· Understanding Guideline 3.1 L3 SC6
· Techniques for meeting Guideline 3.1 L3 SC6
· Benefits and Examples of Guideline 3.1 L3 SC6
[1]Success criterion: What WCAG 2.0 requires
6. For delivery units below the second level in a set of delivery units, text content can be read by adults with the reading ability expected for native speakers who have completed fewer than nine years of school.
Note: This success criterion is in DRAFT form. It is presented to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group as a formal proposal, but it has not earned the consensus of the Working Group, and it does not appear in the current Public Working Draft at http://www.w3.org/tr/wcag20. It is presented here for discussion only. It must not be cited as a normative reference.
Education level
Years of school completed, or highest degree achieved.
Readability formula
Readability formulas predict whether text will be easy or difficult to read. Readability formulas assume that longer sentences are more complex than shorter ones, and therefore harder to read. Readability formulas also assume that shorter words are easier to read than longer ones.
In some languages, readability formulas measure sentence-length by counting characters instead of words. Readability formulas for languages that allow more than one script within a single document (such as Japanese katakana and hiragana) may also consider the number of scripts used in the text as a measure of difficulty.
Results of readability tests are often expressed in terms of the education level needed to recognize words andsentences in the text. Thus readability formulas can help authors write content that matches the education level or reading ability of the intended audience.
Second level
Second-level Web content is content that users can reach by following one link from the home page or its equivalent, by choosing an option from a voice menu, etc. On news sites, for example, full stories often appear on second-level pages. (The first-level page lists the day’s major headlines and provides links to the stories.)
Delivery unit
[Add plain-language paraphrase approved on 2005-04-28 call.]
A set of material transferred between two cooperating web programs as the response to a single HTTP request. The transfer might, for example, be between an origin server and a user agent.
The intent of this success criterion is to make most Web content readable. It sets the standard for readability below the end of lower secondary education as defined by the International Standard Classification of Education (OECD, 1999).
Education levels vary from country to country. For example a large percentage of the population in southern European countries have a lower secondary education. (United Nations, Statistical Yearbook of the Economic Commission for Europe 2003; retrieved 22 April 2005 from http://www.unece.org/stats/trends/ch3.htm). Reading ability also varies from country to country, and sometimes from region to region within the same country.
Education level is not always a reliable predictor of reading ability. For example, US government statistics (2004) show that over 85 percent of adults in the United States have an upper secondary education. Yet according to the International Adult Literacy Survey (1994-98), the United States ranked last among high-performing economies in the percentage of individuals with low literacy levels among adults who had not completed lower secondary education.
Adults who have low literacy skills are very likely to have undiagnosed learning disabilities. The reading ability required by this success criterion is appropriate for people with mild reading disabilities.
Here are a few more items to help put this requirement in context:
· The European Union requires readability tests of information leaflets about drugs and other medical products, to ensure that the members of the public can find and read the information they need.
· In the United States, researchers who conduct drug trials and other experiments that involve humans must ask the people who take part in the experiment to sign a statement that they understand their role in the experiment and that they are aware of any risks to their health or safety. The law requires that such forms must be understandable to the general public. Most universities interpret this law to mean that informed consent forms should be written for people in the eighth year of school (that is, near the end of their lower secondary education).
· Canada’s Northwest Territories Literacy Council recommends writing at the 7th- to 9th-grade level when presenting new ideas and information or introducing specialized topics to the general public.
· Jakob Nielsen reported (2005) that both low- and high-literacy users had significantly higher success and satisfaction rates when content was written in a way that would satisfy this success criterion and the previous one (Guideline 3.1 L3 SC5). (Source: Nielsen, J. (2005). Alertbox: Low-literacy users: Jakib Nielsen’s Alertbox. Retrieved 25 April 2005 from http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050314.html.
This success criterion applies to text below the second level on a Web site, Web application, or other online resource.
1. Measure the readability of text content on a representative sample of pages (or the equivalent) below the second level.
2. Revise the text as needed to satisfy this success criterion.
Follow these steps to measure the difficulty of text content:
1. Choose a readability formula that will work with your content. Some issues to consider are:
a. Does the content include incomplete sentences in list items, section headings, and so on? If so, consider using a readability formula that does not require complete sentences.
b. Choose passages that represent the different types or styles of text on your site. It is not necessary to include every word of a long text in the readability analysis. Many Web sites contain different types of information written in different styles for different groups of users. Test samples of each type of content.
c. Choose passages that meet the length requirements for your readability formula. Some formulas are based on 100-word passages; others use 150 words. And some describe procedures that can be used for very short texts.
