Category: Readability

“Easy Read” Web Site for People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Review

~ John Rochford ~ 2 Comments

The Newham Easy Read Web site is intended for young people with intellectual disabilities transitioning from school.  From its copyright statement, it appears The Rix Centre designed it.

General Accessibility

The site’s accessibility statement claims compliance with WCAG-AA guidelines.  I used a couple automated accessibility-checkers on a few randomly-chosen pages.  Compliance was indicated.  Much of the site’s design is intended to make it accessible and usable by people with intellectual disabilities.

Visual Design

The site’s template is bright with lots of imagery.  Its layout is fairly simple.  The top part of the home page is pictured below.

Newham home page. Large banner at top. Links column on left.

The pages’ primary-content area features a well-spaced choice list.  Each is represented by:

  • a large, contextually-relevant photograph or cartoon, which also serves as a linked button; (Hovering the cursor over a photographic button highlights its border.  I’m not sure of the utility of that.)
  • a link using text typically short and to the point; and
  • a “listen” button that plays an audio file of a person briefly summarizing the linked content; (I found the quality of the recordings to be mixed.  Some had a lot of static or other background noises.)

Note: There is a glaring oversight on the home page. In its primary-content section, neither the photographic buttons nor the link text can be clicked to advance to subsequent pages.

On the left of the site’s pages, there is a column of links to its sections.  Links are accompanied by a small, contextually-relevant photograph or cartoon, and by a short statement on the number of links to be found in each section.  This is a nice feature that indicates how much content each section contains.

Several links open other Web sites.  This is hidden by a Newham Easy Read frame.  The frame provides some consistency in the look and feel, but its function is purely cosmetic.

Navigation

Navigation through the site is accomplished via the column of links and by a breadcrumb menu at the tops of pages.  There is a basic site map that can be reached by a link at the bottoms of the pages.  There is also a site search feature, but it does not work well.  For instance, entering the word “accessibility” does not produce a link to the site’s accessibility statement.

Readability

There is no information, at least that I could find, about what makes the site’s text easy to read.  Pages generally have a few short sentences matched with large photographs.  Oddly, it is the home page that probably has the longest sentences, including one run-on.  This does not make for a good first impression on the nature of how easy the site’s text is to read.

Much of the site’s text, particularly for navigation, is tiny.  The current accessibility recommendation for people with cognitive disabilities is to use a large font size by default.

The site’s accessibility page refers to a text-enlarging readability menu on the right side of every page.  Unfortunately, there is no such menu on the right side of every page.  The accessibility page does have instructions on how to use the keyboard to increase font size.  However, the instructions themselves use the tiniest font size on the entire site!

Conclusion

In sum, it is obvious the designers incorporated accessibility- and usability features for people with intellectual disabilities.  It is equally obvious that much work has to be done to make the site work better for them and for all visitors.

Writing “easy” text is not so easy

~ John Rochford ~ 2 Comments

Today, I tested the readability of the “easy” text for the home page of the Clear Helper Web site.  I decided to use Standard-Schmandard’s Readability Index Calculator because of the trouble I reported in my post, “Juicy Studio Readability Test: Contradictory Results“.

I entered the home page’s easy text and chose the Flesch-Kincaid (English) test. Results:

  • Grade level: 13
  • Reading Ease score: 44

The Grade Level score indicates a person would have to reach the 13th grade (in the U.S.) to understand the text. The Reading Ease score, for which higher means easier, fell in between comics (score = 90) and legalese (score = below 10) according to Standards Schmandards.  I was disappointed the text I wrote scored so poorly.

I then removed all three-syllable words.  Results:

  • Grade level: 11
  • Reading Ease score: 55

These were still not the scores for which I was hoping.  I’m having a difficult time finding information on which levels of scores would be good for people with intellectual disabilities, but I know even the last set are too high.

My next step is to attempt to simplify the text, then try another readability test.  Results will be posted.

Note: This is a follow-up to the post, “Switching Between Standard- & Plain Language Versions: 1st Attempt“.

Switching Between Standard- & Plain Language Versions: 1st Attempt

~ John Rochford

I created a plain-language version of the Clear Helper home page.  It displays “standard” text.  Clicking the link “Easy” at the top, right of the home page displays the plain-language version.  The image below shows the menu.

Home Page Menu with choices Easy, Skip to content, Need big text?

Technical Method

This is my first attempt at creating a plain-language version.  I focused on accomplishing it technically.  This is a follow-up to my previous post, “Using Plain Language for People with Cognitive Disabilities: Discussion, Example“.

