Out of all the things, you brought up Comic Sans, which is really hard to defend other than ironic use cases and no, there's no proof either it helps dyslexia. Even if it does, there are also better alternatives in the accessibility space.
How many designer friends do you have? Do you know what they do daily? We know your preconception that regardless of company size and product they are just counting beans.
> which is really hard to defend
Can you please tell me your thoughts on how it is "hard to defend"?
My thoughts: How can designers criticize the use of Comic Sans? If users use it where it's connotations (childlike, casual) are appropriate, such as birthday parties, and love it, who are designers to comment on it? I find this indefensible, as if design sensibilities have a foundation very much like mathematics or physics and there is a clearly Universal litmus test of good design and bad design. There isn't. In fact, arbitrary mores of fashion such as "Comic Sans is uncool" are the very tell that design has foundations as strong as a piece of string in the wind. The disdain for Comic Sans reeks of elitism, where designers gatekeep "good taste" based on arbitrary conventions.
Designers don't critize Comic Sans's usage when it's appropriate. It's when it's not. Like a funeral service's signage. Or a lawyer. And the massive amount of such objectively wrong usage in the wild is where you see designers crying about it.
Sure, but then why pick on Comic Sans? Lots of fonts get used inappropriately.
It's just the most common example, as thanks to Microsoft it comes preinstalled on just about any computer. Given the typically short list of fonts to pick from, many people will (would?) pick Comic Sans when they want their text to look a bit 'different'.
However, I do agree that making fun of people picking the wrong font is a bit elitist. At least Comic Sans is easy to read, so one could do worse.
I'm not sure if complaining about using a jaunty font on a WWII death row cell door explaining how many Jews passed through that cell is elitist at all. Real example. Using comic sans there is tone deaf at best.
Of course comic sans specifically has turned into a bit of a meme so now you'll see all sorts of people complaining about it getting used anywhere, which is a lot sillier, but still not elitist I don't think.
I went to look at Comic Sans to make sure I remember it correctly. The problem with it is not that it is used inappropriately. Indeed, fonts are like actors, they have a personality, and there could be a miscast. The problem with Comic Sans is that it is not a good actor. There is no role for it. It is like a bad piece of music; there is no occasion where it is welcome. Or, maybe, a very special role: an example of a bad font for studying purposes. I don't know why it is that and am not ready to write a thesis on it, but the impression is very distinct.
Nobody cares about using comic sans for a children's party, are you making a straw man argument?
> ...good design and bad design. There isn't.
It's called good taste. It's not science of course, good design is organic, it evolves, it converges. See carcinisation.
> The disdain for Comic Sans reeks of elitism, where designers gatekeep "good taste" based on arbitrary conventions.
Kinda true, get over it. Trust the people with good taste and if you want to do great, pay them to do this work for you.
But if you have an uncanny love affair with Comic Sans, no force in the Universe can stop you, have fun with it, you are free to ignore everybody.
Comic Sans has an excellent, unironic, track record as an assistive tool for young kids struggling with dyslexia.
You can do better. This was the first Google result: https://dyslexiefont.com/en/
But there are plenty more. Why settle on the worst one?
Maybe because it’s that Comic sans is widely available and preinstalled on many systems as a „good enough“ option while others are very costly very quickly