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.
Subject:Re: Measuring readability From:Michael Lewis <lewism -at- BRANDLE -dot- COM -dot- AU> Date:Tue, 7 Apr 1998 23:46:37 +1000
A point we are all missing, I think -- at least we aren't giving it due
prominence: there's a difference between "readability" and
"comprehensibility". That's a difference between "I can work out what
this is saying" and "I could work it out if I had all the variables". By
variables, I mean such things as background knowledge and specialised
vocabulary. I confess to having confused these issues myself, in an
earlier posting to this thread. Let's acknowledge that in some cases,
the "lay" reader is so far behind the eight-ball that the most
rudimentary lexico-grammatical treatment won't shed any light.
Having said that, I'm all for considering "lexical density" (the ratio
between "content words" and "form [or grammatical] words", and I've
previously expressed a view about "packet length" (except that I talked
about the difference between flat, long structures and deep, compact
structures). Damien, can you give me contact details for Sandra
Damien Braniff wrote:
> At the ISTC conference last year there was an interesting presentation on
> readability by Sandra Harrison (Coventry University) and Paul Bakker
> (Eindhoven University of Technology). It was based on a new package for
> determining readability. It works on Word documents and included
> information explaining the statistics generated by Word, how to interpret
> them and how to use (and not use!) them. This was all fairly standard but
> it also reported on research carried out on two other readability
> descriptors - lexical density and distribution of sentence and "packet"
> length. Conclusions of early research indicated that:
> Lexical density of text may give a better indication of readability
> than many of the common formulae.
> The effective breaking up of sentences into "packets" may be as
> important to readability as the actual sentence length.
> In looking at mechanical variables of texts, we should not only be
> concerned with averages, but with distributions and most frequently
> occurring values.
> The package was demonstrated at the conference and the idea was to make it
> available as shareware once the online help had been completed (not sure
> how far along this is yet). The demonstration was quite impressive on a
> variety of texts, both technical and non-technical. The speakers said it
> could not be used to indicate good writing but could give a good indication
> of bad writing! Basically a "good "score" didn't mean the text was well
> written but a "bad score" probably indicated that the text would not be
> easy reading.
Brandle Pty Limited, Sydney, Australia
PO Box 1249, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012
Suite 8, The Watertower, 1 Marian St, Redfern 2016 http://www.brandle.com.au/~lewism
Tel +61-2-9310-2224 ... Fax +61-2-9310-5056