I'm curious to know where you live. In the US—largely due to the impact of Dr. Shaywitz's work at Yale—the dominant thinking is that dyslexia is phonological, not visual. Yet in other parts of the world (including other English-speaking countries) researchers and the general public view dyslexia as something that can be visual or can be non-visual, depending on the person. One MIT professor estimated that roughly 1/3 are visual, 1/3 are non-visual, and 1/3 are a bit of both.
After talking with dozens of researchers, special ed teachers, and disability-rights advocates, I've learned that dyslexia is defined as a residual category. That is, someone is dyslexic if they don't read well, and it's not due to general lack of visual acuity or general lack of intelligence.
Considering that dyslexia is a residual category, it seems unlikely that the entire category would be caused by a single type of deficit. And in light of the fact that some (I have no idea what percentage) dyslexic readers say that their difficulty is visual in nature, this seems even less likely.
I became interested in this question because my startup, whose technology uses a visual trick to improve reading ability, became very popular in the dyslexic community. I was perplexed because much of the US-based literature proclaimed that dyslexia wasn't visual. In talking with folks in the US, I've seen a lot of cognitive dissonance because people find our (purely visual) tech to be very helpful for themselves or for their students, but it's been hammered into their head that dyslexia is not visual in nature. If that were 100% true, then one wouldn't expect a purely visual technology to be so helpful.
At the end of the day, we aren't completely sure why the tech helps dyslexic readers so much—we're just happy that people are using and benefiting from it. Sorry this reply got long and a bit off-topic; hopefully it's relevant to the larger conversation.
After talking with dozens of researchers, special ed teachers, and disability-rights advocates, I've learned that dyslexia is defined as a residual category. That is, someone is dyslexic if they don't read well, and it's not due to general lack of visual acuity or general lack of intelligence.
Considering that dyslexia is a residual category, it seems unlikely that the entire category would be caused by a single type of deficit. And in light of the fact that some (I have no idea what percentage) dyslexic readers say that their difficulty is visual in nature, this seems even less likely.
I became interested in this question because my startup, whose technology uses a visual trick to improve reading ability, became very popular in the dyslexic community. I was perplexed because much of the US-based literature proclaimed that dyslexia wasn't visual. In talking with folks in the US, I've seen a lot of cognitive dissonance because people find our (purely visual) tech to be very helpful for themselves or for their students, but it's been hammered into their head that dyslexia is not visual in nature. If that were 100% true, then one wouldn't expect a purely visual technology to be so helpful.
At the end of the day, we aren't completely sure why the tech helps dyslexic readers so much—we're just happy that people are using and benefiting from it. Sorry this reply got long and a bit off-topic; hopefully it's relevant to the larger conversation.