2. Apply the formula, or run the readability test in your word processor. (Commercial word processors may not give you a choice of which formula to use.)
3. Interpret the results. This may involve plotting the score on a graph or looking up the score in a table or chart for the chosen formula.
4. Record the results. Include the raw data as well as the readability score or grade level. Include the URI for each page or equivalent that has been tested.
Note: The following are techniques, not rules. Like any other technique, they must be used with skill and understanding in order to achieve good results. Many other techniques may be needed to make the text clear and understandable.
1. Try to keep sentences short. For example, US and European Union readability guidelines recommend 20 words per sentence as a good average. (Note: This does not mean that all sentences should be the same length.)
2. Consider breaking longer sentences into two sentences, especially if the original sentence contains 25 words or more. (Note that this technique may require additional changes to both of the “new” sentences.)
3. Try to limit the number of long words, especially if you are not certain that the intended audience will know what they mean. (Note: different countries and different languages have different concepts of what “long” words are. English words with three or more syllables are usually considered “long.” However, the Lix readability formula used in several European countries counts any word with six or more letters as a “long” word.)
4. Consider replacing long words with shorter ones that have the same or very similar meaning. some organizations publish lists of common words that may help you find good alternatives. Note: sometimes a long word that has the exact meaning you need is better than a shorter word that means something different.
1. Put the most important content at the beginning of each
a. Section,
b. Page (or equivalent), and
c. Paragraph.
2. Group related content in a way that is both logical and visible.
3. Write text that can be read by adults who have completed fewer than seven years of school.
4. Use concept-coding to support tools that convert text to symbol languages for Augmentative and Alternative Communication
This success criterion benefits people with reading disabilities who can understand complex ideas and processes presented in readable text.
Reading disabilities such as dyslexia affect the ability to recognize words and sentences. This is called decoding. Decoding must be automatic in order for people to read fluently. People who cannot read fluently often decode the text a word at a time. The act of decoding text word by word is slow and tiring. It consumes much of the mental energy that most people are able to use for understanding what they read.
People with learning disabilities have become successful scientists, engineers, artists, attorneys, and skilled professionals in many other fields. But they are often at a significant disadvantage when ideas and information are available only in complex textual presentations.
Example 1: Information about a research study that is difficult to read
[Note: The next several paragraphs contain information that is required so that people can give informed consent to participate in a research study. Microsoft Word returned the following readability statistics: Flesch Reading Ease: 37.7, Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level 12.0. In the United States, Grade 12 is the final year of upper secondary education. MS Word’s readability tool reports all results of Grade 12.0 or higher as Grade 12.0. (Used by permission.]
You are invited to participate in a study of the usability and accessibility of some University of Texas at Austin web pages. Kay Lewis is the project coordinator of this study at the Accessibility Institute at The University of Texas at Austin. We are working with the web design teams responsible for some of the UT sites in order to provide them with feedback about the accessibility of their proposed site. Our study is specifically interested in identifying common accessibility issues and in evaluating the overlap of accessibility and usability issues.
This study is one of a number of studies that the Accessibility Institute conducts to examine the usability of computer web sites with an emphasis on accessibility for individuals with disabilities. You are being asked to participate in the study because you represent the typical person who might be using these applications. If you participate, you will be one of approximately 30 people in the study.
If you decide to participate, you will be asked to complete some specific tasks and to provide us with your opinion about the effectiveness, ease of use, and overall thoughts about the application. A period of approximately 1 hour will be required, and you will receive a $10.00 gift certificate as compensation.
A videotape of you and the computer screen will be made during the session. This information will be used to help us identify and evaluate the successful and problematic areas of the web sites. The videocassette will be coded so that no personally identifying information is visible on it. It will be kept in a secure place (e.g., a locked cabinet in investigator’s office) and will be heard or viewed only by the investigator and his or her associates for research purposes and by the web designers for design changes. We may wish to present some of the tapes at scientific conferences or as demonstrations in classrooms. Please sign the consent form on the next page if you are willing to allow us to do so with the tape of your session.
