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.
Many thanks to those who responded to my request for citations about
readability. Here is a compilation of what I received:
Campbell, L.J. & Holland, M.V. (1992). Understanding the Language of
Public Documents Because Readability FOrmulas Don't. In DiPietro,
R.J. (Ed.) LINGUISTICS AND THE PROFESSIONS. NY:Ablex
Duffy, T.M. (1985). Readability formulas: what's the use? In T.M.
Duffy & R.M. Wller (Eds.), DESIGNING USABLE TEXTS (pp.113.143).
Hanna, J. (1994). Writer Worksheets: Test STC's Readability. TECHNICAL
COMMUNICATION. vol 41, no 3.
Huckin, T.M. (1983). A cognitive approach to readability. In Anderson,
Brockmann, and Miller (eds.), NEW ESSAYS IN TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNICATION: RESEARCH, THEORY, PRACTICE (pp. 99-110). Farmingdale,
Redish, J.C. & Selzer, J. (1985). The place of readability formulas in
technical writing. TECHNICAL COMM, 32, 46-52.
Redish, J.C. (1980). Readability. In Felker (Ed.), DOCUMENT DESIGN: A
REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT RESEARCH (pp. 69-93) Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research.
Selzer,J. (1983). What constitutes a 'readable' technical style? In
Anderson, Brockmann, and Miller (Eds.), NEW ESSAYS IN TECHNICAL
AND SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION: RESEARCH, THEORY, PRACTICE (pp.71-89).
Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.