To determine the extent to which the text on this site reduces cognitive burdens on the visitor.
Don’t make me think, when I use or read your text.
To avoid making the reader think unnecessarily, about tangential issues, you need to adopt a number of strategies and tactics, which appear here as a set of guidelines based on research and actual experience, documented in books, journal articles, and online styleguides. (References appear at the end of each strategy). Each guideline, then, provides a method for a writer to follow, or a heuristic.
In this evaluation we test the text against these guidelines. This, then, is a heuristic evaluation.
Here’s how to perform a Heuristic Online Text (HOT) evaluation.
1. Save this file with a name that includes
q The site you are analyzing
q The aspect you are evaluating (brevity, in this case)
q Initials
q A period
q A suffix indicating the file type (doc for Word files, htm for HTML files)
Examples: ibmcogburdenjp.doc,
yahoocognitiveds.htm
2. Go to the site, and locate a fairly typical page
that has at least one paragraph of running text.
Running text is actual content, not labels or menu items.
3. In this file, type the subject of the page,
under Sample #1, below.
The subject appears in the title bar of the window (not including ads for your browser) or in the major heading at the top of the page. Use whichever best articulates what the page is about.
4. Copy the paragraph and paste it into this file
after the subject, breaking the paragraph up into its individual sentences,
each on its own line, so the sentences are separated for analysis.
5. Return to the page and copy the URL for that
page, then paste that into this file, in the line right after the paragraph.
The URL is the address of the page.
6. Type today’s date on the next line, to show when
you collected the sample.
7. Repeat this process, collecting paragraphs from
at least 5 pages.
If possible, find pages with different kinds of content. Also, for consistency, pick the same number paragraph on each page; for instance, pick the second paragraph on every page.
Tip: You may want to print out your samples, so you can look at their text on paper as you work onscreen.
8. Apply the HOT Evaluation to the text samples you
have collected, filling out the evaluation form.
If a strategy or tactic seems irrelevant, omit it from your evaluation. Note that this will change the total possible points.
Subject:
Sentences from paragraph:
URL to the page:
Date investigated:
Subject:
Sentences from paragraph:
URL to the page:
Date investigated:
Subject:
Sentences from paragraph:
URL to the page:
Date investigated:
Subject:
Sentences from paragraph:
URL to the page:
Date investigated:
Subject:
Sentences from paragraph:
URL to the page:
Date investigated:
A clause contains a subject and a verb.
Examples:
· The batter hit the ball.
· When I go to the store
· If I like the dress
· Who is my best friend
· That I chose
· Which is the brightest red of all
If the clause is introduced with a word like when, because, while, who, that, which, or a similar word, the clause is subordinate to the main clause. Tip: If you can remove the clause and still have a complete sentence, you have spotted a subordinate clause.
Test
I found only one or two sentences that contained
subordinate clauses.
YES=1, NO=0.
Impression
Overall, the sentences seemed simple, because they
contained very few subordinate clauses, or none.
YES=1, NO=0.
Example
Which sentence seemed particularly complex, if any?
Comments
If you have further thoughts, or reflections, about
the way the text follows, or ignores, this guideline, please put those
observations here.
References
See: Creaghead and Donnelly (1982), Galitz (1985), Heckel (1984), Horton (1990), Isakson and Spyridakis (1999), Kilian (1999), Larkin and Burns (1977), Lynch & Horton (1997), Rayner, Carlson, and Frazier (1983), Roemer & Champanis (1982), Spyridakis (2000) in the bibliography at http://www.webwritingthatworks.com/HTres2cbiblio.pdf.pdf
Test
I found only one or two sentences that contained
nominalizations—nouns made out of perfectly good verbs or adjectives, to make
the prose sound more elegant, or formal.
YES=1, NO=0.
Impression
Overall, most nouns seemed simple, not made up out of
verbs, to avoid actually using the verb.
YES=1, NO=0.
Example
Which nouns seemed a way for the writer to avoid using
the original verb?
Comments
If you have further thoughts, or reflections, about
the way the text follows, or ignores, this guideline, please put those
observations here.
References
See: Bush & Campbell (1995), Horton (1990), Price & Korman (1993), Tarutz (1992), Waite (1982), Williams (1990)) in the bibliography at http://www.webwritingthatworks.com/HTres2cbiblio.pdf.pdf
Test
I found no noun trains, where all the nouns build up
to a single idea (as opposed to a list of items).
YES=1, NO=0.
Impression
Overall, the text was free of noun strings where I
wondered how to put the nouns together, to figure out which nouns formed pairs
modifying some other noun.
YES=1, NO=0.
Example
The worst noun string.
Comments
If you have further thoughts, or reflections, about
the way the text follows, or ignores, this guideline, please put those
observations here.
References
See: Bush & Campbell (1995), Horton (1990), Price & Korman (1993), Tarutz (1992), Waite (1982), Williams (1990) in the bibliography at http://www.webwritingthatworks.com/HTres2cbiblio.pdf.pdf
Tests
I found no familiar terms used in a strange new way
YES=1, NO=0.
