Accessible Fonts for Nonprofits: WCAG Typography Guide

Typography choices reflect organisational values. When nonprofits select inaccessible fonts—insufficient sizing, poor contrast ratios, decorative typefaces that hinder readability—they contradict stated commitments to inclusion whilst potentially violating WCAG AA compliance requirements that Charity Commission guidance increasingly emphasises.

Through my work with 5-10 nonprofit clients and Blueprint Audit diagnostics, I've learned that typography decisions directly affect whether older Board members can review governance documents comfortably, whether beneficiaries with dyslexia can access service information, and whether donors with visual impairments can engage with impact stories.

Unlike commercial websites optimised for younger audiences with perfect vision, nonprofit typography must serve stakeholders aged 25 to 85+, with varying visual capabilities, across devices from desktop monitors to mobile phones. This accessibility imperative shapes every typography decision I make for clients.

In this guide, I'll share accessible Google Fonts specifically suitable for nonprofit websites, explaining how typography choices support institutional credibility whilst meeting WCAG AA standards that reflect organisational inclusion values.

‍

Why Typography Matters for Nonprofit Accessibility and Governance

Before exploring specific font recommendations, let's address why typography constitutes governance infrastructure rather than merely aesthetic preference.

WCAG AA Compliance: Legal and Ethical Requirements

The Equality Act 2010 requires UK charities to ensure websites are accessible to people with disabilities. WCAG AA compliance represents the sector standard, with typography playing crucial roles in:

Sufficient contrast ratios between text and backgrounds (minimum 4.5:1 for normal text, 3:1 for large text)

Adequate sizing ensuring readability without requiring assistive technology (minimum 16px for body text, though I recommend 18px for nonprofit audiences)

Clear letterforms that don't create confusion for users with dyslexia or visual processing difficulties

Scalability allowing users to increase text size up to 200% without breaking layouts

I've encountered charities whose beautiful typography violated WCAG standards, creating legal exposure whilst contradicting mission statements about serving all community members. Typography accessibility isn't optional—it reflects whether organisational values extend to technical implementation.

Older Stakeholder Considerations

Nonprofit stakeholders skew older than commercial audiences. Board members, major donors, and volunteers often range from 55 to 80+, with natural age-related vision changes affecting font readability:

Presbyopia (difficulty focusing on close objects) affects most people over 45, requiring larger font sizes

Reduced contrast sensitivity makes subtle colour combinations illegible for older users

Slower reading speeds mean complex or decorative fonts create cognitive burden

When I conduct Blueprint Audits, I assess whether typography adequately serves older stakeholders who control governance decisions and funding—not just younger staff members with perfect vision.

Dyslexia and Cognitive Disabilities

Approximately 10% of UK population has dyslexia, with many more experiencing cognitive processing differences. Typography significantly affects readability for these stakeholders:

Sans-serif fonts generally work better than serif fonts for dyslexic readers (though evidence remains debated)

Adequate spacing between letters, words, and lines prevents text from appearing to merge

Avoiding decorative or script fonts that create visual confusion

Consistent typography across pages reduces cognitive load

Nonprofits serving beneficiaries with learning disabilities particularly must ensure accessible typography—anything less contradicts mission commitments.

Multi-Language Considerations

Many UK nonprofits serve diverse communities requiring multi-language content. Typography must support:

Extended character sets for languages using diacritical marks or non-Latin scripts

Appropriate sizing as some languages (Arabic, Bengali, etc.) require larger sizing for equivalent readability

Right-to-left text support for languages like Arabic and Hebrew

Google Fonts offers particular advantages here through the Noto font family, specifically designed for comprehensive language support.

Institutional Credibility Through Professional Typography

Beyond accessibility requirements, typography affects whether stakeholders perceive your organisation as professionally managed. I've seen Boards reject website proposals because typography felt "unprofessional" despite designers' aesthetic preferences.

