TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Why do you think Gunning is obsolete? From:Jerry Blackerby <exujbl -at- EXU -dot- ERICSSON -dot- SE> Date:Mon, 6 Nov 1995 22:22:04 GMT
In article 00092nC -at- pacifier -dot- com, John Gear <catalyst -at- pacifier -dot- com> writes:
>>Gunning's Fog Index was fine in the past, but I do not believe it
>>is accurate today. I am not knocking Robert Gunning, just stating
>>that I think we need a new method of measuring readability.
>Why is that? Is your position the result of an intuition or something else?
>John Gear (catalyst -at- pacifier -dot- com)
My contention for the last twenty years is that Gunning's Fog Index is
too simplistic. The formula restricts the use of polysyllable words too
much. I do not think that words like television or computer are hard
words in today's world.
A new formula based on the Dale and Chall method from the late 30's or early
40's should be better. That method was based on a vocabulary. The
vocabulary should fit the audience. The original Dale and Chall method was
calculated manually, but could be automated today.
My question was that since I have not seen any new research in the last
few years, has anyone else? Surely, someone is researching methods
for improving readability measurement.
I did papers in 1976 and '77 on the subject. I was told then that an STC
committee was going to investigate readability measurement, but have seen
nothing.