For every pronoun, I found the noun referred to, right
before the pronoun, without any other nouns in between.
YES=1, NO=0.
No sentences began with a solo “This” or “That”
referring vaguely to the whole previous sentence, or an idea suggested, but not
spelled out, earlier.
YES=1, NO=0.
References to other elements within the page, or on
other pages, do not assume that I am reading sequentially (first, second,
before, after), or that the element is in a particular spatial relation to the
mention (above, below, to the right, to the left).
YES=1, NO=0.
Impression
Overall, the text was free of ambiguities.
YES=1, NO=0.
Example
The worst ambiguity I found (if any).
Comments
If you have further thoughts, or reflections, about
the way the text follows, or ignores, this guideline, please put those
observations here.
References
See: Horton (1990), Kilian (1999), Levine (1997), Price & Korman (1993), Rosenfeld (1999), Tarutz (1992) in the bibliography at http://www.webwritingthatworks.com/HTres2cbiblio.pdf.pdf
Tests
The subject of the sentence is, in fact, the person,
program, or thing that performs the action described in the main verb.
YES=1, NO=0.
There are no verbs in passive voice (“The ball was
hit.”).
YES=1, NO=0.
If the agent acts on an object, the object appears after
the verb.
YES=1, NO=0.
Impression
Overall, the text followed the standard English order:
subject, verb, object.
YES=1, NO=0.
Example
This sentence hid the agent, or obscured the action:
Comments
If you have further thoughts, or reflections, about
the way the text follows, or ignores, this guideline, please put those
observations here.
References
See: Broadbent (1978), Flower, Hayes, and Swarts (1983), Herriot (1970), Horton (1990), Kilian (1999), Kintsch (1993), Spyridakis (2000), Tarutz (1992), Williams (1990) in the bibliography at http://www.webwritingthatworks.com/HTres2cbiblio.pdf.pdf
Tests
The writer avoids explicit negatives, such as not,
no, never.
YES=1, NO=0.
The writer avoids implicit negatives, in words such as
impossible, unlikely, inattentive.
YES=1, NO=0.
The writer avoids putting together several explicit or
implicit negatives in the same sentence.
YES=1, NO=0.
Impression
Overall, the text seemed straightforward and
declarative.
YES=1, NO=0.
Example
This most confusingly negative sentence.
Comments
If you have further thoughts, or reflections, about
the way the text follows, or ignores, this guideline, please put those
observations here.
References
See: Boomer (1975), Chase & Clark (1972), Clark & Chase (1972), Dewer (1976), Hackos & Stephens (1996), Herriot (1970), Horton (1990), Simpson & Casey (1988), Whitaker & Stacey (1981), Wickens (1984) in the bibliography at http://www.webwritingthatworks.com/HTres2cbiblio.pdf.pdf
Tests
I rarely had to scroll down more than one or two
screens, to see all the content on the page.
YES=1, NO=0.
I never had to scroll horizontally.
YES=1, NO=0.
The most important content appeared above the fold, at
the top of the first window.
YES=1, NO=0.
Even when some content was out of sight, I had a good
idea what I would find, when I eventually scrolled down to that text.
YES=1, NO=0.
Impression
Overall, the pages seemed to put key content into the
first window, without making me scroll a lot to find important information. I
was never in doubt about what was out of sight, lower down, on the page.
YES=1, NO=0.
Example
This page with the most scrolling was:.
Comments
If you have further thoughts, or reflections, about
the way the text follows, or ignores, this guideline, please put those
observations here.
References
See: Black & Elder (1997), Dillon (1994), IBM (1999), Farkas and Farkas (2000), Levine (1997), Lovelace and Southall (1983), Lynch (2000), Microsoft (2000), Nielsen (1997, 1999f), Rothkopf (1971) in the bibliography at http://www.webwritingthatworks.com/HTres2cbiblio.pdf.pdf
Tests
Long documents appeared in a printer-friendly version.
YES=1, NO=0.
Long documents appeared in a downloadable PDF version.
YES=1, NO=0.
Impression
When a page might extend over several printed sheets,
the site offered me the opportunity to get an HTML or PDF file formatted for
printing.
YES=1, NO=0.
Example
The longest page was x pages long when printed out.
Comments
If you have further thoughts, or reflections, about
the way the text follows, or ignores, this guideline, please put those
observations here.
References
See: IBM (1999), Kilian (1999), Levine (1997), Lynch & Horton (1997) in the bibliography at http://www.webwritingthatworks.com/HTres2cbiblio.pdf.pdf
Assigning a grade to text is always a bit arbitrary. But counting up the points for these sample texts, we reach this diagnosis:
Total Points:
Total Possible:
Percentage:
90-100%: Very easy to understand.
75-89%: Pretty clear, with occasional rough spots.
60-74%: Could use some editing to make the text easier to comprehend.
45-59%: Confusing.
25-44%: A tangled mess.
0-24: Laughably incoherent.
In a few paragraphs, summarize your most important observations—both
positive and negative.
List the top 3 problems with the text, and in a sentence or two,
summarize what you would recommend as solutions.