Is this scientifically-backed or just some guy claiming it's better?
Because I'm not dyslexic, however reading through that text I had a number of dyslexic moments, which would lead me to conclude it's either a very good attempt or a very bad one.
For example, the word "bold" came across as "blood" and other fleeting examples that I can no longer recall.
"Results: No significant difference in speed was measured, but there were some positive and negative effects found for the interaction font and dyslexia on the accuracy for reading words and non-words.
Conclusion: Reading with the font “Dyslexie” does not improve the reading speed for reading words. However some specific type of reading errors are decreased, but others are increased. Overall the dyslectics read fewer errors while reading the words printed in the font “Dyslexie”.
Further research in needed to examine the hypotheses that the reading speed and accuracy increases while reading texts that are printed in the font “Dyslexie”."
So, I would treat it as "if it works for you: fine", but I wouldn't start using it in physical print, as some publishers have done.
Because I'm not dyslexic, however reading through that text I had a number of dyslexic moments, which would lead me to conclude it's either a very good attempt or a very bad one.
For example, the word "bold" came across as "blood" and other fleeting examples that I can no longer recall.