2
Aug

UK GOV Style Guide – No more eg, and ie – How to quantify the impact of these changes

Recently, the UK’s Government Digital Service updated its UK GOV style guide.

In an effort to make content more accessible, they now discourage the use of Latin abbreviations. Examples like ‘ie’ and ‘eg’. We’ve seen similar efforts before in other style guides, including the US Plain Language guidelines.

UK GOV Style GuideMany in the comment thread were very exercised, citing a ‘dumbing down English’ argument. Those criticizing missed the point; people online are trying to complete tasks or find information quickly.

It is about reducing cognitive burden. The UK Government’s motivation is to make content more accessible for as wide a range of site visitors as possible. And it’s a very reasonable move, especially for those with sight related challenges or who do not have English as a first language.

Now interestingly, the blog author, Persis Howe said; “We’re not going for a ‘big bang’ approach. You’ll still see these words on GOV.UK for a while – we have over 4,000 uses of ‘eg’ alone.”

Now, when we ran a quick analysis on the site with VisibleThread Clarity Grader, the number was actually double that, at 9,670 across 5,859 pages. But irrespective of the exact number of occurrences, cleaning up all that content manually is a daunting task.

Persis continued; “we’ll stop using these phrases in new content, and when we’re updating existing pages, we’ll replace the eg, etc and ie.”

But it did get us thinking. What about existing high traffic pages with references like eg?

Wouldn’t it make good sense to try to prioritize removing some of the existing references? This would require 2 things:

  1. Find every page where we see occurrences of the abbreviations.
  2. Then prioritize the fixes for those pages with highest traffic OR equally by making judgments based on expected user journeys.

We certainly can analyze the site to quantify the number of occurrences to help with point 1. And that’s exactly what we did with VisibleThread Clarity Grader.

Now as a 3rd party, we have no access to the UK Gov web logs so, we’ll just focus on 1.

The UK Gov folks are in the best position to prioritize as part of 2. Later in this post, you can download the full report listing every page with the abbreviations. The guys at UK GOV are very welcome to use this to start re-mediating some of the more critical content areas.

How automation helps for content refresh scenarios

Many of our users face similar non-trivial tasks, where they have to cleanse content across thousands of web pages, and often across multiple corporate web sites. The drivers for these projects include; brand refreshes, retiring a brand or product name, legislative changes or just like the UK GOV example, a style guide change. It’s practically impossible to complete these projects by hand, but with automation it is relatively easy to do. You always need to quantify the amount of content impacted, and then implement a phased fix plan. Loosely speaking points 1 and 2 above.

Here’s what we did to achieve point 1:

  • Ran a deep dive scan in Clarity Grader
  • Set up a search dictionary for the abbreviations
  • Run the Report
  • Exported the report to PDF (or Excel).

 

Step 1: Run a Deep Dive Scan

This is a simple step. We specify the URL to crawl & the depth to crawl to. In our case, we set the depth to 10,000 pages and ran the scan on the 29th July.

Now, when the scan finished we found 5,859 pages and over 2 million words. All good so far.

UK Gov Scan 1

Step 2: Set up a Search Dictionary

We specified what we wanted to find. In Clarity Grader terminology, we call this a ‘Bad Language Dictionary’. Think of it as a collection of search terms.

We just specified our 6 terms using an editor and called the dictionary ‘UK Gov’. Here’s what it looked like.

UK Gov Scan 2

Notice that for each of the 3 main terms; eg, ie and etc, each has 1 variation; the dot variation. So in fact, we’re actually searching for 6 items across the over 5000 pages.

We also put in guidance as a description. This came from the UK Gov Style guide and is a great way to help editors/authors fix content. We’ll see how this surfaces later in the report.

Step 3: Run the Report

All we now had to do was set the search dictionary. This was where we found the number of hits across the pages.

UK Gov Scan 3

Here’s what the overall report looked like in Clarity Grader showing the pages and exact content:

UK Gov Scan 4

Step 4: Export to PDF (or Excel)

And the last step is to export this data to PDF or excel. That’s just 1-click, and the result is like this when creating an Excel report.

ad

UK Gov Scan 5

The advantage of Excel is that you can easily order the pages, set priorities on certain pages and control the fix. For example, we often see customers adding extra columns such as; ‘priority’, ‘Person Responsible’ and others.

Regardless, in about 20 minutes you have a full content audit showing all occurrences of the ‘bad language’

Now, all we need to do is cross reference our Excel report with the traffic stats from the web logs / google analytics and prioritize accordingly.

Here is a link to the report for download

Takeaways

  1. The UK’s Government Digital Service updated its UK GOV style guide to remove references to latin abbreviations.
  2. A job like this is close to impossible if using a manual approach.
  3. Using automation like VisibleThread Clarity Grader, you can easily quantify the fallout and help the remediation.

 

Is your web content clear, consistent and engaging your audience? Analyze your site now. It’s FREE!


Comments

  • September 8, 2016

    Interesting analysis and I see for this you say you have crawled all .gov.uk – however I’m not sure you have as clearly all local authority and other websites share the .gov.uk top level domain – I think therefore you ought to clarify exactly what you mean by .GOV.UK

    Whereas in your recently launched “UK Local Authorities 2016 Website Index” – I’m very much with the point you are making, however a sample of 12 local authority websites is hardly statistically valid and calling it an “Index” is misleading. Given you have the software to check all the local authority websites why not actually analyse them all and produce a proper index. Or as an alternative at least give local residents (armchair auditors as Eric Pickles said at one point) a facility to get the score for their local authorities. I suspect that many currently covering your index report have not actually looked at the report itself or they would not be so casually referring to it as an “Index” without at least a caveat. It is certainly valid criticism to make of the sites checked but not others.

    I think you are also operating under a misapprehension about guidance too about the extent of control over local authority websites that central government has (they could choose to have more but that is another matters). The style guide you refer to only applies to central government websites, not local authorities. Local authorities can largely do what they like – and many do.

    • Fergal
      September 12, 2016

      Hi Mike,

      Yes we crawled the full .gov domain. To get exact list of the URLs we analyzed, download the report linked at the end of the blog.

      As to your 2nd point, we published an initial UK Local Gov clarity index back in April with just 12 sites and a more recent index in early September covering 194 local authority sites which you may not have seen. You can download that report here: http://www.visiblethread.com/company/published-reports.

      Finally, I understand your point re: control demarcation between central and local government. Drawing back, we really wanted to flag the challenge of a content refresh on larger sites. When style guide changes or brand name changes trigger wholesale change, it’s a very manual and error prone business.

      Thanks,
      Fergal.