Typography that serves institutional credibility:

• Conveys appropriate gravitas for established foundations
• Maintains readability in dense governance documents
• Supports both emotional storytelling and analytical reporting
• Works across stakeholder contexts from fundraising appeals to annual reports

‍

What Google Fonts Offers Nonprofits

Google Fonts provides open-source typefaces particularly valuable for nonprofits with limited design budgets:

Free and Commercially Unrestricted

Unlike premium font licenses costing hundreds of pounds annually, Google Fonts are:

• Free for all uses including commercial applications
• No licensing fees for print materials, merchandise, or digital applications
• Modification permitted allowing customisation if needed

For nonprofits managing tight budgets, this eliminates recurring font licensing costs whilst maintaining professional typography quality.

Cross-Platform Compatibility

Google Fonts work seamlessly across:

• All modern browsers ensuring consistent presentation
• Mobile and desktop devices maintaining brand consistency
• Print applications when downloaded for design software use
• Email clients (with fallback options for compatibility)

This consistency matters when Board members review documents on various devices, donors engage across platforms, and beneficiaries access services from mobile phones.

WCAG-Friendly Options

Many Google Fonts have been tested extensively for accessibility, with clear letterforms and good spacing that support WCAG compliance. However, not all Google Fonts are accessible—decorative or script fonts still create readability problems.

I specifically recommend fonts with demonstrated accessibility track records rather than simply choosing aesthetically pleasing options.

Extensive Language Support

The Noto font family (developed by Google) specifically aims to support all languages, making it invaluable for nonprofits serving diverse communities. Noto eliminates the common problem where international beneficiary names appear as blank boxes due to insufficient character sets.

Regular Updates and Improvements

Google maintains and improves fonts regularly, occasionally adding:

• Additional weights or styles
• Improved hinting for better screen rendering
• Expanded language support

These improvements benefit nonprofits automatically without requiring licence renewals or migrations.

‍

WCAG AA Font Requirements for Nonprofit Websites

Before selecting fonts, understand WCAG AA standards that UK charity websites should meet:

Minimum Font Sizing

WCAG requirement: Text must be resizable up to 200% without loss of functionality

Practical implementation:

• Body text: Minimum 16px, though I recommend 18px for nonprofit audiences
• Large text (headings): Minimum 18px, preferably 20-24px+
• Small text (footnotes, captions): Minimum 14px, used sparingly

Why I recommend larger than minimum: WCAG minimums represent bare legal compliance. Nonprofits serving older stakeholders or those with visual impairments should exceed minimums to truly reflect inclusion values.

Contrast Ratios

WCAG requirement:

• Normal text (under 18px): Minimum 4.5:1 contrast ratio
• Large text (18px+ or 14px+ bold): Minimum 3:1 contrast ratio

Common failures I encounter:

• Grey text on white backgrounds (often 3:1 ratio, failing WCAG)
• Coloured text without sufficient contrast (particularly problematic for brand colours)
• Light text over background images without sufficient contrast enhancement

I test every typography choice against WCAG contrast requirements using tools like WebAIM's Contrast Checker, ensuring compliance across all applications.

Line Spacing and Paragraph Spacing

WCAG requirement:

• Line spacing (line height): Minimum 1.5× font size
• Paragraph spacing: Minimum 2× font size
• Letter spacing (tracking): Minimum 0.12× font size
• Word spacing: Minimum 0.16× font size

Why this matters: Adequate spacing prevents text from appearing crowded, particularly important for dyslexic readers and those with cognitive processing differences.

Font Weight Variations

Sufficient font weight variations support visual hierarchy whilst maintaining readability:

• Regular weight for body text (400 weight typically)
• Bold weight for emphasis (700 weight typically)
• Avoid thin weights (100-300) as primary text, particularly for older users

I ensure clients have adequate weight variations to create hierarchy without resorting to colour alone (which fails for colour-blind users).

‍

Top 10 Accessible Google Fonts for Nonprofit Websites

Through my work and analysis of accessibility research, I've identified Google Fonts particularly suitable for nonprofit stakeholder needs. These recommendations prioritise readability over aesthetics whilst maintaining professional appearance.

