn't. The truth is more useful: serifs are not the villain, and sans-serifs are not the hero - the variables that actually drive readability for dyslexic readers sit one layer deeper than the serif/sans distinction.
The short answer
For on-screen body text, a high-quality sans-serif is the safer default for dyslexic readers - not because serifs are harmful, but because most serif fonts at small sizes on low-DPI screens introduce visual noise (thin strokes, tight spacing, decorative flourishes) that dyslexic readers tend to find tiring.
The mechanism that matters is not "sans-serif" - it's letter distinguishability, generous spacing, and even stroke weight. A well-designed serif can outperform a cramped sans-serif. A noisy sans-serif (Arial Narrow, condensed weights) can be worse than a clean serif.
Where the standard advice came from
The "use sans-serif" guideline is not a research finding - it's an institutional recommendation. The British Dyslexia Association's well-known Style Guide recommends sans-serif fonts of at least 12-14 point size, and lists Arial, Verdana, Tahoma, Century Gothic, Trebuchet MS, Calibri, and Open Sans as acceptable defaults. The U.S. National Center on Disability and Access to Education and the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative both echo similar guidance.
That guidance is sensible as a default. It is not, however, drawn from a body of randomised studies showing that serifs as a category impair dyslexic reading. The recommendation is largely conservative: sans-serif body text on screens has fewer ways to go wrong, so when you don't know who your reader is, you default to sans.
What "serif" and "sans-serif" actually mean
A serif is a small projecting feature at the end of a stroke - the little "feet" on the bottom of letters in fonts like Times New Roman or Georgia. Sans-serif (literally "without serif") fonts omit those features, presenting clean strokes that terminate without ornament.
That's the textbook distinction. For accessibility, the more useful question is what design choices each tends to bring with it. Serifs in print typically come bundled with tight letter spacing, thin contrast strokes, and old-style numerals. Sans-serifs designed for screens typically come with more even stroke weights, wider apertures (the open part of letters like c, e, a), and larger x-heights. Those secondary properties, not the serifs themselves, are doing most of the work.
What the research actually says
Rello and Baeza-Yates, 2013
The most-cited study on this question comes from Luz Rello and Ricardo Baeza-Yates, published in the proceedings of the W4A conference in 2013. They tested 12 fonts (a mix of serif and sans-serif, plus Comic Sans and OpenDyslexic) on 48 dyslexic readers, measuring reading time, fixation duration via eye-tracking, and subjective preference.
Their headline finding was that sans-serif, monospaced, and roman fonts produced significantly better reading performance than serif, proportional, and italic fonts. The font with the worst reading performance was Monotype Corsiva (a script font); the best objective performance came from Helvetica, Courier, Arial, Verdana, and Computer Modern Unicode Sans Serif, in that order.
Two important caveats: the differences were measured in fractions of a second per fixation, and the study did not isolate "serif vs sans-serif" as a single variable - the fonts also differed in width, stroke weight, and design era. The honest reading is that cramped, decorative, or italic fonts performed worse, and that several serif fonts in the test (Garamond, Times) sat in the middle of the pack rather than at the bottom.
Wery and Diliberto, 2017
A later study by Wery and Diliberto looked specifically at school-age children with dyslexia, testing OpenDyslexic, Arial, and Times New Roman. Reading rate and accuracy were not significantly different across the three fonts - but children's preference for OpenDyslexic was high, and Times New Roman ranked last on both objective and subjective measures.
That last detail is the one most often skipped over: Times New Roman, the default serif of an entire generation of word processors, did poorly. But Times is a print-optimised serif designed in 1932 for narrow newspaper columns. It tells you very little about whether well-designed modern serifs (Georgia, Lexia, Charter) would behave the same way.
What the studies don't show
No study to date has cleanly isolated the presence or absence of serifs as the active ingredient. When researchers hold spacing, x-height, and stroke contrast constant and toggle only the serifs, the gap between serif and sans-serif performance largely vanishes. The category-level finding "sans-serif is better for dyslexia" is real - but it's a category effect driven by the design choices that typically travel with sans-serifs, not by the serifs themselves.
The variables that actually matter
If you set aside the serif/sans-serif label and look at what the research consistently flags as helpful, three properties keep coming up:
1. Letter distinguishability (especially b/d/p/q and I/l/1)
Many dyslexic readers report letter rotation or reflection errors. Fonts where lowercase b, d, p, and q are mirror-symmetric variants of each other (most geometric sans-serifs - Futura, Avant Garde) are harder to disambiguate. Fonts that build asymmetry into those glyphs - Atkinson Hyperlegible, OpenDyslexic - reduce confusion. Serifs can help here too, because the serif itself is asymmetric: the foot on a "b" sits to the right of the stem, the foot on a "d" sits to the left.
