Readable computer documentation

Klare, George R.

doi:10.1145/344599.344645

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: The Readability Formulasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the "plain language" movement in the 1960s resulted in legislation requiring plain language in public and commercial documents a number of articles attacked the use of readability formulas. Although the concerns of the formula critics have been amply addressed elsewhere (Chall 1984, Benson 1984, Fry 1989b, Dale and Chall 1995, Klare 2000, we will examine them again in some detail, with a special regard for the needs of technical communication.The purpose of this article is to very briefly review the landmark studies on readability and the controversy regarding the formulas. I will be happy if you learn something of the background of the formulas, what they are good for, and what they are not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring translation difficulty

Sun

Shreve

2014

Target

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Principles of Readability gives a brief introduction to the literacy studies in the U.S. and the research on readability and the readability formulas. Readers' CommentsPlease send all comments and suggestions regarding this document to:William RESEARCH SummaryOver 80 years of research and testing have contributed to the worldwide use in many languages of the readability formulas.They help us improve the text on the level of words and sentences, the first causes of reading difficulty.The principles of readability are in every style manual. Readability formulas are in every word processor. What is missing is the research and theory on which they stand. The Principles of ReadabilityWilliam H. DuBay IntroductionIn 1998, traffic accidents caused 46 percent of all accidental deaths of infants and children aged 1 to 14 (National Center for Health Statistics, 2000). One study (Johnston et al. 1994) showed that the single strongest risk factor for injury in a traffic accident is the improper use of child-safety seats. Another study (Kahane 1986) showed that, when correctly used, child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury by 71 percent and hospitalization by 67 percent.To be effective, however, the seats must be installed correctly. Other studies, showed that 79 to 94 percent of car seats are used improperly (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1996, Decina and Knoebel 1997, Lane et al. 2000.Public-health specialists Dr. Mark Wegner and Deborah Girasek (2003) suspected that poor comprehension of the installation instructions might contribute to this problem. They looked into the readability of the instructions and published their findings in the medical journal Pediatrics. The story was covered widely in the media.The authors referred to the National Adult Literacy Study (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1993), which states the average adult in the U.S. reads at the 7 th grade level. They also cited experts in health literacy who recommend that materials for the public be written at the fifth or sixth-grade reading level (Doak et al., 1996;Weiss and Coyne, 1997).Their study found that the average reading level of the 107 instructions they examined was the 10 th grade, too difficult for 80 percent adult readers in the U.S. When texts exceed the reading ability of readers, they usually stop reading. The authors did not address the design, completeness, or the organization of the instructions. They did not say that the instructions were badly written. Armed with the SMOG readability formula, they found the instructions were written at the wrong grade level. You can be sure the manufacturers of the car safety seats are scrambling to re-write their instructions. Many experts, through much research, have compiled golden rules of documentation writing. These rules apply regardless of medium:• Use short, simple, familiar words• Avoid jargon.• Use culture-and-gender-neutral language.• Use correct grammar, punctuation, and spelling.• Use simple sentences, active voice, and present tens...

show abstract

Section: The Readability Formulasmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring translation difficulty

Sun

Shreve

2014

Target

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…FRES has been the most widely accepted readability measure in different fields compared to other readability measurements (Klare 2000). The potential reason could be due to its flexibility.…”

Section: Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (F-kgl)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability Assessment of Nigerian Company Income Tax Act

Umar¹,

Saad²

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was undertaken to examine the readability of the Nigerian Company Income Tax Act 2007 (CITA 2007) Kajian ini dijalankan untuk meneliti kebolehbacaan Akta Cukai Pendapatan Syarikat 2007 di Nigeria (CITA 2007) yang merupakan sumber rujukan utama bagi pembayar cukai yang mempunyai keinginan untuk patuh. Untuk tujuan kajian ini, penyelidik menggunakan formula kebolehbacaan iaitu Skor kebolehbacaan Flesch (FRES,) Tahap Gred Flesch-Kincaid (F-KGL)], purata panjang ayat (ASL) dan peratusan ayat pasif (PPV

show abstract

“…(a) The knowledge test is 'readable' for the targeted population sample -the knowledge test must be able to demonstrate that participants understood the questions in the test (Paul, 2003;Klare, 2000). (b) The knowledge test is able to differentiate trained and untrained participants.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Boset Knowledge Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this research, readability can be defined as the ease of which the research tool (knowledge test) can be read. There are mathematical formulas in Flesch Kincaid Grade Level test, Flesch Ease Reading test and Gunning Fog Index which are designed to assess the readability of a written document or written research tool (Paul, 2003;Klare, 2000).…”

Section: Readability Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reliability and validity of Basic Offshore Safety and Emergency Training knowledge test

Hussin

Wang

Hipnie³

2012

Journal of King Saud University - Engineering Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the development of a Basic Offshore Safety and Emergency Training (B.O.S.E.T) knowledge test. The knowledge test was developed to measure B.O.S.E.T knowledge retention among offshore professionals. This research requires the knowledge test to be administered every two months, in a period of six months. The objective of this paper is to present key points that validate the research tool in terms of readability and validity. Three readability tests (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Test, Flesch Reading Ease Test and Gunning's Fog Index Test) were used to identify the suitability of test language. In addition, the knowledge test was subjected to face validity and content validity. Seventy-nine B.O.S.E.T trainees took part in this research. The test results suggest that the contents and the language used on the knowledge test is suitable for target sample; hence the test can be used to identify knowledge retention among offshore professionals.

show abstract

Readable computer documentation

Cited by 20 publications

References 26 publications

Measuring translation difficulty

Measuring translation difficulty

Readability Assessment of Nigerian Company Income Tax Act

The reliability and validity of Basic Offshore Safety and Emergency Training knowledge test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About