The effect of iteratively applying plain language techniques in forms and their terms and conditions

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis wanted to answer the research question: Does iteratively applying plain language techniques in Glacier's New Investment Plan form have aneffect on understanding, usability and experience of the form and its terms and conditions? Since the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) of 2008 specifies that it is required to use plain language in public documents, many organisations have to redesign their documents using plain language techniques. When writing in plain language, companies will do it veryconservatively, making only superficial changes. This is especially true of the terms and conditions sections of documents. The case study in this thesis, the New Investment Plan form, had previously been redesigned using plainlanguage techniques. Testing of the form showed that the second, plain language version was not as successful as it could be, and that there was still room for improvement. In this thesis a checklist for the design of a plain language form was developed.The first and second versions of the form were then analysed using textfocused (a functional text analysis) and expert-focused approaches (an interview with a document designer and an interview with a legal expert). The second version was then tested with a reader-focused approach (usabilitytesting, the plus-minus method, a questionnaire and an interview with respondents). The twenty respondents used in the reader-focused approach were above 35 with a tertiary education. Since the case study is a form used to gather information on investment plans, these are in most cases thecharacteristics of investors. The text-focused, expert-focused and readerfocused approaches established the ten main problems in the second version of the form. The form was then redesigned with the help of the checklist, taking these problems into consideration.The redesigned third version was then also tested using the same usability testing and questionnaire to test the second version, but with twenty new respondents. The two sets of data gathered from the second and third versions of the form were compared with each other with regard to understanding, usability and respondents' experience. The second and thirdversions were also compared with the analysis of the first version. The comparison showed that the first version of the form had many problems. The second version solved many of these problems by using plain language techniques. Despite this, the second version still had problems with regard tousability, understanding and respondents' experience. The third version had marginally less of these problems. This is also true of the terms and conditions section in the third version. These results illustrate that successfully using plain language techniques is an iterative process of testing and applying.The usability testing of the third version of the form, however, showed that the third version could still be improved. Future studies could further the testing and applying of plain language techniques in this case study to see if it could eventually result in a usable form.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University