1. Inter

Why I recommend it: Specifically designed for screen readability with excellent legibility at all sizes. Inter features generous spacing and clear letterforms that work brilliantly for users with visual impairments.

Best applications:

• Body text across all pages
• Governance documents and annual reports
• Service information for beneficiaries
• Financial transparency sections

Accessibility strengths:

• Excellent distinction between similar characters (I vs l, 0 vs O)
• Clear at small sizes without losing legibility
• Generous default spacing reduces crowding
• Multiple weights support hierarchy without colour reliance

Nonprofit context: Inter's neutral, professional appearance conveys institutional credibility whilst serving accessibility requirements. I use Inter frequently for clients requiring maximum readability across diverse stakeholder groups.

2. Roboto

Why it remains relevant: Despite being ubiquitous, Roboto offers proven readability through geometric forms and open curves. Its extensive usage means familiarity that aids readability for all users.

Best applications:

• Versatile enough for both headings and body text
• Works across print and digital materials maintaining consistency
• Mobile-optimised rendering benefits beneficiaries accessing services via phones

Accessibility strengths:

• Thoroughly tested across millions of websites and devices
• Clear letterforms at various sizes
• Excellent rendering across different screen technologies
• Multiple weights and styles support comprehensive typography systems

Nonprofit context: Roboto's reliability matters when stakeholder trust depends on consistent, professional presentation across all touchpoints.

3. Open Sans

Why I recommend it: Humanist sans-serif that balances neutrality with approachability. Open Sans feels friendly without sacrificing institutional authority—important balance for nonprofits.

Best applications:

• Body text for emotionally-engaging content (impact stories, donor appeals)
• Service descriptions for beneficiaries
• Less formal communications (newsletters, blog posts)

Accessibility strengths:

• Clear character differentiation benefits dyslexic readers
• Neutral appearance doesn't distract from content
• Excellent readability maintained across sizes
• Wide adoption means tested compatibility

Nonprofit context: Open Sans works particularly well for charities balancing institutional credibility with approachable brand personalities. Less formal than Inter but more professional than decorative alternatives.

4. Lato

Why it works for nonprofits: Semi-rounded details provide warmth whilst maintaining clarity. Lato feels both professional and welcoming—appropriate for organisations emphasising human connection.

Best applications:

• Headings and subheadings throughout site
• Campaign landing pages balancing emotion and information
• Programme impact storytelling

Accessibility strengths:

• Distinctive letterforms aid readability
• Warmth supports emotional engagement without sacrificing clarity
• Multiple weights enable sophisticated typography hierarchies
• Good performance at both large and small sizes

Nonprofit context: Lato suits organisations whose missions emphasise human connection and community support whilst requiring professional presentation for institutional funders.

5. Montserrat

Why I use it selectively: Geometric sans-serif inspired by urban signage. Montserrat's distinctive character works well for headings but I avoid it for body text due to less optimal readability at smaller sizes.

Best applications:

• Headlines and major headings only
• Campaign branding where distinctive appearance matters
• Large-size applications (hero sections, page titles)

Accessibility considerations:

• Better for headings than body text (geometric forms less readable at small sizes)
• Ensure sufficient sizing when used (minimum 20px recommended)
• Pair with more readable fonts for body content

Nonprofit context: Montserrat helps organisations stand out visually whilst maintaining professionalism, but accessibility requires careful application limiting to large-size usage.

6. Noto Sans

Why it's essential for diverse communities: Designed specifically for comprehensive language support, Noto Sans eliminates the "blank box" problem when displaying names or content in languages with limited font support.

Best applications:

• Organisations serving multilingual communities
• International development NGOs
• Charities with diverse beneficiary populations

Accessibility strengths:

• Supports virtually all languages and scripts
• Maintains consistent appearance across different character sets
• Good readability in Latin scripts
• Regular updates expanding language coverage

Nonprofit context: Noto Sans reflects genuine inclusion values through technical implementation, ensuring beneficiaries from all backgrounds see their languages represented properly.

