Readability and computer documentation

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Readability and computer documentation

Full text

Pdf (791 KB)

Source

ACM Journal of Computer Documentation (JCD) archive
Volume 24 , Issue 3 (August 2000) table of contents

Pages: 122 - 131

Year of Publication: 2000

ISSN:1527-6805

Author

Gretchen Hargis

IBM Corp., San Jose, CA

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 14, Downloads (12 Months): 113, Citation Count: 3

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Request Permissions Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/344599.344634 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Traditional readability concerns are alive and well, but subsumed within several more recent documentation quality efforts. For example, concerns with interestingness and translatability for global markets, with audience analysis and task sufficiency, and with reader appropriateness of technical text all involve readability, but often in ways not easily measured by any formula.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Bloom, B. S. and Krathwohl, D. R. (1984). 7~xonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive domain. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley Publishing Company.
	2	Brockmann, R. J. (1998). Information transfer in technical communication. In Carroll (Ed.), Minimalism beyond the Nurnberg funnel (pp. 375-392). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
	3	Carroll, J. M. (1998). Reconstructing minimalism. In Carroll (Ed.), Minimalism beyond the Nurnbergfunnel (pp. 1-18). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
	4	Chiang, A., and McBride, K. (1992). TIRS tutorial: New techniques in guided exploration. In Proceedings of the 37th International Technical Communication Conference, May 10-13 (pp. 327-330). Arlington, VA: Society for Technical Communication.
	5	Flesch, R. (1951). How to test readability. New York: Harper & Brothers.
	6	Gunning, R. (1968). The technique of clear writing (revised ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
	7	Hall, E. (1973). The silent language. New York: Doubleday Books.
	8	Gretchen Hargis , Michelle Carey , Ann Kilty Hernandez , Polly Hughes , Deirdre Longo , Shannon Rouiller , Elizabeth Wilde, Developing Quality Technical Information: A Handbook for Writers and Editors (2nd Edition), Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2004
	9	Hartley, J. (1981). Eighty ways of improving instructional text. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-24 (1), 17-27.
	10	Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture} consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
	11	Honold, E (1999). Comparison between German and Chinese users. Technical Communication, 46 (2), 196-205.
	12	Hubbard, V. (1997). Commands we wish could rule. http://www.fastlane.net/~camnet 1 / future.shtml.
	13	IBM. (1982). Publications guidelines: Designing taskoriented libraries for programming products. Poughkeepsie, NY: IBM Corporation.
	14	IBM. (1983). Producing quality technical information. San Jose, CA: IBM Corporation.
	15	IBM. (1985a). Information development quality improvement program. Kingston, NY: IBM Corporation.
	16	IBM. (1985b). Information development guideline: information quality measurement. Poughkeepsie, NY: IBM Corporation.
	17	Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
	18	Klare, G. R. (1988). The formative years. In Zakaluk and Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its past, /)resent, and future (pp. 14-34). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
	19	Kohl, J. R. (1999). Improving translatability and readability with semantic cues. Technical Communication, 46 (2), 149-166.
	20	Merritt, L. (1997). Is quality worth it? Intercom, 45 (5), 39-41.
	21	Powell, K. B. (1981). Readability formulas: Used or abused? IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-24 (1), 43-45.
	22	Smart, K. L. (1999). Establishing dimensions of quality for technical information. Intercom, 46 (5), 40-41.
	23	Thatcher, B. L. (1999). Cultural and rhetorical adaptations for South American audiences. Technical Communication, 46 (2), 177-195.
	24	Trompenaars, A. (1998). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in business. London, UK: The Economist Books.
	25	Watson, T. J., Jr. (1970). Management briefing 2-70. In Thirty years of management briefings: 1958 to 1988. Armonk, NY: IBM Corporation.
	26	Wilde, E., and Colvin, R. (1996). Editing for quality: How we're doing it. Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, IPCC (pp. 296-303). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Professional Communication Society.

CITED BY 3

	Henk Koning , Claire Dormann , Hans van Vliet, Practical guidelines for the readability of IT-architecture diagrams, Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference on Computer documentation, p.90-99, October 20-23, 2002, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
	Henk Koning , Hans Van Vliet, Real-life IT architecture design reports and their relation to IEEE Std 1471 stakeholders and concerns, Automated Software Engineering, v.13 n.2, p.201-223, April 2006
	Daniel Schreck , Valentin Dallmeier , Thomas Zimmermann, How documentation evolves over time, Ninth international workshop on Principles of software evolution: in conjunction with the 6th ESEC/FSE joint meeting, September 03-04, 2007, Dubrovnik, Croatia