The method I used to create two language versions of the same page is to include all of the text content in it, but hide from the user one version or the other depending upon which the user selects.  I used the CSS “display” property with a value of “none” for this purpose.

Alternative

It may be more efficient to use a database-driven system that stores and displays the content depending upon user selection.  There are content-management systems (CMS) specifically designed to create accessible pages and that have accessible content-management interfaces.  One such example is Webcredible’s Accessible CMS.

Improvements

I did make a few improvements to the page-version switcher I described in my post “2 Accessible Versions, 1 for People with CD: Rough Draft In Action“.  I:

  • changed two menu choice labels, one from “Simple” to “Easy” and the other from “Regular” to “Standard”;
  • set the menu so that, rather than displaying both of those menu choices, it shows “Easy” on the standard version and “Standard” on the easy / plain-language version;
  • placed the accessible text-to-speech (TTS) player for both versions in the same place, so people will always know where to look for it, and at the bottom of the page where it would not cause initial distraction; and
  • created a MP3 audio narration of the plain-language version.

Next Steps

In future posts, I will publish the results of:

  • checking if screen readers or search engines have trouble with a page containing two versions of content but displaying one; (I suspect not.)
  • running a readability checker on the “easy” text, and determining if it meets plain-language guidelines; and
  • investigating whether or not Webcredible’s Accessible CMS or one of its competitors has the capability to switch between two content versions of the same page.

Using Plain Language for People with Cognitive Disabilities: Discussion, Example

~ John Rochford ~ 2 Comments

Previous posts have discussed switching between two accessible versions of the same Web site.  The version for people with cognitive disabilities would not show secondary content such as columns of links and image-based advertisements.  Instead, it would only show primary, textual content and contextually-related imagery.  This is well and good from a design perspective.

However, a Web site’s primary content can be as confounding to people with cognitive disabilities as a cluttered design.  Text must be written in plain, simple language.  There are efforts all over the world to encourage the use of plain language for everyone.  See PlainLanguage.gov (U.S.), Plain English Campaign (U.K.) and Plain Language Association International (world).  So, though this problem is not unique to people with cognitive disabilities, they are put at a particular disadvantage because of the nature of their disability.

For the future Clear Helper Web site, I would like to have two content versions: one with standard language and one with a lower readability level.  Future posts will discuss how this might be accomplished technically.

Example Web Site

There is at least one Web site that enables users to switch between two language versions: one for “Standard” English and one for “Easy” English.  It is of The NSW Council for Intellectual Disability in New South Wales, Australia.  Clicking the “Easy English” button on the home page produces a welcome message with instructions on how to use the site.  As users navigate through the pages, each can be switched between the two language versions via buttons at the tops of the pages.

Usability Errors?

The site is designed to meet accessibility standards, but there are are some odd interface choices.  Examples:

  • The menu for the standard fact sheets has relevant images, but they are not clickable like the links below them.
  • All of the “Standard” English fact sheets are Web pages, but all the “Easy” English ones are PDFs. Browse Aloud, which is available on the site, can read PDFs.  Yet counting on users to have it and a PDF reader installed seems like an unnecessary complication.
  • The “Easy” English welcome page requires visitors to use the “Contact Us” tab at the top of the page because the “Contact Us” text referencing it is not clickable.

Despite these minor quibbles, I think it’s great that the Web site provides two language versions, one targeted to people with intellectual disabilities.  I soon will be attempting the same.

This post is a continuation of the following:

Readability: Free Tool Strips All Distractions From Web Pages

~ John Rochford

People with intellectual disabilities can be overwhelmed by Web pages cluttered with numerous links, images, advertisements, etc.  Faced with such interfaces, they can not complete core tasks such as finding the information they need or making a purchase.  (See bottom of this post for a couple examples.)

I recently found a free tool, called “Readability“, that is a Web browser bookmarklet. It strips all distractions from Web pages, and attempts to show only the primary text content.  Before a user adds it to the Web browser’s toolbar, it can be set to show text in one of four styles, a font size can be chosen, and the width of left- and right margins can be selected.

Example Transformation

A Wikipedia page about bananas, an image of which is below, has columns of links, images, tables and other non-text elements.

Wikipedia page with columns of links, images & tables

Clicking the Readability bookmarklet strips all elements from the page except for its central text.  The image below shows the same page, but it displays only the main, single column of text.

Wikipedia page showing only a central column of text

That is a great result.  Unfortunately, on numerous other sites I tried, all those of online newspapers, the results were poor.  Either Readability could not determine which was the main text content, or it displayed only a snippet of it.  Readability has promise, however, as is demonstrated with the example above.

