Part of: Readability Guidelines
Last updated: 11 December, 2019
We identified these questions in Alpha. Then researched usability evidence to answer them in Beta.
Do abbreviations/acronyms make sentences more or less difficult to read?
Can we identify any abbreviations/acronyms that are universally recognised?
Are all screen readers OK with the ampersand symbol?
Do ampersands help or hinder readability of navigation, titles and names?
Are there screen readers that read out each individual letter of a capped word?
Can we gather a comprehensive as possible list of how screen readers read out dashes (and what they do with hyphens?)
Can we comprehensively research screen readers with other punctuation that conveys meaning or adds nuance, like brackets?
Can we formalise the low literacy primary evidence about positive and possessive contractions into a usability study?
Do positive and possessive contractions cause issues for people with dyslexia, poor vision and learning difficulties?
Does having a link mid-sentence impair readability?
Can we define style guidance around numbers based on considerations from Alpha?
Can we identify some evidence for plain language being more user-friendly?
Can we identify evidence for simple sentence construction being more user-friendly?
Is there a tool to test a word against reading age 9/low literacy level vocabulary?
Is it easier for users with a high level of knowledge of a subject (specialist audiences) to read content that includes specialist terms?
Is there any evidence around increased engagement and uptake of services by less advantaged/minority groups when content written in positive inclusive language?
Are there any user interviews about how likely people would be to uptake a service/buy a thing/recommend organisation, company or product based on the content language?