like. okay. who actually cares. the fact that it makes reading easier for some dyslexic ppl is already proven by the fonts popularity. not every little thing needs scientists to swoop in to Verify. if it doesn't work for everyone that's fine. just TRY STUFF and see if it works FOR YOU.
our society's media WORSHIPS the scientific method and peer review as the only legitimate way to Know something which drives me up a wall, especially when these same journalists often don't even UNDERSTAND science and they turn around and are like "a new study has demonstrated that eating eggs makes you lonely".
as much as I love looking up scientific studies for things I do think it's important to recognise when you don't really need one (or once having one if it's not relevant or important). if you need to, say, quantify just how many people find certain fonts easier to read (maybe you need to find one font that works the best for the most people) or find out what it is exactly about those fonts that has that effect (maybe you're designing a new font and want it to be easily readable), some sort of study (even as simple as just running a survey) would help. but something like "a lot of dyslexic people find comic sans/opendyslexic easier to read" can be accepted just by listening to people. you don't have to wait for a study to "confirm" it.
treating scientific studies as a way of verifying stuff we already know is kind of boring anyway. much more fun to investigate stuff we have no idea about, or at least try to come up with numbers for things.
