How to Improve Hard-to-Read Writing: Headings, Summaries, and Plain Japanese in the WCAG 2.2 Era

greeden

5 hours ago

How to Improve Hard-to-Read Writing: Headings, Summaries, and Plain Japanese in the WCAG 2.2 Era

When people think of web accessibility, they often focus on technical aspects such as color contrast, keyboard operation, and form design. However, what users ultimately interact with is the “text” itself. No matter how well the implementation is built, if headings are vague, the body text is long, and expressions are difficult, the necessary information will be harder to receive. On the other hand, writing that has a clear structure, presents key points first, and is organized in plain language becomes information that many people can understand and act on more easily. In Part 5, we will organize text design as a practical aspect of web accessibility, focusing on how to improve hard-to-read writing through headings, summaries, and plain Japanese.

What You Will Learn in This Article

Why readability is directly connected to accessibility
Practical ways to improve headings and summaries
Key points for using plain Japanese and plain language
Concrete examples of improving hard-to-read writing
Compatibility and limitations of the UUU Web Accessibility Service

The first thing to understand is that “understandability” in accessibility is not just a visual issue. How people receive web information changes greatly depending on their background knowledge, language ability, concentration, and usage environment. An explanation that feels natural to staff who are familiar with technical terms may be hard to grasp for first-time visitors. Long sentences, sentences where the subject is unclear, and guidance text where the conclusion does not appear until the end also place a burden on readers. “Understandable,” one of the four principles of WCAG 2.2, is directly related to these issues. It is not enough for information to simply be displayed. What matters is that users can understand it and move on to the next action.

Headings are the first clue for that purpose. If headings are clear and descriptive, users can quickly understand what is written where on the page. This is important both for people who navigate heading lists with screen readers and for people who skim pages to find the information they need. Headings are not decorations; they work like signposts that communicate the structure of a page. For example, abstract headings such as “Notice,” “Details,” and “Other” make it hard to predict the content. On the other hand, headings such as “How to Apply,” “Who Is Eligible,” “Required Documents,” and “Frequently Asked Questions” show the role of the information before the user reads it. Headings can be short, but shortness alone is not enough. What matters is that readers can tell what the section is about.

The same idea applies to the opening of the body text. Many web pages are not read carefully from beginning to end like printed essays. Users first decide whether the information is relevant to them, then search for the necessary parts. For this reason, it is effective to place conclusions and key points at the beginning. This is the so-called inverted pyramid style. For example, in a page explaining a public program, show “who is eligible,” “what can be done,” and “when the application deadline is” first. In an event announcement, show “date,” “place,” and “participation conditions” at the beginning. In an article, show “what this article explains” first. This helps users continue reading with confidence. Just seeing the overall picture at the start can greatly reduce the reader’s burden.

Summaries also strongly affect readability. A summary does not need to be a formal abstract. It simply means briefly organizing “the key points of this page” at the beginning or another appropriate place. Even placing three key points before a long body text makes it easier for users to predict the content. Summaries are especially effective when you want to reduce cognitive load, when pages are read briefly on smartphones, or when you want to consider non-native speakers and older adults. A page with good headings and summaries allows users to understand the outline without reading everything and makes it easier to return to necessary sections. This is accessibility, and at the same time, it is a very powerful editorial technique in practice.

So what actually makes writing “hard to read”? One common cause is sentences that are too long and packed with too much information. For example, a sentence like this is tiring to read:

“This service is made available for the purpose of improving customer convenience by enabling the online submission of various application procedures and facilitating information acquisition through the completion of the required fields in the designated input form and submission by a method separately specified by our company.”

Simply splitting it like this makes it much easier to understand:

“This service lets you complete applications online. To use it, fill in the required items in the input form and apply by following the instructions.”

Making long sentences shorter is not just a writing technique. It is a way to increase the likelihood that information actually reaches users.

You also need to be careful about using too many specialized terms. Words that web staff or business departments use every day may not be familiar to users. For example, terms such as “evidence,” “account linking,” “authentication platform,” “first recruitment round,” and “re-entry” may be hard to understand without context. You do not need to avoid all specialized terms, but if you use them, it is better to add a paraphrase or explanation. For example, writing “evidence (supporting documents)” or “account linking (connecting your ID from another service)” can make the meaning much easier to understand. Not assuming too much knowledge from users is the foundation of accessible writing.

