Readable & consistent web content is critical for universities. We presented this deck as part of TerminalFour's user conference in Boston, Nov 2013. We show an example case study from the University of the Arts London. VisibleThread Clarity Grader was used to identify complex content on highly trafficked parts of the site. Something that normally takes days to identify. It also flags inconsistent brand references in the web copy, so the Clarity Grader reports instantly picked up 'bad' brand names.

1. Web Content
Readability & Consistency –
Measuring
Why it matters for Universities?
Fergal McGovern, CEO

2. A little background

3. measures:
Clarity &
Consistency

4. Let’s consider clarity

5. „Clear writing‟ seeks to simplify written language; the result is clear
and unambiguous communication.
From: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before_after/index.cfm
“When the process of freeing a vehicle that has
been stuck results in ruts or holes, the operator will
fill the rut or hole created by such activity before
removing the vehicle from the immediate area.”
OR
“If you make a hole while freeing a stuck
vehicle, you must fill the hole before you drive
away.”
Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Obama signed on Oct 2010), E.O. 12866 & E.O. 12988
http://www.plainlanguage.gov/plLaw/index.cfm
Copyright Visible Thread 2011 – Confidential and Proprietary

6. How do you measure unclear content?
Clarity Measures for 9 Australian Universities
Takeaway: Very Complex content on multiple pages.
Level of long & run-on sentences very high. Passive Voice
very high. Audience will not read or engage.

7. A quick example

8. Nice
Graphic
Design

9. …but the text
is a little less
nice!
The learner registration process will not be
deemed to be complete until the appropriate fees
have been paid to the Awarding Body.
VS.
To register as a learner, you must pay
appropriate fees to the awarding body

10. Why measure clarity?
 People don’t read on the Web: they scan
− Anything that makes the text more difficult to scan impedes
communication.
 People use the Web to find specific information and complete
tasks
− People use the web differently than print materials. If visitors can‟t
find the information they are looking for, they quickly go elsewhere.
− Complex language puts a greater cognitive burden on your visitors.
 Approachable web language builds trust
− If your competitor has web copy that makes them look
approachable, then you will look stuffy in comparison.

11. What about consistency?

12. An example challenge

13. Is the UAL brand consistent in content?

14. We created a simple dictionary

15. Scan results across different sections of the site
The inconsistent terms
Takeaway: Inconsistent brand name
used. Findability impacted

16. Actual content
With the aim of attracting a rich variety of contributions
from a broad selection of people - from academia, media
and practice - and utilise contributions for uploading to a
newly established international repository for fashion to
be housed at the London College of Fashion, University of
Arts of the London.

17. Why care about language consistency?
 Key content likely not findable and searchable
 Your audience may be confused and may not
engage due to a mix of terminology
 Your SEO keyword strategy may be diluted
 Your content may not align with Brand/Corporate
Standards especially for course names and
approved/disapproved terms.

18. Worried about Clarity or Inconsistency
on your site?
Drop by our stand for your free analysis
Clarity Grader is
powered by:

19. Extras

20. What are prospective ‘customers’ searching for?
This is the list of
nouns with frequency
Each column is a university website 500 page scan with
noun occurrences
Takeaway: Student missing entirely in 1 site. Campus
missing in 2 sites, information missing in 1.
Prospective student will not find the information they need.

21. Using Clarity Grader in your content process
Content
Planning
1.
Content
Creation
Evaluate editorial
quality of online
content for:
2.
Identify key
targets for
improvement.
i. Readability &
clarity of language.
3.
Pinpoint the right
corrective actions
for each web page.
ii. Legal & regulatory
requirements
Content
Review
4.
Assess the quality
of content
submitted:
i. Readability &
clarity of language.
ii. Legal & regulatory
requirements
iii.Adherence to
brand standards.
iii.Adherence to
corporate standard.
iv.Consistency of
terminology.
iv.Consistency of
terminology.
v. SEO & Findability.
v. SEO & Findability.
Post-live
Assessment
5.
Evaluate the ROI on
updated content
by:
i. Comparing with
other metrics of
web performance.
ii. Assessing the
quality of work vs.
cost of contactors.
6. Plan a new cycle of
content
improvement.

22. Average words per sentence: 10.5
Hard Words: 2.9%
FOG Index (readability): 5.5
VS
Average words per sentence: 21.6
Hard Words: 5.11%
FOG Index (readability): 10.7
Copyright VisibleThread, 2011.