I love evaluating existing websites for improvement opportunities. The theories and expectations are so ingrained inmy head, I do it unconsciously. But when it comes to providing formal website analysis and giving direct feedback to its authors, I like to use objective evidence to validate my intuitive recommendations as much as possible. It depersonalizes the blow to the original web designers, and provides a way to measure improvements as well.

I've been at this long enough to draw from fields of research like Information architecture and useability analysis, to use tools like competitive analyses and user-centered design. I'm even a fan of color theories, though it's difficult to apply to international websites. These tools and methods are great for dealing with the concept and structure of the site, but what about the writing itself?

I can summize a lot about a company's culture through a basic analysis of their site's writing style. Are they formal or personal? You can read it in their "voice". Are they focused? Do they have a core mission? If the website doesn't make this clear, the chances of the company begin focused are slim to none. Command-and-control type organizations will often have highly polished websites with one consistent "voice", but you're unlikely to find evidence of a culture of inclusiveness, such as contributions from various thought leaders on the staff. Reading through a website evokes an intuitive response to these types of questions, but what tools or techniques offer more objective evidence?

One simple tool is Microsoft Word's readability statistics. The technique is simple: cut and past the text from the website into word. I like to do this for three sample pages to get an overall result. Run the spell and grammar check with the readability statistics turned on. Don't worry too much about the spelling and grammar for this exercise, just "ignore" your way through any prompts. Afterwards, check out the numbers for:

• Passive Sentences
• Flesch Reading Ease
• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level

Passive sentences are simply poor writing. Strive to get as close to 0 as possible. Go back to the grammar checker in Word to help identify these, and rewrite using an active voice. Ex: "Our products are used by clients to..." should be "Clients use our products to..."

The Flesch Reading Ease scores documents on a scale of 100 to 0, where 100 is very easy to read. Readable documents typically score between 60 and 70., but online reading such as websites should be easier to read than documents meant for print, so shoot for a score around 75. 

The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level translates readability into a U.S. grade level. A student in 7th or 8th grade should be able to understand typical printed documents. Again, since websites are published as online reading, they should be easier, so shoot for a score of 7 or even 6 here.

The most recent website I tested scored dismal results: 25% of sentences were passive. Flesch Reading Ease was a rock bottom "0", and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level hit the top at "12". Yet this wasn't a bad website at all, it was simply written by engineers. User-centered design says that if their target audience is also engineers, they may be fairly close... but it's not. They have much work to do!

You can improve your scores on the last two statistics by using shorter sentences and simpler words with fewer syllables. That’s the technical approach. Use the results of the rest of your analysis, and your intuition of course, to guide a rewrite for maximum value.

6:17:20 AM    
comment []  trackback []