Plain Japanese fits very well in this context. Plain Japanese does not mean making language childish. It means keeping the necessary information while making it short, concrete, and less ambiguous. Methods include avoiding passive expressions and double negatives, reducing abstract words, using bullet points, and writing dates and conditions clearly. “There may be cases where you cannot use it” is easier as “You may not be able to use it.” “We will respond sequentially” may be clearer as “We will respond in order from June.” In administrative fields as well, the use of clear expressions and simpler Japanese when needed is becoming more important and will likely become even more common.

However, you should avoid removing too much information in an attempt to make Japanese easier. The goal is not to make the text look simple, but to make the necessary content understandable without strain. To do that, you need not only easier words, but also a perspective for organizing information. You must clarify who the information is for, what they want to know first, and what action you want them to take next. In other words, plain writing is not only a vocabulary issue; it is also a design issue. Hard-to-read writing is both a writing problem and an information design problem.

Let’s look at a practical example. On a recruitment page, suppose the text says:

“After entry, details will be provided only to applicants who pass the screening. Please note that applications with incomplete documents may be excluded from the selection process.”

The meaning is understandable, but the information users want may be a little hard to find. Rewriting it like this makes the structure easier to see:

“After you apply, we will send the next instructions only to people who pass the screening. If any required documents are missing or incomplete, we may not be able to continue the selection process.”

It becomes even easier to read if you separate the information with headings such as “Eligibility,” “Documents to Submit,” and “When We Will Contact You.” Improving writing is not a flashy change. It is the process of arranging information in the order that matches how users think.

Link text is also part of readability and should not be overlooked. If the body text contains many links such as “here,” “learn more here,” and “continue here,” the meaning may seem clear visually, but it becomes difficult to distinguish them when read aloud or shown as a list. If the link text clearly describes the destination, such as “View how to apply,” “Check usage conditions,” or “Read frequently asked questions,” users are less likely to get lost. Headings, summaries, body text, and link text are not separate elements. In practice, it works better to think of them as one flow that creates understandability.

Paragraph length and spacing are also important. Even if the content is correct, long paragraphs can become a “wall of text.” On smartphones especially, a large block of text can reduce the motivation to read. It is effective to use one theme per paragraph, use bullet points and tables when needed, and make information groups visually easy to understand. Text is not read only through words. It is also read through layout and separation. A readable page supports understanding through both content and layout.

Now let’s consider compatibility with the UUU Web Accessibility Service. Services like UUU, which provide features such as text size adjustment, contrast adjustment, line spacing and character spacing adjustment, text-to-speech, translation, and furigana display, are highly compatible with making text closer to a readable state. In particular, for people with different visual needs, people who are not used to Japanese, or people who find small text burdensome, being able to adjust the viewing environment to themselves has real value. These functions are reassuring as surrounding support for text comprehension.

On the other hand, if the original text itself is hard to understand, tools alone have limits. Difficult expressions, abstract headings, vague instructions, overly long paragraphs, and weak link text cannot be fundamentally improved through display adjustment alone. In other words, services like UUU are highly compatible with the role of “supporting readability,” but they cannot take on the role of “designing the writing itself to be understandable.” Editors, public relations staff, web staff, writers, and directors need to address that carefully. Ideally, tool implementation and manuscript improvement should be treated as two wheels of the same vehicle, not as alternatives.

This theme is especially useful for people responsible for publishing information. For people writing guidance texts for local governments or educational institutions, it provides a perspective for accurately delivering necessary information to target users. For corporate PR staff, it is a technique for clearly communicating service explanations and recruitment information. For editors and directors at production companies, it provides material for proposing pages that are not only visually attractive, but also understandable when read. Readable writing is an accessibility measure and also leads to trustworthy communication. Clear writing does not mean underestimating readers. It means respecting them.

Here is the summary of Part 5. To improve hard-to-read writing, it is not enough to simply reduce difficult words. It is important to show structure through headings, present key points at the beginning, keep sentences short, write necessary information concretely, and design link text and paragraph structure as part of the whole. The “Understandable” perspective emphasized by WCAG 2.2 is deeply connected to the fundamentals of writing. Support measures such as the UUU Web Accessibility Service are highly compatible with assisting readability, but making the original manuscript understandable is still the responsibility of the creators. Next time, we will look at how to design alternatives for images, videos, and other non-text information.

How to Improve Hard-to-Read Writing: Headings, Summaries, and Plain Japanese in the WCAG 2.2 Era

What You Will Learn in This Article

Reference Links

Share this: