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 putting WCAG 2.2 AA conformance at risk.

Through client work and Blueprint Audit diagnostics, I have found 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 across a wide age range, with varying visual capabilities, on devices from desktop monitors to mobile phones. That imperative shapes every typography decision I make for clients.

In this guide I set out the accessible Google Fonts that suit nonprofit websites, and explain how typography choices support institutional credibility whilst meeting the WCAG 2.2 AA standard.

Why Typography Matters for Nonprofit Accessibility and Governance

Before exploring specific font recommendations, it is worth being clear about why typography constitutes governance infrastructure rather than merely aesthetic preference.

The Equality Act 2010 does not name websites. What it does is place a duty to make reasonable adjustments on service providers: section 29(7) applies that duty to anyone providing a service to the public, and a charity website is part of how the service is provided. WCAG 2.2 AA is the benchmark most sectors now use to evidence that the adjustment has been made, and typography carries several of its criteria directly:

Sufficient contrast ratios between text and backgrounds. Success criterion 1.4.3 requires 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text, where large means 18 point regular or 14 point bold.

Resizable text. Success criterion 1.4.4 requires that text can be resized to 200 per cent without loss of content or functionality. There is no minimum font size in the standard; sizing is a practice decision, and I set a 16px floor for body text with 18px preferred for nonprofit audiences.

Clear letterforms that do not create confusion between similar characters.

Resilient spacing. Success criterion 1.4.12 requires the layout to survive a reader overriding your line height, paragraph spacing, letter spacing and word spacing.

A charity's typography can be genuinely beautiful and still fail those criteria, which creates exposure whilst contradicting mission statements about serving all community members. Typography accessibility is not optional. It is where organisational values either reach the technical implementation or stop short of it.

Older Stakeholder Considerations

Nonprofit stakeholders skew older than commercial audiences, and the scale of that skew is documented rather than anecdotal. Charity Commission research into the trustee population puts the median trustee age at 65 to 69, with a mean of 65. Fifty-five per cent of trustees are over 65 and 22 per cent are 75 or older. Only 8 per cent are 44 or under.

Presbyopia is the age-related stiffening of the lens that makes close focus harder. The NHS notes that long-sightedness often affects people over 40, which is the majority of the Board on most charity sites.

Contrast is a threshold, not a target. Treat 4.5:1 as the floor you clear comfortably rather than the number you land on, because a ratio that passes a checker in a bright office can still be hard work on a laptop screen at an angle.

Decorative faces cost reading effort from every reader, and that cost is paid disproportionately by the people reviewing the densest documents on your site.

When I run a Blueprint Audit, I assess whether typography adequately serves the older stakeholders who control governance decisions and funding, not just younger staff members with perfect vision.

Dyslexia and Cognitive Disabilities

The British Dyslexia Association states that ten per cent of the population are believed to be dyslexic. Typography significantly affects readability for those readers:

Adequate spacing between letters, words and lines prevents text from appearing to merge. This is also what success criterion 1.4.12 tests, by requiring your layout to hold together when a reader turns that spacing up themselves.

Avoiding decorative or script fonts that create visual confusion between characters.

Consistent typography across pages reduces cognitive load. The W3C guidance on making content usable for people with cognitive and learning disabilities makes this explicit under its consistent visual design pattern: headings with the same structural level should have the same font and visual style.

Nonprofits serving beneficiaries with learning disabilities particularly must ensure accessible typography, because anything less contradicts the mission commitment.

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

Sizing checked per script, because a size that reads comfortably in Latin text is not automatically comfortable in a denser script. Check at the sizes you actually publish.

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

Google Fonts offers a particular advantage here through the Noto family, which covers more than 1,000 languages and over 150 writing systems.

Institutional Credibility Through Professional Typography

Beyond accessibility requirements, typography affects whether stakeholders perceive your organisation as professionally managed. A Board can reject a website proposal because the typography feels unprofessional, whatever the designer's aesthetic case for it.

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 that are particularly valuable for nonprofits with limited design budgets.

Free and Commercially Unrestricted

Commercial typefaces are licensed and paid for, usually per weight, per seat or per monthly pageview, and the bill recurs. Google Fonts are released under the SIL Open Font License, which allows you to use them in books, posters, artwork, logos and on websites with no acknowledgement required, and to modify and redistribute them freely.

  • 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 removes a recurring line item 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 clear letterforms and generous spacing that make conformance easier to reach. Not all of them do: decorative and script faces still create readability problems wherever they are hosted.

One face carries its credentials explicitly. Atkinson Hyperlegible was developed by the Braille Institute, named after its founder J. Robert Atkinson, and designed to improve legibility and readability for individuals with low vision through unambiguous letterforms, clear uprights, distinct pairs and open counters. It is on Google Fonts, free, and it is the one recommendation on this page where the accessibility case is documented by the foundry rather than inferred by me.

Extensive Language Support

The Noto family, developed by Google, aims to cover every writing system. Noto eliminates the common problem where international beneficiary names appear as blank boxes because the font lacks the characters.

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, be clear about what the standard actually says. Most of the confusion in this area comes from treating practice conventions as legal thresholds. A fuller walkthrough sits in WCAG accessibility compliance for charity websites.

Minimum Font Sizing

What WCAG requires: nothing about size directly. Success criterion 1.4.4 requires text to be resizable up to 200 per cent without loss of content or functionality, which is a test of your layout rather than your type scale.

What I specify in practice:

  • Body text: 16px floor, 18px preferred for nonprofit audiences
  • Large text (headings): 18px and up, in practice 20px to 24px and beyond
  • Small text (footnotes, captions): 14px floor, used sparingly

Why I set a floor above the standard: the standard sets the legal baseline. Nonprofits serving older stakeholders or those with visual impairments should exceed it, and the heading scale is where this most often breaks on a phone rather than a desktop. Heading sizes on a mobile nonprofit website covers that specific failure.

Contrast Ratios

WCAG requirement (success criterion 1.4.3):

  • Normal text: minimum 4.5:1 contrast ratio
  • Large text (18 point regular, or 14 point bold: roughly 24px and 18.5px): minimum 3:1

Note the units. The standard is written in points, not pixels, and reading 18pt as 18px is one of the most common ways a site convinces itself it is passing when it is not.

Common failures I encounter:

  • Grey text on white backgrounds, where #999999 measures about 2.9:1 and fails outright
  • Brand colours used as text without being tested at text scale
  • Light text over background images with no scrim or overlay to hold the ratio

Brand palettes are the recurring version of this, because the colour that was signed off on a logo is rarely the colour that passes as body text. Colour accessibility as brand governance covers how to resolve that without repainting the brand.

I test every typography choice with the WebAIM Contrast Checker.

Line Spacing and Paragraph Spacing

WCAG requirement (success criterion 1.4.12, Level AA): the page must lose no content or functionality when a reader sets all of the following themselves.

  • Line spacing (line height): at least 1.5 times the font size
  • Paragraph spacing: at least 2 times the font size
  • Letter spacing (tracking): at least 0.12 times the font size
  • Word spacing: at least 0.16 times the font size

This is frequently misread as an instruction to apply those values. It is a resilience test: your layout has to hold when someone else applies them. Setting line height at or above 1.5 yourself is still the sensible default, and at Level AAA success criterion 1.4.8 goes further, asking for line spacing of at least space-and-a-half and blocks of text no wider than 80 characters.

Why this matters: adequate spacing prevents text from appearing crowded, which is 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 to 300) as primary text, particularly for older users

I make sure clients have enough weights to build hierarchy without resorting to colour alone, which is what success criterion 1.4.1 Use of Color prohibits at Level A: colour must not be the only visual means of conveying information.

Top 10 Accessible Google Fonts for Nonprofit Websites

The list below is the set I return to for nonprofit stakeholder needs. These recommendations prioritise readability over aesthetics whilst maintaining professional appearance.

1. Inter

Why I recommend it: designed for interfaces and text on screen. The text optical sizes carry a tall x-height to aid legibility of lower-case text, with ink traps and bridges that keep the letterforms open at small sizes.

Best applications:

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

Accessibility strengths:

  • Strong 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 a familiarity that aids reading.

