- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:57:13 +0300
- To: 'Maurizio Boscarol' <maurizio@usabile.it>, 'Gez Lemon' <gl@juicystudio.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Sorry I was away last week and did not check emails that often. In this last thread I was recommending tests that do not guarantee conformance or accessibility, but are a useful as a yard stick and as an alarm bell. To some extent all of our tests are like that. Example of known test: Flesch Reading Ease There is a lot to say about different approaches suggested over the years on this list to readability tests, I have pulled out a few approaches from past emails to this list as a selection: Approach 1 "flexible" There is a public available policy statement of acceptable maximum length of nown phrases, sentences length, paragraphs and that this policy is conformed to on the site There is a public available policy statement of acceptable number of words in sentences and that this policy is conformed to on the site There is a public available policy statement of acceptable maximum number of sentences in paragraphs and that this policy is conformed to on the site Then a note on how to make a policy statement ( e.g.- a policy statement should balance and justify the following factors - what length etc is truly necessary on the site, v the people who will find it harder to understand the site.) The key term or idea of each paragraph is easily identifiable (techniques: through markup like em, or by "front loading") This is human testable - is a key term highlighted? Id it near the front Approach 2: In general confirm that any discrepancies from the below were necessary more then one conjunction per sentence Check sentence length (over 20 words) Check paragraph length Check wording against a simple language lexicon / or provide a glossary refrences Check tense of sentence style aids comprehension Check for synaptic and Syntactic ambiguity Check number of paragraphs under heading Check implied meanings Approach 3: Consider what cognitive skill are truly necessary to understand the ideas in a page. For example , to understand the subject would it be essential that the user: Has a visual memory Understand jokes and innuendos Understand sarcasm Have average auditory/word retention skills Have average language skills. (use of words) Have average reading skills (initial list) Having made a profile of what skill are the minimum to understand the ideas, check whether more skills are necessary to understand the language and writing skills used and test site against that profile. If content is lost - fail links and bibliographies other emails etc...: review of Telecommunications Problems and Design Strategies for People with Cognitive Disabilities: Annotated Bibliography and Research Recommendations by Ellen Francik, Ph.D. http://www.wid.org/archives/telecom/Telecom.pdf see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0456.html Chapter 2 should probably be essential or recommended reading http://www.wid.org/archives/telecom/chapter2.html review of guidelines for autism from David Potter of the UK National Autistic Society http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001OctDec/0572.html http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/add/Factsheet.htm, -January 25, 2002 http://www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/courseinfo/AcademicWriting/Flesch.htm AHRC New York at http://www.ahrcnyc.org/ DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), AHRC New York City http://www.ahrcnyc.org/index.htm FAQ's Sheet (2002) > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Maurizio Boscarol > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:20 PM > To: Gez Lemon > Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: Re: Readability tests > > > > Gez Lemon wrote: > > >>What tests for clear writing do you know of Lisa. Please send > >>thoughts. > >> > >> > > > >I've implemented a service on Juicy Studio that determines > the Gunning > >Fog Index, Flesch Reading Ease, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade of a web > >document <http://juicystudio.com/fog/>. I'm not sure of its > usefulness > >(if any) for languages other than English, and I'm also not > convinced > >about the underlying principles behind the algorithms. The > algorithms > >favour short monosyllabic sentences, regardless of whether > the sentence > >makes sense. Obviously, it's possible to get a good score with > >gobbledy-gook, but I've had quite a lot of positive feedback > about its > >usefulness. Could make a starting point? > > > > > > I think it is a good starting point to experiment. In fact, we need > empirical data of this readability indexes usefulness on the web. > Consider that in a 1999 book of Jared Spool (Web site usability: a > designer's guide, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers), he used the > Gunning Fog > Index and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade in web pages and found that: > - the less readable the site was, the more user were > successful with the > site > - the less readable the site was, the more users found the > site clear, > complete, satisfying and useful. > > Yes, just the opposite of what you expect. :) And the > opposite of usual > behavior offline. > > The hypotesis is that this is due to different activity users > make on a > web page. Usually they don't read, they skim the page looking for > something useful. This behavior is explained also in some recent > "semantic" usability models on the web, like the Pirolli "information > scent" and Blackmon, Polson and Kitajima "Cognitive > walkthrough for the > web". > > Moreover, like you noted, in languages different from english > all this > linguistic tools need to be revalidated. > > To have a tool like your may help a lot to experiment > further. I'd like > very much to have such an easy tool to play with in italian > language... ;-) > > Maurizio Boscarol > http://www.usabile.it/ > >
Received on Sunday, 17 October 2004 14:56:38 UTC