Readability’s utility gives me an idea for the future Clear Helper Web site.  Perhaps I can enable users to switch between two interfaces: one with main content only, and one with extra elements.  More on this will be the subject of a future blog post.

Note: A description and a video-demonstration of Readability can be found on the Arc90 Lab Experiment Web site.

Previous, Related Blog Posts

Web Site Design Suggestions for People with Dyslexsia

~ John Rochford ~ 5 Comments

Dyslexia is a learning disorder that affects reading, writing, spelling and language.  It is diagnosed in people of all levels of intelligence.

Academic research on designing Web sites for people with Dyslexia is limited, just as it is for people with intellectual disabilities. I thus turned to what should be considered “primary” sources of such information, among them the blogs of people who themselves have Dyslexia.  Unsurprisingly, there was significant commonality among the relevant recommendations.

Design Suggestions

  • Provide a way to view the Web site using low-contrast pages.  Standard black text on a white background can be tiring and can be seen as blurry.
  • Use narrow column widths (60 to 80 characters).  Tracking lines of unbroken text across a page can be difficult.
  • Display text boxes, especially with lightly-contrasted backgrounds.  These are found to be helpful in understanding important points.
  • Use italics sparingly.  That italicized characters lean over slightly means they can be difficult to read.
  • If requiring users to enter text, provide a spell-checker function.

Design Suggestions Common Across The Cognitive-Disability Spectrum

  • Use left-aligned text.  Fully-justified text has an effect known as “rivers of white”.  People see white patterns flowing through text more prominent than the text itself.
  • Employ text fonts that are large, sanserif, and of even color.
  • Use short sentences and paragraphs expressing one idea.
  • At least upon the first occurrence, spell out abbreviations and acronyms.
  • Don’t use moving images or text, which are very distracting.
  • Implement document structure such as headings, bulleted lists and extra-vertical line spacing.

The point can not be made often enough that the suggestions listed above will help everyone.  Web designers would do well to heed this advice.

Sources

Bradford, J. Designing web pages for dyslexic readers. Dyslexia Parents Resource. Retrieved from http://www.dyslexia-parent.com/mag35.html

Davis Dyslexia Association International, Dyslexia the Gift Web site. (2009-12-14). Web Design for Dyslexic Users. Retrieved from http://www.dyslexia.com/library/webdesign.htm

Page, T. (2009-06-13). Text justification – issues and techniques. Retrieved from http://www.pws-ltd.com/sections/articles/2009/justified_text.html

Pickard, J. (2005 – 2006). What problems would a dyslexic user face?  Retrieved from http://www.thepickards.co.uk/Articles/Designing_for_Dyslexia.cfm

Pedley, M. (2006-10-16). Designing for Dyslexics. Retrieved from http://accessites.org/site/2006/10/designing-for-dyslexics-part-1-of-3/

Vassallo, S. (2003-05). Enabling the Internet for people with dyslexia. Retrieved from http://www.ebility.com/articles/dyslexia.php

Note: This post updated on 2009-12-15 to correct content- and formatting errors.  I thank Cliff Tyllick for calling my attention to them.

News Articles Accessible to People with Cognitive Disabilities

~ John Rochford

Voice of America (VOA) Special English News is a Web site designed for audiences who are not native speakers of English.  The same characteristics that make its news articles accessible to that population also help make them accessible to people with cognitive disabilities.

Special English Written News

The news articles have “… a core vocabulary of 1500 words.  Most are simple words that describe objects, actions or emotions.  Some words are more difficult.  They are used for reporting world events and describing discoveries in medicine and science.  Special English writers use short, simple sentences that contain only one idea. They use active voice.  They do not use idioms.”

Special English Audio News

News articles are also offered as podcasts.  The “… Special English broadcasters read at a slower pace, about two-thirds the speed of standard English.  This helps people learning English hear each word clearly.  It also helps people who are fluent English speakers understand complex subjects.”

Special English TV

Weekly, five short features are broadcast on satellite television. Each lasts about four minutes.  All are closed captioned.  A RSS subscription is available for them.  (This means they can be downloaded and watched.)

Notes

The Voice of America Web site is not designed to be accessible to users of assistive technology, such as screen readers, nor does it have accessibility features for people with cognitive disabilities.

Quotes above retrieved from Voice of America. Helping People Understand Their World, http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/about_special_english.cfm

No endorsement is intended or implied for VOA Special English News.