2. Generous spacing
Letter-spacing (tracking) and word-spacing both have measurable benefits. A 2012 study by Zorzi and colleagues, published in PNAS, found that increasing letter spacing by roughly 2.5 points improved dyslexic children's reading speed by an average of 20% - a larger effect than any font swap reported in the literature. We covered this in detail in line spacing and letter spacing for dyslexia - what actually matters.
3. Even stroke weight
High-contrast fonts (very thick verticals, very thin horizontals - think Bodoni, Didot) tend to disappear into themselves at small sizes. Even-weight sans-serifs and slab serifs hold up better. This is the property that most reliably differentiates "good for dyslexia" sans-serifs from less-good ones, and it's also why a slab serif like Charter or Roboto Slab is often more readable than a high-contrast sans-serif at the same size.
When a serif is a better choice
There are real cases where a serif outperforms the standard sans-serif default:
- Print at body sizes (10-12pt) on high-quality paper. Serifs were optimised for this for centuries. The horizontal serif acts as an implicit baseline rule that helps the eye track along a line. Most modern dyslexia guidance is screen-first; on paper, a well-designed serif like Charter or Lexia can outperform a cramped sans-serif.
- Long-form reading on high-DPI displays. The historical case against serifs on screens was a pixel-density problem - thin strokes and small serifs disappeared into 96-DPI rendering. On modern phones and Retina displays at 200+ DPI, that problem is mostly gone. Some dyslexic readers report that on a sharp display, a humanist serif (Georgia, Source Serif) is more comfortable for long reads than the same word count in a sans-serif.
- When the alternative is a poorly-spaced sans-serif. Arial Narrow is sans-serif. It's also worse for dyslexic readers than Georgia, because the cramped letter spacing dominates any benefit from the missing serifs.
So what should you actually use?
If you have any control over the font - your own writing, a document you control, or a website you can override - a few practical recommendations:
Best sans-serifs for dyslexic readers
- Atkinson Hyperlegible - designed by the Braille Institute specifically to maximise letter distinguishability. Free. See our guide to using it in Chrome.
- Lexend - designed around hyper-spacing and reading fluency for struggling readers. Variable font, free. See Lexend in Chrome and our Lexend vs Atkinson Hyperlegible comparison.
- OpenDyslexic - the most opinionated of the three, with weighted-bottom letterforms designed to prevent rotation. Free.
- Verdana - the most boring recommendation possible, but it has earned its place. Generous x-height, wide letter spacing, distinct b/d/p/q. Pre-installed everywhere.
Best serifs (when serifs are appropriate)
- Charter - a slab-serif workhorse with even stroke weight and clean, distinguishable forms. Excellent on screen.
- Source Serif Pro - generous spacing, large x-height, low stroke contrast. Free from Adobe.
- Lexia - explicitly designed for readability research; not free, but excellent.
- Georgia - Matthew Carter's screen-optimised serif; pre-installed almost universally and still holds up at small sizes.
Fonts to avoid for body text
- Times New Roman - older print-optimised serif, performs poorly in dyslexia studies.
- Bodoni, Didot, or any high-contrast modern serif at body sizes.
- Geometric sans-serifs (Futura, Avenir, Avant Garde) where b/d and p/q are exact mirror images.
- Italic or script fonts for any sustained reading.
- Condensed weights of any font.
How to test in 30 seconds
Pick an article you've already read once - so comprehension is not the variable - and read the first three paragraphs in three different fonts:
- Whatever the page uses by default.
- A clean serif (Georgia, Charter, or Source Serif).
- A clean sans-serif (Atkinson Hyperlegible, Lexend, or Verdana).
Notice three things: how often your eye loses the line, how often you re-read a phrase, and how your eyes feel after each block. Most readers know within 90 seconds which option works for them. The "right" answer for you may not be sans-serif at all - and either way, it's a personal calibration, not a category rule.
The fastest way to do this on the web is with LexiFont. The free tier ships with OpenDyslexic and Atkinson Hyperlegible; Pro adds Lexend, Comic Neue, and toggle-on letter and word spacing so you can isolate which variable is actually helping you, rather than swapping fonts blindly.
The honest summary
"Sans-serif is better for dyslexia" is a useful default but a bad rule. The properties that actually matter - letter distinguishability, generous spacing, even stroke weight, large x-height - are common in well-designed sans-serifs and rarer in default serifs, which is why the category-level guidance exists. But a great serif beats a mediocre sans-serif, and the right font for any individual dyslexic reader is the one that survives a 90-second comparison test against two alternatives. That's all that the research can really tell you, and it's all you need.