During the session you should expect no adverse effects although you could experience frustration with some of the tasks since you may be looking at some sites that are not very accessible now. If you are uncomfortable with the tasks, you can request to pass on a question or to stop at any time. Your decision to participate or to decide not to participate will not affect your present or future relationship with The University of Texas at Austin or the Accessibility Institute.
You will be given a copy of this consent form for your records. If you have any questions about the study, please ask any of the researchers. If you have questions later, you may reach Kay Lewis at the contact information below, or you may call Professor John Slatin, the director of the Accessibility Institute at 495-4288. If you have any questions or concerns about your treatment as a research participant in this study, call Professor Clark Burnham, Chair of the University of Texas at Austin Institutional review Board for the protection of Human Research Participants at 232-4383. Thank you for your help.
Example 2: The same information, rewritten to satisfy this success criterion
[Note: Results of the readability test for this edited version of the information were as follows: Flesch Reading Ease: 59.8, Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level: 8.6. In the United States, Grade 8 is the second year of lower secondary education.]
Introduction
We would like you to help us in a study of some web pages. We want to know if people can access these pages and use them. We will give feedback to the teams that are creating these sites. Our goal is to identify common accessibility problems and learn where accessibility overlaps with usability. Kay Lewis is in charge of this study at the Accessibility Institute at The University of Texas at Austin.
This is one of several studies in which we are trying to learn how to make computer Web sites easier to use, especially for people with disabilities. We have asked you to participate because you have a great deal in common with other people who might use these sites. If you decide to participate, you will be one of about 30 people in the study.
What will happen?
If you decide to participate, we will ask you to complete some specific tasks. Then we will ask you to tell us your opinion about how effective and easy to use the Web site is. We will also ask for your overall thoughts about the Web site. It will take about one hour to do the tasks and answer the questions. You will receive a $10.00 gift certificate.
We will make a videotape of you and the computer screen during the test. This information will help us identify and evaluate which parts of the Web site work well and which parts need improvement. We will code the video cassette so there will be nothing on the outside that identifies you. The tape will be kept in a secure place such as a locked cabinet in the researchers’ office. The researchers and their co-workers will view or hear the tape to help their study. The Web designers will listen to and watch the tape so they can improve the site. No one else will be allowed to look at it or listen to it. The researchers may want to show parts of the tape at scientific meetings or in classes. Please sign the consent form on the next page if you are willing to let us show the tape of your session.
There should be no negative effects during the session. However, you could experience frustration with some of the tasks since you may be looking at some sites that are not very accessible now. If you are uncomfortable with any of the tasks, you can ask to skip to the next question or to stop at any time. Your decision to participate or to decide not to participate will not affect your relationship with The University of Texas at Austin or the Accessibility Institute, now or in the future.
We will give you a copy of this consent form for your records.
If you have questions
If you have any questions about the study:
• Please ask any of the researchers.
If you have questions later:
• you may reach Kay Lewis at the contact information below, or
• You may call Professor John Slatin at 495-4288.
Professor Slatin is director of the Accessibility Institute.
If you have any questions or concerns about your treatment as a research participant in this study:
• Please call Professor Clark Burnham at 232-4383.
Professor Burnham is Chair of the University of Texas at Austin Institutional review Board for the protection of Human Research Participants.
Thank you for your help.
· A Plain Language Audit Tool provides a checklist for determining whether documents can be edited for clarity and “plain language.” The checklist includes a readability assessment. Available from the Northwest Territories (Canada) Literacy Council at http://www.nwt.literacy.ca/plainlng/auditool/cover.htm.
· The Plain Language Network Web site provides many useful resources to help writers produce documents that communicate clearly in a variety of cultural and rhetorical contexts. See http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/.
· The US government’s plain language Web site at http://www.plainlanguage.gov provides general information about plain language as well as information about use of plain language in US government documents, including legal requirements
· The Plain English Campaign Web site provides useful information and guidance for authors writing in English.
· The Swedish government’s Plain Language site provides similar
· Hall, T., and Strangman, N. CAST: Graphic organizers. Retrieved 5 April 2005 from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_go.html#startcontent. This article illustrates several differet kinds of graphic organizers, explains how each type may be useful, and summarizes research findings that graphic organizers support learning, especially among students with learning disabilities.