Plain Language (PL) Writing

Plain Language (PL) Writing

Evaluate a local government website using the ClearMark Awards criteria and provide a detailed assessment including your evaluation process, consistency with plain language principles, and scoring justification. Additionally, grade a federal government website for "Writing Quality" using the 2019 Report Card Grading Criteria, supported by evidence and explanation. Your report should include an introduction explaining your evaluation approach, analysis based on the criteria, and a conclusion summarizing your findings and recommendations.

Paper For Above instruction

In this assessment, I undertook a comprehensive evaluation of a local government website, specifically the City of Austin’s official portal, according to the ClearMark Awards criteria. The goal was to determine how effectively the website adheres to plain language principles and provides accessible, user-centered information tailored to its audience. Additionally, I assessed a federal website—the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—for its "Writing Quality," applying the 2019 Report Card Grading Criteria. This report details my evaluation methodology, findings, and recommendations based on evidence aligned with the criteria.

Evaluation Methodology

For the local government website, I adopted a structured approach by analyzing all seven ClearMark judging criteria: understanding audience needs, style or voice, structure and content, information design and navigation, pictures, graphics and charts, evaluation, and overall impression. Recognizing the scope of the website, I focused on key sections such as “City Services,” “Council Meetings,” and “Contact” pages. Selection was based on pages that visitors most frequently access for essential information. I documented my observations through screen captures and noted specific examples where the website succeeded or fell short in applying plain language principles.

For the federal website, I selected the FEMA homepage and the "Disaster Assistance" page. I examined the clarity, tone, structure, and overall readability in line with the 2019 Report Card criteria, especially focusing on "Writing Quality." My scoring involved critical analysis of sentence length, jargon use, tone, audience appropriateness, and visual clarity, supported by examples from the pages.

Analysis of the Local Government Website

Understanding Audience Needs (Score: 4/5)

The website clearly identified its primary audiences—residents seeking city services, visitors, and business owners. The “Contact” and “About” sections employ straightforward language, addressing audience needs effectively. However, some technical jargon in legal or administrative sections could have been simplified further, indicating room for improvement.

Style or Voice (Score: 4/5)

The tone throughout the site was friendly, professional, and respectful, fostering trust with the audience. The language was generally accessible, with concise sentences and active voice. An example is the “Plan Your Visit” page, which uses inviting language to engage tourists.

Structure and Content (Score: 5/5)

The site was well-organized, with logical grouping of information into relevant sections. Content was concise, avoiding unnecessary details, and focused on user needs. The “News” and “Upcoming Events” pages provided timely information efficiently.

Information Design and Navigation (Score: 5/5)

Navigation menus were intuitive, with clear labels guiding users to desired sections quickly. The design employed consistent layouts, with visible menus and search functions, enhancing accessibility. The mobile-friendliness was evident, with responsive design adapting to different devices seamlessly.

Pictures, Graphics, and Charts (Score: 4/5)

Visual elements supported content effectively—photos of city landmarks, event flyers, and infographics enhanced understanding. However, some images were small and could be enlarged for better readability, and alternative text descriptions for accessibility could be improved.

Evaluation (Supporting Evidence Only) (N/A)

Due to limitations in website analytics access, empirical data on visits or engagement was unavailable. Nonetheless, usability testing through manual navigation indicated that most pages were accessible and easy to understand.

Overall Impression (Score: 5/5)

The website exemplifies high-quality plain language use and effective information design. It achieves its goal of attracting and informing residents and visitors effectively, making information accessible and engaging. Minor enhancements, such as enlarging images and simplifying legal jargon, could elevate it further.

Analysis of the Federal Website (FEMA)

Understanding Audience Needs (Score: 3/5)

FEMA’s homepage aims to inform individuals affected by disasters, emergency responders, and volunteers. While the content is mostly relevant, some sections contain technical language, requiring more explanations to ensure comprehension among lay audiences.

Style or Voice (Score: 3/5)

The tone is authoritative and professional but occasionally lacks warmth and approachability. Sentences tend to be long and contain jargon, which may hinder understanding for non-expert users.

Structure and Content (Score: 4/5)

The content is organized into logical categories—disaster types, assistance programs, and contact info. However, some pages were dense and needed more headings and summaries for clarity.

Information Design and Navigation (Score: 4/5)

The navigation menus were clear, and drop-down options helped find information. Yet, inconsistent placement of links and busy layouts occasionally caused confusion. Improving visual hierarchy would enhance accessibility.

Pictures, Graphics, and Charts (Score: 3/5)

Visual aids included maps and infographics; however, some images were small and lacked descriptive alt text, reducing accessibility for users with visual impairments.

Writing Quality (Score: 3/5)

The language used in FEMA’s content often included technical jargon and lengthy sentences, violating plain language principles. Simplification of language and sentence structure would improve readability significantly.

Overall Score (Score: 3/5)

FEMA’s website needs improvements in writing clarity, tone, and visual accessibility. Focusing on plain language principles—short sentences, plain vocabulary, and consistent formatting—would make the information more accessible to diverse users.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The local government website scored highly across all criteria, demonstrating effective plain language use, organization, and design. Minor refinements like enlarging images and simplifying some legal language could further improve user experience. Conversely, FEMA’s website, while well-structured, exhibits weaknesses in language clarity and accessibility. To align better with plain language standards, FEMA should focus on reducing jargon, shortening sentences, and enhancing visual accessibility. Both evaluations underscore the importance of user-centered design and plain language principles in public communication.

In summary, applying structured evaluation tools like the ClearMark Awards and the 2019 Report Card grading criteria facilitates objective assessment of websites. These tools aid in identifying strengths and areas for improvement, ensuring that government websites serve their public effectively by communicating clearly and accessibly.

References

  • Center for Plain Language. (2019). 2019 Report Card Grading Criteria. https://centerforplainlanguage.org
  • Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2023). FEMA Official Website. https://www.fema.gov
  • City of Austin. (2023). City of Austin Official Website. https://www.austintexas.gov
  • Cheek, A. (2014). The U.S. Plain Writing Act: Ensuring the Citizens’ Right to Clarity. Plain Language Summit.
  • Lipscomb, D. (2019). The Grading Process and Challenges. Center for Plain Language Presentation. https://centerforplainlanguage.org
  • National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2020). Accessibility Guidelines for Content. NIST.
  • American Library Association. (2022). Web Accessibility and User Needs. ALA Publications.
  • Garrett, J. J. (2010). The Elements of User Experience. A Book About Design. New Riders.
  • Rosser, J. (2018). Effective Communication in Public Sector Websites. Journal of Public Administration.
  • Simmons, M. (2021). Simplifying Government Communication: Best Practices. Government Information Quarterly.

Related Assignments