TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Milan Davidovic responded to my cavalier dismissal of readability
formulas: <<I've seen no readability formula that claimed to work on
gibberish, nor worked with any technical writer who produced
gibberish. I therefore wouldn't trust such a test anymore than I'd
try judging the quality of a baseball bat by playing golf with it.>>
And that's precisely the problem: asking a readability formula to
tell us whether text is readable is no more logical than playing golf
with a baseball bat. The tool is not designed to perform this function.
More to the point, the formulas ignore factors that are demonstrably
far more important than anything the formulas measure: familiarity of
the words to the audience, grammar, correct punctuation,
completeness, logic, precision of word use and description, and
correctness. If any of these factors is inadequate, then it doesn't
matter whether the readability formula suggests a Grade 1 level or a
Grade 100 level.
<<The thing to look at is the definition of readability inherent in
the formula. What factors does it take into consideration, and what
does it leave out? You then have to decide whether the formula does
the job for your texts and context.>>
All commonly used readability formulas that I'm familiar with are
based on various mechanical calculations of things like word length
and sentence length. For these parameters to be meaningful, you must
prove that two separate assertions are reasonable: that longer words
are always more difficult to understand than shorter words, and that
longer sentences are always harder to understand than shorter sentences.
Neither statement is defensible, even if you replace "always" with
"most of the time" or even with "more than half of the time". The
difficulty of a word depends only on whether the word is familiar to
the reader and whether it's the right word for the job. The
difficulty of a sentence depends primarily one how well the clauses
are arranged to support each other and on the other factors listed
above; length is not relevant if the sentence is well constructed.
If both premises behind the formula are incorrect, then the formula
can only be correct by random chance, not by design. Q.E.D.: useless!
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include single source authoring, team authoring,
Web-based technology, and PDF output. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
