Plain Language Analysis
U.S. Department of Transportation
Plain Language Analysis
U.S. Department of Transportation
Plain Language Analysis
U.S. Department of Transportation
Timeline
3 weeks
Tools
Skills
Google analytics, Datayze
Plain language, Web content, Writing, Audience analysis
CONTEXT
About the Project
I assessed the Department of Transportation's website in terms of plain language. Based on my analysis, the department needs to write for their audience and make essential information findable.
THE PROBLEM
Reason for Analysis
Federal agencies are required by law to adhere to plain language principles, but not all do. Since 2013, the department’s use of plain language has frequently earned C-level scores in the Federal Report Card conducted annually by the Center of Plain Language. And the department’s scores continue to decline each year in both writing and information design.
METHOD
Grading Criteria
To evaluate the department's compliance with plain language principles, I reviewed two major webpages on the department’s site—the homepage and a popular content page. I used the rubric that the Center of Plain Language uses to grade federal agencies.
I scored the department’s webpages against seven criteria:
-
Understanding the Audience
-
Style or Voice
-
Structure and Content
-
Information Design and Navigation
-
Pictures, Graphics, and Charts
-
Overall Effectiveness
ANALYSIS
Understanding of Audience Needs
The department’s primary audience—drivers and pilots—come to the department’s homepage to find information on vehicle safety or pilot handbooks and training. But the homepage is all about the department, not the users.
Score: 1
Drivers coming to the site to get information about car seats or airline passengers looking for airport security information are prompted to “Meet the Secretary” or find out what “Transportation Tuesday” is.
Style or Voice
Score: 3
The department does a good job by using personal pronouns to talk to its users. Using the pronoun “I” in a question heading correctly assumes that the user is the one asking the question. Addressing the user has a greater impact and makes the agency appear more approachable. But the department doesn't write concisely nor conversationally.
Since web content is a conversation with a user, anything that wouldn’t come up in a conversation shouldn’t be on the web page.
Structure and Content
Score: 2
Both web pages use clearly marked labels—headings and titles—to organize content. But the labels are not specific enough to help the audience predict what is in each section.
And the department should use a lead-in sentence before lists. While users have bulleted lists to quickly scan through, a sentence explaining each give readers context for the section.
Information Design and Navigation
The website’s navigation bar was not designed with the user in mind. Site visitors have three labels to choose from: About DOT, Our Activities, and Areas of Focus. The labels are focused on the department rather than on the audience’s goals.
Score: 2
Instead, the navigation labels should help the audience navigate to the task they are wanting to complete.
Pictures, Graphics, and Charts
The pictures on the homepage and content page do not help communicate the message or topic. Changing the website’s decorative graphics to be more informative like icons would benefit the users.
Score: 2
Visual elements on the site that are merely decorative and do not help guide readers. This image repeats the heading and does not give any further information on what Transformation Tuesday is.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Key Findings
Focus on what users want to know. Self-promotional news on the homepage crowded out tasks and information users needed.
1.
2.
Limit the number of words on a page to 110 words and write shorter sentences.
3.
Use descriptive headings so that readers can skim.
4.
Use all capitals sparingly and increase font size to improve readability
5.
Use informative, high-quality visuals that communicate a message