Factors affecting readability, detailed data on 16 readability metrics, and why I chose 6 to evaluate. Supplement to "Write on! 7 free tools for more readable writing on a shoestring".
Great post, Karen. You’ve got all of the meat off the bone of readability formulas in an efficient and concise manner. I know from experience that drawing a technical writer’s attention to hard words and complex sentence structures together with a practical way to measure and make decisions about revisions can lead to improved readability. Once long ago I taught a mini course for the Bloomington Fire Department to help them improve efficiency and functionality of memos, reports, and related docs. The logic of these basic formulas you’ve identified was useful to them. I agree with you that visual depictions of information done well can reduce text challenges to readers, but measuring effects in the absence of a grammar of graphs and figures is tough. Researchers may have made inroads that I don’t know about. AI may be helpful to future researchers trying to construct actionable advice for writers on graphic displays. One factor for which we have empirical evidence: the more concrete words (vs. abstract words) the more readable the text. This is true across the spectrum from beginning readers to advanced, and my bet is would hold up across languages. I don’t know of any formulas that take percentage of abstract words into account, but it’s worth eyeballing if a writer is searching for a way to reduce the difficulty of a long sentence with complex embedded clauses—word swaps may not reduce the number but can increase readability. Can’t recall which formula suggests aiming for level around 9.0, and I saw a suggestion not to use formulas that are more effective for elementary grades. There is a point where text that is “too simple” is actually a readability challenge primarily because logical relationships among clauses are not made explicit.
Terry, thank you so much for this detailed feedback! (and for the complimentary analogy to ‘getting the meat off the bone ;) I’m curious now to know more about whether use of concrete vs abstract words can be usefully measured! It’s definitely a good insight that I can try to ‘eyeball’ on my upcoming posts.
Tip on making writing more readable by varying sentence lengths to "write music": https://substack.com/@susancain/note/c-58434850?r=3ht54r
Great post, Karen. You’ve got all of the meat off the bone of readability formulas in an efficient and concise manner. I know from experience that drawing a technical writer’s attention to hard words and complex sentence structures together with a practical way to measure and make decisions about revisions can lead to improved readability. Once long ago I taught a mini course for the Bloomington Fire Department to help them improve efficiency and functionality of memos, reports, and related docs. The logic of these basic formulas you’ve identified was useful to them. I agree with you that visual depictions of information done well can reduce text challenges to readers, but measuring effects in the absence of a grammar of graphs and figures is tough. Researchers may have made inroads that I don’t know about. AI may be helpful to future researchers trying to construct actionable advice for writers on graphic displays. One factor for which we have empirical evidence: the more concrete words (vs. abstract words) the more readable the text. This is true across the spectrum from beginning readers to advanced, and my bet is would hold up across languages. I don’t know of any formulas that take percentage of abstract words into account, but it’s worth eyeballing if a writer is searching for a way to reduce the difficulty of a long sentence with complex embedded clauses—word swaps may not reduce the number but can increase readability. Can’t recall which formula suggests aiming for level around 9.0, and I saw a suggestion not to use formulas that are more effective for elementary grades. There is a point where text that is “too simple” is actually a readability challenge primarily because logical relationships among clauses are not made explicit.
Terry, thank you so much for this detailed feedback! (and for the complimentary analogy to ‘getting the meat off the bone ;) I’m curious now to know more about whether use of concrete vs abstract words can be usefully measured! It’s definitely a good insight that I can try to ‘eyeball’ on my upcoming posts.