Great Text Accessibility Toolbar for People with Cognitive Disabilities

~ John Rochford

I recently discovered Talklets, a text accessibility toolbar for Web sites that could be of great help to people with cognitive disabilities.  It can be seen in action on the Web site of Rok Talk, the developer, and on the Web site of Regional Support Centre, Scotland North & East.  Take a look at it on the latter site.  To do so, click the button entitled “Click to Show Text Reader” on the right of the home page, near the top.  The toolbar then appears at the bottom of the page.  The main part of it looks like this.

strip of round, colored buttons with symbols for play, stop, record, etc.

Features

Via simple buttons, the toolbar enables Web site visitors to:

  • listen to the text of the entire page or just to the text to which a user points the cursor;
  • record the text to a MP3 file that can be easily downloaded;
  • enlarge, reduce or restore the text size;
  • highlight the text in different colors; and
  • see a help window that explains how to use each feature.

Extra features include enabling users to retrieve the definition of any word, change the pronunciation of a word, and highlight words as they are read.

The developer says the toolbar does not interfere with screen readers, and can be used by people who are blind (and don’t have access to a screen reader) via keyboard controls.

Follow-Up

I will be contacting Rok Talk to discuss its pricing structure and to determine if it would be willing to let me experiment with the toolbar on the future Clear Helper Web site.

Note: No endorsement is intended or implied for this product.

Juicy Studio Readability Test: Contradictory Results

~ John Rochford

For the current text of the “Clear Helper” Web site home page, I conducted the Juicy Studio Readability Test.  Results from the readability test’s automatic calculation were significantly different from those derived from my manual calculation.  I don’t know how to account for this.  It makes me distrust the test.

Automatic Summary Results

I submitted the URL of the Clear Helper home page.  A summary of reading level results was produced.

Total sentences 59
Total words 370
Average words per Sentence 6.27
Words with 1 Syllable 211
Words with 2 Syllables 66
Words with 3 Syllables 47
Words with 4 or more Syllables 46
Percentage of word with three or more syllables 25.14%
Average Syllables per Word 1.81
Gunning Fog Index 12.56
Flesch Reading Ease 47.73
Flesch-Kincaid Grade 8.16

Note the last three results.  They indicate that someone with almost 13 years of education or someone in the eighth grade could understand the current text of the Clear Helper home page.  The Flesch Reading Ease scorer of 47.73 falls below the ideal of 60 – 70.

These scores and their indications are worse than those I determined by following Juicy Studio’s instructions on how to calculate the scores manually.

Gunning-Fog Index: Manual Calculations

  • This test “… is a rough measure of how many years of schooling it would take someone to understand the content.”
    • To calculate this score, as instructed, I added the average number of words per sentence (6.27) to the number of words with three or more syllables (93) and multiplied the total by .04. Score = 4.
      • This indicates a fourth-grader would be able to understand the home page text.
        • Note: I think there is an error in Juicy Studio’s instructions.  It first says to use the percentage of 3-syllable words but, in the formula, indicates the number of 3-syllable words should be used.  Calculating the formula with the percentage produced a score of 1.  Because it seemed quite unreasonable that a first-grader could read the home page text, I instead calculated the formula using the number of 3-syllable words.

Flesch Reading Ease: Manual Calculations

  • For this test, “… the higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document.” The ideal score is 60 to 70.
    • To calculate this score, as instructed, I subtracted the sum (153.126) of 84.6 multiplied by the average number of syllables per word (1.81) from the sum (6.36405) of 1.015 multiplied by the average number of words per sentence (6.27). Result = -146. 76195. I then subtracted this result from 206.835 to achieve a score of 60.
      • The score of 60 falls within the ideal range.
        • Note: In calculating the score, I had to change the negative result number (-146. 76195) to a positive number.  It was the only way to produce a reasonable result.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: Manual Calculations

  • This test “… is a rough measure of how many years of schooling it would take someone to understand the content.”
    • To calculate this score, as instructed, I multiplied the average number of words per sentence (6.27) by 0.39 and added its sum (0.24453) to the sum (21.358) of the average number of syllables per word (1.81) multiplied by 11.8. Result = 21.60253. I then subtracted 15.50 from the result. Score = 6.
      • This indicates the home page text requires a sixth-grade education to understand.

Conclusions & Speculation

The results from the manual calculations indicate someone with a fourth- to sixth grade education should understand the home page text, and that its readability falls within the ideal scale.  This is significantly better than the results and the indications of the readability test’s automatic calculations.

I wonder if the different results are due to the consequence of following contradictory- and confusing instructions about how to perform the manual calculations.  Perhaps the errors are mine.

I will have to revisit this at a later date.