7. IBM Plex Sans

Why I recommend it: Corporate heritage (developed for IBM) brings professional credibility. Excellent readability and comprehensive weight range support sophisticated typography systems.

Best applications:

• Organisations emphasising professionalism and institutional authority
• Research-focused charities needing clear data presentation
• Technical or policy-oriented content

Accessibility strengths:

• Clear distinction between similar characters
• Comprehensive weight range (100-700) enables hierarchy
• Excellent rendering across screen technologies
• Professional appearance maintains stakeholder trust

Nonprofit context: IBM Plex Sans works brilliantly for organisations requiring gravitas—established foundations, research institutes, policy-focused charities.

8. Source Sans Pro

Why it's accessible: Developed by Adobe specifically for screen readability. Source Sans Pro offers clarity at small sizes with excellent spacing that benefits all users.

Best applications:

• Dense content areas (annual reports, policy documents)
• Small-size applications (footnotes, captions) whilst maintaining legibility
• Technical documentation

Accessibility strengths:

• Optimised for screen rendering with excellent hinting
• Clear at small sizes without losing legibility
• Good spacing prevents crowding
• Neutral appearance doesn't distract

Nonprofit context: Source Sans Pro suits organisations producing extensive written content requiring sustained reading comfort—think tanks, educational charities, research organisations.

9. Merriweather

Why serif occasionally works: Merriweather offers serif option specifically designed for screen readability. Whilst sans-serif fonts generally work better for accessibility, Merriweather's careful design makes it viable for organisations wanting serif's traditional authority.

Best applications:

• Long-form reading (articles, impact stories, newsletters)
• Organisations emphasising heritage or tradition
• Print materials maintaining consistency with digital

Accessibility considerations:

• Requires larger sizing than sans-serif equivalents (minimum 18px for body text)
• Test carefully with older stakeholders before committing
• May not work for users with certain visual processing difficulties

Nonprofit context: Merriweather suits established institutions wanting traditional authority (historical charities, educational foundations, heritage organisations) whilst maintaining reasonable accessibility.

10. Poppins

Why it balances multiple needs: Geometric sans-serif that's both modern and highly readable. Monolinear strokes and rounded shapes create friendly appearance without sacrificing clarity.

Best applications:

• Youth-focused organisations wanting contemporary feel
• Organisations balancing institutional credibility with approachable personality
• Headings and display text throughout sites

Accessibility strengths:

• Clear, simple letterforms aid readability
• Rounded shapes feel approachable without becoming childish
• Multiple weights support sophisticated hierarchies
• Good performance across sizes

Nonprofit context: Poppins works well for organisations targeting younger audiences (youth charities, educational nonprofits) whilst maintaining professionalism for institutional stakeholders.

‍

Typography for Different Nonprofit Stakeholder Groups

Effective nonprofit typography acknowledges that different stakeholders have different needs:

Board Members and Trustees (Ages 55-80+)

Typography considerations:

• Larger base font sizes (18-20px minimum for body text)
• Higher contrast ratios than WCAG minimums
• Generous line spacing (1.6-1.8× preferred over 1.5× minimum)
• Professional typefaces conveying institutional authority

Recommended fonts: Inter, IBM Plex Sans, Source Sans Pro

Context: Governance documents, annual reports, financial statements must be readable for older stakeholders reviewing dense information.

Major Donors (Ages 45-75)

Typography considerations:

• Balance emotional engagement with readability
• Clear enough for comfortable reading but warm enough for connection
• Professional presentation reflecting gift investment value
• Consistent with print stewardship materials

Recommended fonts: Lato, Open Sans, Poppins

Context: Impact reports, donor communications, campaign materials balance information and emotion.

Beneficiaries (All Ages, Various Abilities)

Typography considerations:

• Maximum accessibility—exceed WCAG minimums
• Clear for users with dyslexia and cognitive processing differences
• Simple, straightforward without excessive stylisation
• Works at various sizes for different devices

Recommended fonts: Inter, Roboto, Open Sans, Noto Sans (for multilingual)

Context: Service information, crisis support resources, accessibility guides must serve diverse abilities.