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:

  • Widely used across websites and devices
  • Clear letterforms at various sizes
  • Reliable 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: a humanist sans-serif that balances neutrality with approachability. Open Sans feels friendly without sacrificing institutional authority, which is a useful 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
  • Neutral appearance doesn’t distract from content
  • 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, which suits 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: a geometric sans-serif inspired by urban signage. Montserrat’s distinctive character works well for headings, but I avoid it for body text because the geometric forms are less readable at small 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
  • Ensure sufficient sizing when used (20px minimum recommended)
  • Pair with more readable fonts for body content

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

6. Noto Sans

Why it’s essential for diverse communities: designed for comprehensive language support, Noto Sans removes the blank box problem when displaying names or content in scripts that other fonts do not cover.

Best applications:

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

Accessibility strengths:

  • Part of a family covering over 150 writing systems
  • 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 names and languages set properly.

7. IBM Plex Sans

Why I recommend it: a corporate heritage (developed for IBM) that brings professional credibility, with good readability and a comprehensive weight range for 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 to 700) enables hierarchy
  • Reliable rendering across screen technologies
  • Professional appearance maintains stakeholder trust

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

8. Source Sans Pro

Why it’s accessible: developed by Adobe as a user interface face, Source Sans Pro holds clarity at small sizes with spacing that benefits all readers.

Best applications:

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

Accessibility strengths:

  • Built for screen rendering
  • 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 is a serif designed for screen reading. Where a serif is wanted for its traditional authority, it is the one I will consider.

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 (18px minimum for body text)
  • Test with older stakeholders before committing
  • May not suit readers 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: a geometric sans-serif that is both modern and readable. Monolinear strokes and rounded shapes create a 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

Typography considerations:

  • Larger base font sizes (18px to 20px minimum for body text)
  • Contrast ratios set above the WCAG minimum rather than at it
  • Generous line spacing (1.6 to 1.8, rather than stopping at 1.5)
  • Professional typefaces conveying institutional authority

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

Context: governance documents, annual reports and financial statements have to be readable by a board whose median age the Charity Commission puts at 65 to 69.

Major Donors

Typography considerations:

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

Recommended fonts: Lato, Open Sans, Poppins

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

Beneficiaries

Typography considerations:

  • Maximum accessibility: exceed WCAG minimums
  • Clear for readers with dyslexia and cognitive processing differences
  • Simple and 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 and accessibility guides must serve diverse abilities. This extends to captions and subtitles, which are typography on screen and are governed with the same standards: see video governance for charity websites.

Grant-Makers and Institutional Funders

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 and programme documentation for due diligence.

General Public

Typography considerations:

  • Universal accessibility serving the broadest possible audience
  • Neutral enough not to alienate any group
  • 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 readers, older stakeholders, and those with visual processing difficulties

Solution: reserve decorative fonts exclusively for large headings, if they are used at all, and 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: it creates readability problems for exactly the readers who sign off the budget, given that the NHS notes long-sightedness often affects people over 40

Solution: 16px minimum, 18px preferred for nonprofit audiences

3. Low Contrast Grey Text

Common mistake: #999999 grey text on white backgrounds for a softer aesthetic

Why it fails: #999999 on white measures about 2.9:1 against a 4.5:1 requirement. The lightest neutral grey that clears the threshold is around #767676, which is darker than most designers expect

Solution: test every colour combination with a contrast checker and use #333333 or darker for body text

4. Thin Font Weights

Common mistake: 100 to 300 weight fonts for an elegant, modern appearance

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

Solution: use 400 (regular) weight as the minimum for body text, and reserve thin weights for very large decorative headings if at all

5. Insufficient Line Spacing

Common mistake: default line spacing (1.2 to 1.3) to fit more content on the page

Why it fails: cramped text creates readability problems for dyslexic readers and older users, and a layout set that tight tends to break under the 1.4.12 spacing override

Solution: 1.5 minimum, and 1.6 to 1.8 for nonprofit audiences

6. Multiple Competing Typefaces

Common mistake: using three or more typeface families for visual variety

Why it fails: it creates cognitive load and visual confusion, particularly for readers with cognitive processing differences

Solution: two typeface families at most (one for headings, one for body), or a single versatile family with multiple weights

7. Ignoring Print Typography

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

Why it fails: it creates brand inconsistency when digital and print materials use different typography, which undermines institutional credibility

Solution: select typefaces that work across both digital and print applications, and ensure print materials use the same or complementary fonts

Implementing Accessible Typography: Practical Steps

Beyond selecting appropriate fonts, implementation determines whether the accessibility benefit reaches anyone. Typography works with layout decisions to create an accessible information hierarchy.

