Quantify awfulness in legal writing
Legal writing can be terrible, but it doesn't have to be. This project aims to help quantify awfulness in legal writing. It follows in the footsteps of efforts to quantify readability of texts such as the Flesch–Kincaid, SMOG, and similar methods, but with a focus on legal writing's own peculiar failings.
- Readability on Wikipedia
- Flesch–Kincaid readability tests on Wikipedia
- SMOG on Wikipedia
- flesch, flesch-kincaid, and smog-formula are components of retext-readability, a module for Retext, all by @wooorm
- american-legal-archaisms by @kemitchell
- Conversation on Twitter
- TextStatistics.js: "Generate information about text including syllable counts and Flesch-Kincaid, Gunning-Fog, Coleman-Liau, SMOG and Automated Readability scores."
- Readibility (Python) by @mmautner and @andreasvc fork
- William H. DuBay, "The Principles of Readability" (2004)
- California Office of Privacy Protection, Recommended Practices on California Information-Sharing Disclosures and Privacy Policy Statements, note 28 (discussing National Adult Literacy Survey and California Financial Information Privacy Act)
- Cal. Financial Code § 4053(d) (requirements for financial industry privacy policies, including Flesch >= 50)
- 10 CCR § 2689.4(a) (defines "clear and conspicuous" as Flesch >= 50, etc.)