Grant-Makers and Institutional Funders (Ages 30-65)

Typography considerations:

• Professional authority signalling institutional capacity
• Clarity for dense technical or financial information
• Consistent with application materials and reports
• Balance authority with accessibility

Recommended fonts: IBM Plex Sans, Inter, Source Sans Pro

Context: Capacity statements, financial transparency, programme documentation for due diligence.

General Public (All Ages and Abilities)

Typography considerations:

• Universal accessibility serving broadest possible audience
• Neutral enough not to alienate any demographic
• Clear at all sizes across all devices
• Sufficient versatility for varied content types

Recommended fonts: Roboto, Open Sans, Inter

Context: Homepage, programme descriptions, impact stories, general information.

‍

Common Typography Accessibility Mistakes in Nonprofit Websites

Through Blueprint Audit diagnostics, I frequently encounter these failures:

1. Decorative Fonts for Body Text

Common mistake: Using script, handwriting, or decorative fonts for paragraphs because they "look charity-like"

Why it fails: Decorative fonts create severe readability problems for dyslexic users, older stakeholders, and those with visual processing difficulties

Solution: Reserve decorative fonts exclusively for large headings if used at all; use clear sans-serif fonts for body text

2. Insufficient Font Sizing

Common mistake: 14px or 15px body text because it "looks more elegant"

Why it fails: Violates WCAG guidelines and creates readability problems for users over 45 (majority of Board members and major donors)

Solution: Minimum 16px, preferably 18px for nonprofit audiences

3. Low Contrast Grey Text

Common mistake: #666666 or #999999 grey text on white backgrounds for "softer" aesthetic

Why it fails: Insufficient contrast ratios fail WCAG AA requirements and create severe problems for users with reduced contrast sensitivity

Solution: Test all colour combinations with contrast checkers; use darker greys (#333333 or darker) or black for body text

4. Thin Font Weights

Common mistake: 100-300 weight fonts for "elegant, modern" appearance

Why it fails: Thin weights become illegible for older users and those with visual impairments, particularly at smaller sizes

Solution: Use 400 (regular) weight minimum for body text; reserve thin weights only for very large decorative headings if needed

5. Insufficient Line Spacing

Common mistake: Default line spacing (1.2-1.3×) to fit more content on pages

Why it fails: Cramped text creates readability problems for dyslexic readers and older users with reduced visual processing

Solution: Minimum 1.5× line spacing per WCAG; I typically use 1.6-1.8× for nonprofit audiences

6. Multiple Competing Typefaces

Common mistake: Using 3+ different typeface families for "visual variety"

Why it fails: Creates cognitive load and visual confusion, particularly for users with cognitive processing differences

Solution: Maximum 2 typeface families (one for headings, one for body) or single versatile family with multiple weights

7. Ignoring Print Typography

Common mistake: Optimising only for web whilst neglecting print material consistency

Why it fails: Creates brand inconsistency when digital and print materials use different typography, undermining institutional credibility

Solution: Select typefaces working across both digital and print applications; ensure print materials use same or complementary fonts

‍

Implementing Accessible Typography: Practical Steps

Beyond selecting appropriate fonts, proper implementation ensures accessibility benefits reach stakeholders:

CSS Font Sizing Best Practices

Use relative units (rem or em) rather than fixed pixels:

css

body {
 font-size: 1.125rem; /* 18px if base is 16px */
 line-height: 1.6;
}

Why relative units matter: Allows users to adjust browser font sizing preferences without breaking layouts—critical for users with visual impairments who increase default font sizes.

Establishing Typography Hierarchy

Create clear hierarchy using size, weight, and spacing:

css

h1 { font-size: 2.5rem; font-weight: 700; }
h2 { font-size: 2rem; font-weight: 600; }
h3 { font-size: 1.5rem; font-weight: 600; }
p  { font-size: 1.125rem; font-weight: 400; line-height: 1.6; }

Accessibility benefit: Clear hierarchy helps all users navigate content, particularly those using screen readers or those with cognitive processing differences.