CSS Font Sizing Best Practices

The standard your developer should be working to specifies relative units rather than fixed pixels:

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

Why relative units matter: they let readers apply their own browser font size preference without breaking the layout, which is what success criterion 1.4.4 is testing.

Establishing Typography Hierarchy

Hierarchy should be built from size, weight and spacing, and written down as a scale rather than decided per page:

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: a clear hierarchy helps everyone navigate content, particularly readers using screen readers and those with cognitive processing differences.

Testing Typography Accessibility

Tools I use for every client:

  • WebAIM Contrast Checker to verify colour contrast ratios
  • WAVE for a broader accessibility sweep of the page
  • Browser zoom testing to verify layouts hold at 200 per cent
  • Device testing to confirm readability across mobile and desktop

Stakeholder testing: wherever possible I test with actual older stakeholders from the client organisation and gather feedback on readability and comfort.

Documentation for Governance

Typography standards belong in brand guidelines, alongside logo standards, as governance infrastructure:

  • 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 conformance documentation

Board oversight: trustees should approve typography standards as governance documentation, which is what turns an accessibility commitment into something the organisation can be held to.

Blueprint Audit: Typography Accessibility Assessment

For organisations that need Board-level justification before spending anything on typography, the Blueprint Audit covers it as part of the wider diagnostic:

WCAG conformance testing: assessment of current typography against AA, 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 the typography improvements that deliver the most accessibility gain for the budget available

The diagnostic comes before any implementation work, so Board approval rests on an accessibility rationale rather than an aesthetic preference. What implementation then costs depends on what the audit finds, and it is scoped and priced from those findings rather than quoted in advance.

Why I Focus on Accessible Typography for Nonprofits

Working across websites in many sectors, I have found that commercial typography practice often runs against nonprofit accessibility requirements. Commercial designers optimise for younger audiences with good vision, which produces beautiful typography that fails WCAG and excludes older stakeholders.

The nonprofit sector needs people who treat typography as a reflection of organisational values. When charities select inaccessible fonts, they contradict mission commitments whilst weakening the reasonable-adjustments position the Equality Act 2010 expects them to hold.

The typography frameworks I use for clients are built for institutional credibility and stakeholder inclusion:

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

Rather than applying commercial typography trends to nonprofits, specialisation lets me build for Communications Directors balancing accessibility conformance, institutional credibility and diverse stakeholder needs.

Is Your Typography Supporting Accessibility and Inclusion?

If your Board is asking whether website accessibility genuinely reflects organisational values, or if stakeholders are reporting readability difficulties, a typography assessment gives you an answer without committing to a full redesign first.

I work with Communications Directors at established nonprofits (typically £2m–£5m revenue) who recognise that accessible typography reflects institutional competence and values alignment. If you are balancing WCAG conformance, older stakeholder needs and beneficiary accessibility whilst maintaining institutional credibility, I would welcome a conversation.

Further reading:

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 so text is never invisible while a font loads. Every client implementation I sign off includes a font loading strategy for that reason.

What Typography Done Right Changes

Organisations that invest in accessible, consistent typography describe it as one of those improvements that affects every page, every user and every interaction, invisibly, because it works. Content is easier to read. The visual hierarchy makes sense. Readers with low vision or reading differences can engage with the content without friction. The brand feels more coherent because one of its most fundamental elements, how text looks and reads, is consistent and considered.

Typography is rarely what anyone notices when it is right. It is unmistakable when it is wrong, and it is often wrong on nonprofit websites that were assembled from templates without deliberate typographic thinking.