WCAG 3.1.5: Reading Level

Introduction to WCAG 3.1.5: Reading Level

WCAG Success Criterion 3.1.5, titled “Reading Level,” falls under Guideline 3.1 Readable and is an A-level criterion. This criterion addresses the complexity of language used on web pages, aiming to make content understandable for as wide an audience as possible.

Specifically, it states: “When text requires reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level, supplemental content is available, or a version that does not require reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level is available.”

The core idea is not to prohibit complex or technical content, but to ensure that if such content is necessary, users who may struggle with it are provided with alternative means to understand the information. This significantly broadens the accessibility of information for individuals with varying cognitive and linguistic abilities.

Why WCAG 3.1.5 Matters

Ensuring an appropriate reading level for web content is crucial for several reasons, directly impacting a wide range of users and the overall effectiveness of communication:

• Users with Cognitive and Learning Disabilities: Individuals with dyslexia, ADHD, intellectual disabilities, or other cognitive impairments often struggle with complex sentence structures, abstract concepts, and specialized vocabulary. Providing simpler language or supplementary materials can make content accessible to them.
• Users with Low Literacy Skills: A significant portion of the population may have lower literacy levels due to various socio-economic or educational factors. Without consideration for reading level, these users can be excluded from accessing vital information.
• Non-Native Speakers: People reading content in a language that is not their first often find complex language, idioms, and jargon particularly challenging. Simplified content greatly aids their comprehension.
• Older Adults: As people age, some may experience a decline in cognitive processing speed or memory, making it harder to process dense or complex text.
• Users under Stress or Distraction: Even highly literate individuals may benefit from simpler language when under stress, in a hurry, or in a distracting environment.
• Improved Comprehension for All: Plain language benefits everyone. Clear, concise, and easy-to-understand content reduces cognitive load, improves user experience, and ensures that the message is effectively conveyed to the broadest possible audience.

By adhering to this criterion, organizations demonstrate a commitment to inclusive design, ensuring their information is accessible and usable by all members of society.

Understanding Success Criterion 3.1.5: Reading Level

This criterion focuses on making text content understandable. Let’s break down its key components:

• “Reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level”: This refers to content that requires a reading comprehension level typically achieved by individuals in the later stages of their secondary education (e.g., high school in many systems). While WCAG doesn’t define a specific grade level, a common interpretation is content that requires more than an 8th or 9th-grade reading level. Tools like the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level index can help estimate this, though human review is always essential.
• “Supplemental content is available”: If the primary content is complex, you must provide additional resources to help users understand it. Examples include:
  • Summaries: A concise, plain language overview of the main points.
  • Glossaries: Definitions for technical terms and jargon.
  • Illustrations/Diagrams: Visual representations that explain complex concepts.
  • Audio explanations: Narration or spoken explanations of the content.
  • Sign language versions: For deaf users who communicate in sign language.
  • Examples: Concrete instances that illustrate abstract ideas.
• “Or a version that does not require reading ability more advanced than the lower secondary education level is available”: As an alternative to supplemental content, you can provide an entirely separate, simplified version of the content. This means the entire page or section of text is rewritten to be easier to read, perhaps at an elementary or middle school reading level. This alternative version must be clearly linked and easy to find from the original complex content.

The choice between supplemental content and a full alternative version depends on the nature and extent of the complexity. For a few complex terms, a glossary or tooltip might suffice. For an entire technical report, a simplified summary or alternative page would be more appropriate.

Practical Guidelines for Compliance

To successfully meet WCAG 3.1.5, consider the following practical approaches:

1. Prioritize Plain Language

• Write for your audience: Always consider the literacy and knowledge level of your expected users.
• Use simple, common words: Avoid jargon, technical terms, and obscure vocabulary unless absolutely necessary. If used, define them.
• Keep sentences short and direct: Break down long, complex sentences into multiple shorter ones. Aim for one idea per sentence.
• Use active voice: Active voice is generally clearer and more direct than passive voice.
• Structure content logically: Use clear headings, subheadings, lists, and short paragraphs to break up text and make it scannable.

2. Provide Supplemental Content

When complex text is unavoidable, offer aids:

• Contextual Glossaries/Tooltips: Provide definitions for complex terms directly where they appear, perhaps via tooltips on hover or a dedicated section linked from the term.
• Summaries: Offer a brief, plain-language summary at the beginning or end of a complex document or section.
• Visual Aids: Incorporate diagrams, flowcharts, infographics, and images to explain complex processes or data visually. Ensure these visuals are themselves accessible (e.g., have alt text, sufficient contrast).
• Audio/Video Explanations: For very complex topics, consider providing an audio narration or a short video that explains the content in simpler terms.

3. Offer Alternative Versions

For extensive complex content, a dedicated simpler version might be needed:

• “Easy-to-Read” or “Plain Language” Versions: Create a separate page or document that rephrases the entire content in a simplified manner.
• Clear Linkage: Ensure a prominent, clearly labeled link is available from the original complex page to the simplified version, and vice-versa.

4. Utilize Readability Tools

Automated tools can assist in assessing readability, but they are not definitive:

• Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: A common metric found in many word processors that estimates the U.S. grade-level equivalent of text.
• Gunning Fog Index: Measures readability based on sentence length and complex words.
• SMOG Index: Estimates the years of education needed to understand a piece of writing.

Remember, these tools are guides; human review and user testing are indispensable.

5. User Testing and Expert Review

• Include diverse users: Test your content with individuals who represent different literacy levels, including those with cognitive disabilities or who are non-native speakers.
• Accessibility Experts: Have an accessibility expert review your content for adherence to plain language principles.

Examples of Implementation

Correct Implementation Example: Supplemental Content (Glossary & Summary)

Incorrect Implementation Example: Lack of Support

Best Practices and Common Pitfalls

Best Practices:

• Integrate Plain Language from the Start: Make plain language a fundamental part of your content creation process, rather than an afterthought.
• Contextual Definitions: For specialized terms, consider using `` or providing a tooltip/popover with a definition directly where the term is used, in addition to a full glossary.
• User-Centered Design: Involve users with diverse reading abilities in your content development and testing phases.
• Train Content Creators: Educate authors, editors, and technical writers on plain language principles and WCAG 3.1.5 requirements.
• Clear Navigation to Alternatives: If providing an alternative simplified version, ensure the link is prominently placed, clearly labeled (e.g., “Easy Read Version,” “Simplified Explanation”), and easy to understand.

Common Pitfalls:

• Over-reliance on Automated Tools: Readability scores are indicators, not definitive proof of accessibility. They don’t account for context, jargon, or the cognitive load of concepts. Human review is crucial.
• Assuming High Literacy: Don’t assume your audience shares your level of expertise or literacy, especially for public-facing content.
• Hiding Supplemental Content: If glossaries or summaries exist, but are hard to find or poorly linked, they don’t fulfill the criterion.
• Simplifying to the Point of Losing Meaning: While simplifying, ensure the core message and accuracy of the content are maintained.
• Lack of Consistency: Inconsistent application of plain language or supplemental content across a site can confuse users.

Conclusion

WCAG 3.1.5 Reading Level is a vital criterion for fostering truly inclusive web environments. By paying attention to the complexity of language and providing appropriate support when content is challenging, we ensure that information is not only available but also understandable to a much broader audience. This benefits users with cognitive disabilities, low literacy, non-native speakers, and indeed, everyone seeking clear and efficient communication online. Adhering to this criterion enhances the usability, equity, and overall quality of web content.