[hoodwink]

i got that feedback a lot after initially posting the experiment:

> Since posting this experiment, I've received a lot of side comments along the lines of, "Well, of course I don't expect Bionic Reading to work for most people, but for [my subpopulation], it really works." If that were the case, we might expect to see disproportionate benefits for those participants who read faster with Bionic Reading than for those who read faster without Bionic Reading. Let's look at how many participants read faster with each font and their average speed gains.

there might be some specialized effect on folks with known reading problems, but bionic reading makes no claims to specifically work for those people but rather the whole population so that's what we decided to test.

[thorum]

> Let's look at how many participants read faster with each font and their average speed gains.

“Average speed gains” doesn’t seem like the best metric here. A graph showing the distribution of users across different WPM differences would be much more informative. Sure, the average user doesn’t see outsized results, but are you saying that zero participants in your test read substantially faster with BR?

[gnicholas]

It would be interesting to ask people after the test:

Have you been diagnosed with, or do you believe you have, dyslexia, ADHD, visual impairment, or other reading challenges?

It would also be interesting to ask people if they felt it was easier to read with the new tech or the old way. Speed is one metric, but subjective impressions of reading ease are also relevant.

[hoodwink]

we were testing bionic reading’s claim. they make no claims to only working when reading challenges are present.