Applying psychology to text design: A personal view

Information Design Journal

Volumn 12, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 91-102

  Hartley, James ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Change agents; Evaluation; Experts; Human factors; Readability

Indexed keywords

EID: 21244482956     PISSN: 01425471     EISSN: 1569979X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/idjdd.12.2.01har     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Berry, D. C., Raynor, D. K., Knapp, P., & Bersellini, K. (2003). Patients' understanding of risk associated with medication use: Impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales. Drug Safety, 26, 1-11.
2. Black, A. (1990). Typefaces for desktop publishing: A user guide. London: Architecture Design and Technology Press.
3. Burnhill, P. (1996). Outside the whale. Information Design Journal, 8, 195-218.
4. Broadbent, D. E. (1971). Relation between theory and application in applied psychology. In P. B. Warr (Ed.), Psychology at work (1st ed.) (pp. 15-30). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
5. Clerehan, J. (2004). Towards a more valid account of text quality: The case of the patient information leaflet. (Paper in preparation: copies available from Rosemary Clerehan, Language and Learning Services Unit, PO Box 10, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Victoria 3800, Australia.)
6. Davison, A., & Green G. (Eds.). (1988). Linguistic complexity and text comprehension: Readability issues re-considered. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
7. Ehlich, K. (2004). Documents and their role in institutional communication: A linguistic perspective. Paper presented at the Document Design Conference, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
8. Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Reckoning with risk: Learning to live with uncertainty. London: Penguin Books.
9. Harris, R. (1996). Variation among style checkers in sentence measurement. TEXT Technology, 6, 80-90.
10. Harrison, C. (1980). Readability in the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Hartley, J. (1980). Designing journal contents pages: The role of spatial and typographic cues. Journal of Research Communication Studies, 2, 83-96.
12. Hartley, J. (1982). Psychology and written instruction. In S. Canter & D. Canter (Eds.), Psychology in practice: Perspectives on professional psychology (pp. 311-333). Chichester: Wiley.
13. Hartley, J. (1985). Designing instructional text (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
14. Hartley, J. (1991). Presenting visual information orally. Information Design Journal, 6, 211-220.
15. Hartley, J. (1994). Designing instructional text (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
16. Hartley, J. (1998). Return to sender. Why written communications fail. The Psychologist, 11, 377-380.
17. Hartley, J. (1999). What does it say? Text design, medical information, and older readers. In D. C. Park, R. W. Morrell & K. Shifren (Eds.), Processing of medical information in older patients (pp. 233-247). Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.
18. Hartley, J. (2002). On choosing typographic settings for reference lists. Social Studies of Science, 32, 917-932.
19. Hartley, J. (2004a). Is this chapter any use? Methods for evaluating text. In J. R. Wilson & T. Megaw (Eds.), Evaluation of human work (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC (in press).
20. Hartley, J. (2004b). Designing instructional and informational text. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 917-947). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
21. Hartley, J. (2004c). Current findings from research on structured abstracts. Journal of the Medical Libraries Association 92, 368-371.
22. Hartley, J., & Branthwaite, A. (Eds.). (2000). The applied psychologist (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
23. Hartley, J., & Benjamin, M. (1998). An evaluation of structured abstracts in journals published by the British Psychological Society. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 443-456.
24. Hartley, J., Burnhill, P., & Davies, L. (1977). Typographic decision making: The layout of indexes. Applied Ergonomics, 8, 35-39.
25. Hartley, J., Burnhill, P., & Davies, L. (1978). The effects of line-length and paragraph denotation on the retrieval of information from prose text. Visible Language, 12, 183-194.
26. Hartley, J., Frazer, S., & Burnhill, P. (1975). Some observations on the reliability of measures used in reading and typographic research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 7, 283-296.
27. Hartley, J., & Ganier, F. (2000). Which do you prefer? Some observations on preference measures in studies of structured abstracts. European Science Editing, 26, 4-7.
28. Hartley, J., & Johnson, M. (2000). Portrait or landscape? Typographical layouts for patient information leaflets. Visible Language, 34, 296-309.
29. Hartley, J., Pennebaker, J. W., & Fox, C. L. (2003). Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style? Scientometrics, 57, 389-398.
30. Hartley J., & Trueman, M. (1982). The effects of summaries on the recall of information from prose: Five experimental studies. Human Learning, 1, 63-82.
31. Hartley, J., & Trueman, M. (1985). A research strategy for text designers: The role of headings. Instructional Science, 14, 99-155.
32. Hartley, J., Trueman, M., & Burnhill, P. (1979). The role of spatial and typographic cues in the layout of journal references. Applied Ergonomics, 10, 163-169.
33. Howarth, I. (1975). The uses of psychology. In W. E. C. Gilham (Ed.), Psychology today (pp. 256-276). London: Teach Yourself Books.
34. Information Design Journal. (1995). Making sense of food labeling [Special issue]. Information Design Journal, 8, 1-96.
35. Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
36. Loxterman, J. A., Beck, I.L., & McKeown, M. (1994). The effects of thinking aloud during reading on students' comprehension of more or less coherent text. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 353-367.
37. Macdonald-Ross, M. (1977a). How numbers are shown: A review of research on the presentation of quantitative data in text. Audio-Visual Communication Review, 25, 359-409.
38. Macdonald-Ross, M. (1977b). Graphics in text. In L. S. Shulman Ed.), Review of research in education: Vol. 5. Itasca, Illinois: Peacock.
39. Mailloux, S. L., Johnson, M. E., Fisher, D. G., & Pettibone, J. (1995). How reliable is computerized assessment of readability? Computers in Nursing, 13, 221-225.
40. Molich, R., Ede, M. R., Kaasgaard, K., & Karyukin, B. (2004). Comparative usability evaluation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 23, 65-74.
41. Poulton, E. C., Warren, T. R., & Bond, J. (1970). Ergonomics in journal design. Applied Ergonomics, 1, 207-209.
42. Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1989). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 16-20.
43. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner researchers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
44. Schriver, K. A. (1989). Evaluating text quality: The continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. I.E.E.E. Transactions on Professional Communication, 32, 238-255.
45. Schriver, K. A. (1997). Dynamics in document design. Creating texts for readers. New York: Wiley.
46. Sless, D. (1999). Designing and evaluating forms in large organizations. In H. J. G. Zwaga, T. Boersema & H. C. M. Hoonhout (Eds.), Visual information for everyday use (pp.135-153). London: Taylor & Francis.
47. Sless, D. (2004). Designing public documents. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 12, 24-35.
48. Sydes, M., & Hartley, J. (1997). A thorn in the Flesch: Observations on the unreliability of computer-based readability formula. British Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 143-145.
49. Wright, P. (1999a). Designing healthcare advice for the public. In F. Durso (Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 695-724). Chichester: Wiley.
50. Wright, P. (1999b). Printed instructions: Can research make a difference? In H. J. G. Zwaga, T. Boersema & H. C. M. Hoonhout (Eds.), Visual information for everyday use (pp.45-66). London: Taylor & Francis.
51. Wright, P., John, C. &, Belt, S. (2002/03). Designing an interactive decision explorer. Information Design Journal + Document Design 11, 252-260.