[NIFL-HEALTH:3493] RE: right writer

From: Terri March (marcht@co.buncombe.nc.us)
Date: Tue Dec 11 2001 - 12:58:46 EST


Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id fBBHwk011872; Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:58:46 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 12:58:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <002a01c1826c$83f5fde0$c51114ac@co.buncombe.nc.us>
Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov
Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov
Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov
Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov
Precedence: bulk
From: "Terri March" <marcht@co.buncombe.nc.us>
To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>
Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3493] RE: right writer
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
Status: O
Content-Length: 1745
Lines: 37

I use Readability on a regular basis. I find it works very well.  I think
the difference between this and Readability Plus is that it uses fewer
tools/scales but does include the most common.  If you recognize that
"reading level" is only one tool in determining readability and is an
inexact science at best, then I find this version is more than adequate as a
general guide.  You don't have to retype your document.  Just save it as a
text file.  When you pull your file up to analyze the text, if you have done
all the "clean-up" for computer analysis, you can skip pieces you don't want
included in the (e.g. headings, bulleted lists, etc...).

----- Original Message -----
From: <Betty.Merriman@cancer.org>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 12:03 PM
Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3491] RE: right writer


|
| I used Right Writer several years ago and when I tried to purchase another
| copy, I found that the company had discontinued it because, they said, RGL
| software was being incorporated into word processing programs such as MS
| Word. But as others have pointed out, those programs have limitations.
| Specifically, the Flesch-Kincaid scale seems to test artificially low. So
I
| do hand calculations using SMOG.
| Recently I came across a program on the Internet called "Readability Plus"
| that provides eight readability formulas, including SMOG.  The website is
| www.micropowerand light.com. I'm thinking about ordering this program and
| wonder if anyone else has used it and whether they find it useful??
| Thanks in advance.
| Betty Merriman
| Content Developer, Readability & Translations
| American Cancer Society, National Office
| betty.merriman@cancer.org
|
|



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:45 EST