Testing Typography Accessibility

Tools I use for every client:

• WebAIM Contrast Checker (verify colour contrast ratios)
• WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (comprehensive accessibility assessment)
• Browser zoom testing (verify layouts work at 200% zoom per WCAG)
• Device testing (confirm readability across mobile and desktop)

Stakeholder testing: Whenever possible, I test with actual older stakeholders from client organisations, gathering feedback on readability and comfort.

Documentation for Governance

Typography standards should be documented in brand guidelines:

• Approved typefaces for digital and print applications
• Font sizing standards for different content types
• Colour contrast requirements
• Line spacing and paragraph spacing standards
• Examples of correct and incorrect applications
• WCAG compliance documentation

Board oversight: Trustees should approve typography standards as governance documentation, ensuring accessibility commitments are technically implemented.

‍

Blueprint Audit: Typography Accessibility Assessment

I've developed specific diagnostic criteria for nonprofits requiring Board-level justification for typography improvements. The Blueprint Audit is a £2,500 engagement that includes:

WCAG compliance testing: Comprehensive assessment of current typography against AA standards, identifying contrast failures, sizing problems, and spacing issues

Stakeholder readability evaluation: Testing typography with actual older stakeholders, beneficiaries with disabilities, and diverse users assessing real-world accessibility

Brand consistency review: Evaluating whether typography works consistently across digital and print applications

Implementation audit: Assessing whether accessible typography is properly implemented in code (relative units, proper line-height, adequate spacing)

Governance documentation assessment: Reviewing whether brand guidelines adequately specify typography standards and accessibility requirements

Remediation roadmap: Prioritising typography improvements delivering maximum accessibility enhancement for available budget

This diagnostic precedes any typography implementation work, ensuring Board approval is based on accessibility rationale rather than aesthetic preferences.

Following Blueprint Audit assessment, typography implementation (including font selection, CSS improvements, and brand guideline documentation) typically ranges from £3,000 to £8,000 depending on website complexity.

‍

Why I Focus on Accessible Typography for Nonprofits

After working across 100+ websites in various sectors, I've learned that commercial typography practices often undermine nonprofit accessibility requirements. Commercial designers optimise for younger audiences with perfect vision, creating beautiful typography that fails WCAG standards and excludes older stakeholders.

The nonprofit sector requires specialists understanding that typography reflects organisational values. When charities select inaccessible fonts, they contradict mission commitments whilst potentially violating legal requirements under the Equality Act 2010.

Through my transition to nonprofit-focused consultancy, I'm developing typography frameworks specifically for institutional credibility and stakeholder inclusion:

• Exceeding WCAG minimums to truly serve diverse abilities
• Balancing institutional authority with emotional engagement
• Supporting older Board members and major donors
• Ensuring beneficiaries with disabilities access services
• Maintaining consistency across digital and print applications

Rather than applying commercial typography trends to nonprofits, specialisation allows me to develop solutions specifically for Communications Directors balancing accessibility compliance, institutional credibility, and diverse stakeholder needs.

‍

Is Your Typography Supporting Accessibility and Inclusion?

If your Board questions whether website accessibility adequately reflects organisational values, or if stakeholders report readability difficulties, typography assessment provides clarity without committing to full website redesign costs upfront.

I work with Communications Directors at established nonprofits (typically £2-5m revenue) who recognise that accessible typography reflects institutional competence and values alignment. If you're balancing WCAG compliance requirements, older stakeholder needs, and beneficiary accessibility whilst maintaining institutional credibility, I'd welcome a conversation about whether focused typography assessment might help.

Book a Blueprint Audit consultation to discuss how accessible typography might support your organisation's specific inclusion commitments and stakeholder accessibility requirements.

Technical note: When implementing Google Fonts, use the font-display: swap property to prevent invisible text during font loading, maintaining accessibility for users with slow connections. I ensure all client implementations include proper font loading strategies protecting against accessibility failures.