Hiya. Was hoping to get some guidance from people here who know this community better than I do. I'm helping a user testing startup, called See Me Please scale into the UK and Ireland.
It provides remote, flexible & well-paid user testing opportunities for people from underrepresented groups (blind/low vision, Deaf/HoH, neurodivergent, older adults) and share findings with organisations to help them build more accessible digital products. It's an Australian business now moving into the UK and Ireland. That said, it's more of a side hustle rather than a full time thing.
The floor pay rate is double the open min wage, and we always pay 3 hours (even if it takes an hour).
Interested testers can nominate a higher rate too
Sadly, we had people pretend to have disabilities to access the well paid work when we started in Australia and found the best participants came from referrals.
Any suggestions on where/ how to promote the roles to attract the specific people we're looking for would be greatly appreciated.
Any advice appreciated, seemeplease.com/test-with-us
Reach out to advocacy groups and service organizations that work with the kinds of people you‘re seeking for testing. Some might have a structured advertising channel that you can plug into or they could be willing to share the info through their internal lists and networks.
So well said. Even terminology de-humanises the very real impact stuff like this can have on people trying to access essential services I.e traffic, ‘edgecase’
The Trump administration just mandated Times New Roman across all State Department communications to "restore decorum." Secretary Rubio called Calibri "another wasteful DEIA program." A sans-serif. Wasteful?!
The font wars have arrived—uninvited, unnecessary, and paid for by the people least able to afford them. This isn't about typefaces. It's about who gets considered—and who will squint in silence. So while the State Department cosplays 1931, this blog pays homage to a font actually built for this century. Here's a deep dive on Atkinson Hyperlegible—the design decisions, the beautiful weirdness, the typographic rule-breaking. One for the type nerds.
When people talk about “dyslexic fonts”, they’re usually referring to two main players: Dyslexie (the original, proprietary font) and OpenDyslexic (its open-source cousin). We haven’t conducted a statistically representative study focused solely on dyslexic or neurodivergent users to test these fonts in isolation. However, across years of real-world user testing with diverse cohorts, one pattern has been remarkably consistent: we’ve never observed a single person choose a dyslexic font as their preference when it’s available, nor express a desire for it.
Kuster et al. (2018) — Dyslexie font does not improve reading performance
Journal of Learning Disabilities.
International Dyslexia Association (IDA) — Dyslexia Basics & Reading Interventions
https://dyslexiaida.org
At face value, the idea of a dyslexic font makes sense. Dyslexia was long (and incorrectly) framed as a problem of letter flipping and visual confusion, so the logic followed that heavier, more distinctive, or asymmetrical letterforms might reduce perceptual errors. But modern research paints a different picture. Studies have found that the Dyslexie font did not improve reading speed, accuracy, or comprehension compared to standard fonts (1), while broader research synthesised by the International Dyslexia Association makes clear that the primary challenges in dyslexia lie in phonological decoding and language processing, not simply confusing a b for a d [2]. Changing letter shapes alone doesn’t meaningfully address how the brain processes written language.
That doesn’t make these fonts useless. Some individuals genuinely prefer them, and personal preference matters. They’ve also been valuable in prompting conversations about dyslexia, readability, and inclusive design, which is undeniably a good thing. But when dyslexic fonts are positioned in sales decks as a meaningful accessibility intervention, scepticism is warranted. If you’re serious about investing time and money in accessibility, the evidence consistently suggests that effort is far better spent on content clarity, spacing, layout, plain language, and overall usability than on a font that promises far more than it can deliver.
In short: an interesting conversation starter, but if someone’s selling it as a silver bullet, there’s a strong chance you’re being sold snake oil.
It provides remote, flexible & well-paid user testing opportunities for people from underrepresented groups (blind/low vision, Deaf/HoH, neurodivergent, older adults) and share findings with organisations to help them build more accessible digital products. It's an Australian business now moving into the UK and Ireland. That said, it's more of a side hustle rather than a full time thing.
The floor pay rate is double the open min wage, and we always pay 3 hours (even if it takes an hour). Interested testers can nominate a higher rate too
Sadly, we had people pretend to have disabilities to access the well paid work when we started in Australia and found the best participants came from referrals.
Any suggestions on where/ how to promote the roles to attract the specific people we're looking for would be greatly appreciated.
Any advice appreciated, seemeplease.com/test-with-us