skip to main content
article
Free Access

Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses

Published:01 August 2000Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

A literature review reveals many technical weaknesses of readability formulas (when compared to direct usability testing with typical readers): they were developed for children s school books, not adult technical documentation;they ignore between-reader differences and the effects of content, layout, and retrieval aids on text usefulness; they emphasize countable features at the expense of more subtle contributors to text comprehension.

References

  1. Charrow, R. P. and Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306-1374.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Dumas, J. S. and Redish, J. C. (1999). A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Exeter, England: Intellect (revised edition); originally published by Ablex, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Duffy, T. M. (1985). Readability formulas: What's the use? In T. M. Dully and R. M. Waller (Eds.), Designing Usable Texts (pp. 113-143). NY: Academic Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Holland, V. M. and Campbell, L. J. (1982). Understanding the language of public documents because readability formulas don't. In R. J. Di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the Professions (pp. 157-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Hughes, M. (1999). Rigor in usability testing. Technical Communication, 46(4), Fourth Quarter, 488-494.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Jacobson, M. D., Kirkland, C. E., and Selden, R. W. (1978). An examination of the McCall- Crabbs standard test lessons in reading. Journal of Reading, 22, 224-230.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Klare, G. R. (1979). Readability Standards for Army- Wide Publications. Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN: U. S. Army Administrative Center.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Klare, G. R. (1976). A second look at the validity of readability formulas. Journal of Reading Behavior, 8, 129-152.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Klare, G. R. (1963). The Measurement of Readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering, San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Redish, J. C. (1980). Readability. In D. B. Felker (Ed.), Document Design: A Review of the Relevant Research (pp. 69-93). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Redish, J. C. and Seizer, J. (1985). The place of readability formulas in technical communication. Technical Communication, 32(4), Fourth Quarter, 46-52.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of Usability Testing. NY: John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Schriver, K. A. (1997). Dynamics in Document Design. NY: John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Seizer, J. (1983). What constitutes a "readable" technical style? In E V. Anderson, J. Brockmann, and C. R. Miller (Eds.), New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, and Practice (pp. 71-89). Farmington, NY: Baywood.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Journal of Computer Documentation
          ACM Journal of Computer Documentation  Volume 24, Issue 3
          Aug. 2000
          77 pages
          ISSN:1527-6805
          EISSN:1557-9441
          DOI:10.1145/344599
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2000 ACM

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 1 August 2000
          Published in jcd Volume 24, Issue 3

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader