Users who used readability:
Free online reference management for clinicians and scientists
Recent "readability" articles
- These articles and links have been posted by Connotea users using the tag "readability".
- To add to this collection, or to start your own library:
Watch a short video (2m 41s)
Create a Connotea Community Page about this tag. 

Number of articles per page:
Web copy that people read, (25 Jun 2009)
How clear is YOUR message? Are you sure people really understand?
Web copy that people read, (24 Jun 2009)
How people get your message - putting the key information in the right place
www.coggno.com
Making your LMS text readable may sound like an easy task–just make the language simple and to-the-point, right? But it’s not quite as easy as you may think. It requires method, training, and practice. But is it really an important and effective aspect of LMS design?
www.coggno.com
In the creation of your LMS, readability is just one important aspect. Readability refers to the ease with which an audience processes the presented information. For example, short sentences are preferable to long sentences. Syntax, or word order, is another important element.
Web copy that people read, (20 May 2009)
Get your site tested by typical users.
Web copy that people read, (19 May 2009)
How to reduce your bounce rates and increase retention of visitors to your website
Web copy that people read, (12 May 2009)
Helping people to get what they want from your website
Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine 31 (1), 67-87 (Mar 2006)
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: to assess the readability level of Web-based information on leading incident cancers.RESEARCH DESIGN: websites on breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers were selected for analysis by comparing the first 100 hits across 10 popular search engines. A total of 100 websites on breast (n=33), prostate (n=34), and colorectal (n=33) cancers were included in the final analysis.METHODS: readability was assessed using SMOG, Flesch-Kincaid (F - K), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) measures. SMOG was hand-calculated on 10 - 30 lines of continuous text. Identical text was entered into Microsoft Word 2002 where F - K and FRE scores were determined automatically by the word processor.RESULTS: the mean readability score of the cancer websites was Grade 12.9 using SMOG and Grade 10.7 according to F - K. The mean FRE score was 45.3, a score considered 'difficult'. Colorectal cancer websites were most difficult to read compared to breast and prostate cancer websites. All measures indicated that prostate cancer websites were written at the lowest readability. Significantly higher reading levels were required for concluding paragraphs of Web articles compared to introduction paragraphs.CONCLUSIONS: findings suggest the need for readable cancer information on the Web. Health promoters, health informaticians, medical journalists, and web page editors must collaborate to ensure the use of plain language to match the literacy skills of consumers.
info NeoGnostic, (25 Oct 2007)
Posted by ChrisinWales (who is an author) and 1 other on Thu Oct 25 2007 at 15:54 UTC | info | related
<< Prev 0 Showing entries 1 to 10 of 19 total Next 9 >>


