Adobe flags common fonts failing basic accessibility tests

Adobe has published an analysis of popular brand fonts that found several widely used typefaces fail basic accessibility checks, adding to scrutiny of how companies present digital documents and branded materials.

The study examined 30 fonts identified as among the most discussed by designers across more than 100 sources over the past five years, including design forums, agency publications, blogs and conference proceedings. Adobe tested those fonts against legibility measures used by accessibility specialists, including character ambiguity, mirroring, spacing and scalability.

Among the fonts flagged as failing the basic “Il1 test” were Helvetica, Gill Sans and Arial. The test places a capital I, a lowercase l and the number one side by side to assess whether the characters can be easily distinguished.

Gill Sans rendered all three characters as near-identical vertical lines, while Helvetica and Arial also made some characters hard to tell apart, particularly at smaller sizes. By contrast, Verdana, Tahoma and Segoe UI passed reliably because their letterforms include clearer distinctions.

Readability risks

The report also highlighted what accessibility specialists call the mirroring problem, where letters such as b and d, or p and q, are drawn as flipped versions of each other. That can create reading difficulties for people with dyslexia and slow reading speed.

Times New Roman, Georgia and Garamond performed better on that measure. Inter and Merriweather also passed the three main legibility tests, suggesting newer digital typefaces can meet accessibility requirements without forcing brands to abandon a distinct visual identity.

The issue matters for employers because digital accessibility duties do not stop at websites. Internal documents, PDFs, office posters and branded communications may all come under scrutiny if they create barriers for staff or customers with disabilities.

Jeff Mills, Chief Executive Officer at GrackleDocs, said: “Badly structured documents and graphics are not simply a minor irritation. They slow down decisions, lead to errors and increase frustration. Clarity and accessibility should be priorities, especially in professionally designed workplace materials. HR professionals in the UK will be familiar with the Equality Act 2010, which imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments, and that extends to digital documents. An inaccessible document can amount to a failure of that duty.”

Legal exposure

UK organisations face potential legal questions if inaccessible documents form part of a wider pattern of exclusion. The Equality Act 2010 requires employers to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, and inaccessible typography may become relevant where materials are difficult to read and alternative formats are not provided.

Rob McKellar, Legal Services Director and General Counsel at Peninsula Group, said: “There is no set list of what does and does not constitute a failure to make a reasonable adjustment. It always depends on the specifics of an individual’s disability and what it is reasonable for the employer to implement, so a non-accessible poster in the office or a branded document could count. However, that would usually apply only if the issue had been raised and an alternative format requested. In practice, employers should assess which accessibility measures are reasonable to implement across their materials and be prepared to make further adjustments on a case-by-case basis. UK businesses operating within the EU may also have additional obligations under the European Accessibility Act when it comes to digital documentation.”

The findings come as accessibility has become a broader concern for design teams that have traditionally focused on visual identity, consistency and tone. Typography remains central to branding, but the analysis suggests choices made for style can have practical consequences for readers.

Max Ottignon, Co-founder at Ragged Edge, said: “There’s a reason designers obsess over fonts. Committing to a brand typeface is one of the most important decisions in any brand identity project. More than almost any other element, the type you choose sets the tone for your brand.

Choosing a typeface is part art, part science. Creatively, does it convey the story you want to tell? Practically, will it work across a range of use cases, channels and audiences? Is it sufficiently accessible?”

Accessibility specialists often recommend simple checks before organisations roll out a typeface across documents and digital channels. These include testing the Il1 combination, checking whether b, d, p and q are mirrored too closely, avoiding condensed or ultra-light fonts for body text, and using larger default text sizes with wider line spacing.

The analysis also advised organisations to specify fallback fonts such as Verdana, Tahoma or Calibri in digital documents and to audit key PDFs with accessibility tools and screen reader testing. It estimated that one in five people have dyslexia, making legible typography a practical issue for employers, publishers and design teams rather than a niche concern.