That's a really smart question /u/economywish There are, indeed, differences in reading on screen vs. in print. This is true for everyone, not just those with low vision.


TL;DR Since this is a longer comment, here is a TL;DR summary: fonts affect a lot of people (over 40, tired eyes, elderly, low vision). In the computer world, how humans interact with screens is called Usability. We've had standards and research for decades, and yet some developers and designers are still doing what doesn't work. $1 scientifically speaking, but we do know some important stuff.

​

Okay, let's chat about fonts on the screen.

​

The first thing to know is that just because we scientifically can't prove for the average user whether Serif or Sans Serif fonts are better (see above link), doesn't mean someone with a vision impairment wouldn't have a strong personal opinion about what works in daily life for him or her.

​

If you'd like to dive into online fonts more, here goes.


I'm a total geek for this subject, and you can practically hear me gush when I say...


There's a field of study called "usability" that developed in the early 1980's, as personal computers (software and the internet) started to go mainstream. Fonts are a very important part of something being usable.

​

Jakob Nielsen (The Nielsen Group) is at the forefront of that research and guidelines for how people actually use and consume input/words/links on the computer, visual design that works, and what makes finding what you need easy vs. hard.


Think of is as "sanity for computers," where finally things are built the way humans think and work.

​

Nielsen looks at everything from screen resolution and size to fonts used to placement, hot zones, and speed of "deciding this isn't the right website" when search for results.

​

Here are a few things that Usability experts know about fonts for a couple decades.


* **Screen technology and resolution matters.** Early on, computer monitors were pretty blurry, font smoothing wasn't perfected, and often serif fonts weren't displayed as well as sans serif. But that was then.

* **Font size matters,** and you should let users adjust the size. (Early on in computers you couldn't just use a browser to zoom in and websites and software developers were hardcoding the font size. That was in the 80's and 90s. Today many sites and apps still are not adjustable.)

* **Font style is important,** as is color/contrast, using all caps or all lowercase, using condensed versions of fonts, leading, and unfortunate design elements like flashing, blinking words. (Having access to crazy fonts doesn't mean you should use them. Hot pink on a yellow background and stuff like that is just awful for regular vision, and no matter which font you select, you must provide enough contract between the font and the background. And yet, the current website and software design trend for the past 5 years has been medium-light gray fonts on white background, which is scientifically proven as awful for everyone over 40, those with tired eyes, people who work long hours at the computer, and--oh yeah--those with low vision.)

* **Placement matters on the screen.** Developers and designers tend to put a ton of data (navigation, text, ads) across the screen, and yet one of the biggest differences of being on a computer is that we don't read. We scan to see if we're on the right page, if we're interested, what we need to click next, or if we should spent time reading. This scanning occurs in a certain pattern, depending on the language you speak. (This is very hard to do with low vision and screen readers, even with a good font.)

* **Since we scan,** the white space, readability, short paragraphs, and use of organizational techniques (headers, subheaders, bullets, graphics, etc.) is essential.


And that brings us to today. **Now that we're using smaller and smaller screens to interact with software and the internet (think smartwatches) in smaller and smaller sessions (maybe 15 seconds total), fonts are even MORE important.**


$1c, which is about an MIT Study of Glanceable Reading and Typography, how it's impacted on small devices, etc.





​

I believe the difference is fairly minor. That is the standard they listed in the "Clear Print Guidelines". I would guess just telling someone an answer is easier than giving them a bunch of options.

FYI, you can use punctuation from one font and the letters from another if they seem aesthetically compatible. I think it may be a pain to do it in word processors, but it's easier to do in an HTML doc. Something to consider when you have limited options. :)

You could always contact them and ask. What's the worse that could happen?