This article describes a computer-based writing assistant called REVISE, which implements some “Plain English” guidelines in an easy-to-use, efficient computerized tool. Some existing computer-based writing systems are reviewed and some problems with these systems are discussed, particularly in the area of the human-computer interface. The article describes the design principles that formed the basis of REVISE and how REVISE improves upon some of the difficulties noted in the existing systems. A preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of REVISE is described. Some limitations of REVISE are discussed as are directions for future research and development on computer-based writing aids.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Staff, Federal Judge Overrules Gobbledygook, Simply Stated, No. 47, Document Design Center, American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, July 1984.
2.
WrightP., Editing Policy and Processes, in Designing Usable Texts, DuffyT. and WallerR. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 63–96, 1985.
3.
LaBergeD. and SamuelsS. J.Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading, Cognitive Psychology, 6:2, pp. 293–323, 1974.
4.
PosnerM. I. and SnyderC. R. R., Attention and Cognitive Control, in Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium, SolsoR. L. (ed.), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 55–85, 1975.
5.
KierasD., The Potential for Advanced Computerized Aids for Comprehensible Writing of Technical Documents (Technical Report No. 17), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, January 1985.
6.
CherryL. L.Writing Tools, IEEE Transactions on Communications, 30:1, pp. 100–105, 1982.
7.
MacdonaldN. H.FraseL. T.GingrichP. S., and KeenanS. A.The Writer's Workbench: Computer Aids for Text Analysis, IEEE Transactions on Communications, 30:1, pp. 105–110, 1982.
8.
MacdonaldN. H.The UNIX Writer's Workbench Software: Rationale and Design, The Bell System Technical Journal, 62:6, pp. 1891–1908, 1983.
9.
KincaidJ. P.AagardJ. A., and O'HaraJ. W., Development and Test of a Computer Readability Editing System (CRES) (TAEG Report No. 83), Training Analysis and Evaluation Group, Orlando, Florida, March 1980.
10.
KincaidJ. P.AagardJ. A.O'HaraJ. W., and CottrellL. K.Computer Readability Editing System, IEEE Transactions of Professional Communications, 24:1, pp. 38–41, 1981.
11.
KincaidJ. P.CottrellL. K.AagardJ. A., and RisleyP., Implementing the Computer Readability Editing System (CRES) (TAEG Report No, 98), Training Analysis and Evaluation Group, Orlando, Florida, March 1981.
12.
CherryL. L., PARTS-A System for Assigning Word Classes to English Text (Computing Science Technical Report No. 81), Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey, June 1978.
13.
NormanD. A.The Trouble with UNIX, Datamation, 27:12, pp. 139–150, 1981.
14.
Braden-HarderL., CRITIQUE: A Text Critiquing Tool Based on a Natural Language Parser, 4th Annual Conference on Computers and Writing, Pittsburgh, May 1986.
15.
HeidornG. E.JensenK.MillerL. A.ByrdR. J., and ChodorowM. S.The EPISTLE Text-Critiquing System, IBM System Journal, 21:3, pp. 305–326, 1982.
16.
Department of the Navy, Correspondence Manual, Office of the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, DC, August 1983. (SECNAVINST 5216.5C).
17.
HayesJ. R., Personal Communication, San Diego, California, August 1984.
18.
KuceraH. and FrancisW. N., Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English, Brown University Press, Providence, 1967.
19.
CherryL. L. and VestermanW., Writing Tools—The STYLE and DICTION Programs (Computing Science Technical Report No. 91), Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey, February 1981.
20.
KeppelG., Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook, Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973.
21.
DuffyT. M., Readability Formulas: What is the Use? in Designing Usable Texts, DuffyT. and WallerR. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 113–143, 1985.
22.
KintschW. and MillerJ. R., Readability: A View from Cognitive Psychology, in Understanding Reading Comprehension, FloodJ. (ed.), International Reading Association, Newark, Delaware, pp. 220–232, 1984.
23.
RothkopfE. Z., Writing to Teach and Reading to Learn: A Perspective on the Psychology of Written Instruction, in Seventy-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1, pp. 91–129, 1976.
24.
CarrT. H.PosnerM. I.PollatsekA., and SnyderC. R. R.Orthography and Familiarity Effects in Word Processing, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108:4, pp. 389–414, 1979.
25.
ColemanE. B.The Comprehensibility of Several Grammatical Transformations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 48:3, pp. 186–190, 1964.
26.
ColemanE. B.Learning of Prose Written in Four Grammatical Transformations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 49:5, pp. 332–341, 1965.
27.
TannenbaumP. H. and WilliamsF.Generation of Active and Passive Sentences as a Function of Subject or Object Nouns, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7:1, pp. 246–250, 1968.
28.
PerfettiC. A. and GoldmanS. R.Thematization and Sentence Retrieval, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6:3, pp. 335–354, 1974.
29.
PerfettiC. A. and GoldmanS. R.Discourse Functions of Thematization and Topicalization, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4:3, pp. 257–271, 1975.
30.
DuffyT. M. and KabanceP.Testing a Readable Writing Approach to Text Revision, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74:5, pp. 733–748, 1982.
31.
DuffyT. M.CurranT. E., and SassD.Document Design for Technical Job Tasks: An Evaluation, Human Factors, 25:2, pp. 143–160, 1983.
32.
KierasD. E.A Model of Reader Strategy for Abstracting Main Ideas from Simple Technical Prose, Text, 2:1–3, pp. 47–82, 1982.
33.
KierasD. E., A Simulation Model for the Comprehension of Technical Prose, in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Volume 17, BowerG. H. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 39–80, 1983.
34.
KintschW. and van DijkT. A.Toward a Theory of Discourse Comprehension and Production, Psychological Review, 85:5, pp. 363–394, 1978.
35.
WoodsW. A.Transition Network Grammars for Natural Language Analysis, Communications of the ACM, 13:10, pp. 591–606, 1970.
36.
AndersonJ. R., Language, Memory and Thought, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1976.
37.
ClarkH. H. and HavilandS. E., Comprehension and the Given/New Contract, in Discourse Processes: Advances in Theory and Practice, FreedleR. O. (ed.), Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, New Jersey, pp. 1–40, 1977.
38.
HavilandS. E. and ClarkH. H.What's New? Acquiring New Information as a Process in Comprehension, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13:5, pp. 512–521, 1974.
39.
ThompsonI.The Given/New Contract and Cohesion: Some Suggestions for Classroom Practice, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 15:3, pp. 205–214, 1985.
