Are Unreadable Computer Use Policies Ethical? Thomas J. Scott Professor of Computer Science Western Illinois University Macomb, IL 61455 Eugene J. Snouffer Associate Professor of English and Journalism Western Illinois University Macomb, IL 61455 Abstract In [10] and [11], Scott and Voss formulated the "7 P's" model used to design effective Computer Use Policies (CUPs) for educational institutions. Each of the "7 P's" is an umbrella term for an important design aspect of an effective CUP. Scott and Voss found that the average Gunning Fog Index [8] of their final sample of 40 existing CUPs was 19, which implies that only an audience of postgraduates would understand the meaning of the CUPs. Similarly, the average score on the Flesch Reading Ease scale [4] implies that less than 5% of the US population could read and understand the sample CUPs. This paper provides practical advice to improve CUP readability by applying well-known principles of effective writing to improve CUP language. We have examined actual passages from the Scott-Voss sample CUPs. In each case, a "before" and "after" analysis is presented. The "before" is the actual text from an existing CUP (with only the pseudonym "University of Dubious Diction" for the actual name of the institution). We focus on readability problems caused by the use of big words, long sentences, nominalizations, and extensive use of the passive voice. The "after" passage is either an actual CUP text chosen for its clarity, or our revision designed to remove obstacles to readability. Since CUPs can be large documents, we have concentrated on two areas: the purpose and philosophy of the document, and sanctions related to software piracy. Ethical considerations demand that CUPs be written with readability in mind. Unreadable CUPs will not be read and understood. It is unethical to provide an unreadable CUP to an entering freshman. Effective writing is not just an ivory-tower concept; ethical responsibility demands that a University practice what it teaches. 1. COMPUTER CURRICULUM AND ETHICS The Internet became available to Universities in the 1980's, and its use became widespread by the early 1990's. Many Internet sites used some version of the Unix operating system, which is well known for its case sensitivity and strange words, such as grep, awk, and sed. Thus, when the Internet first became available to students and professors, students really had to learn a whole new language, one in which dir and DIR mean different things. A professor who gave an Internet assignment would have to prepare meticulous, case-sensitive instructions for students. Students beginning to use the Internet often learned the details of its standard applications, such as email, ftp, telnet, and a newsreader. Each of these Internet applications only does one thing. The 1990's have brought the World-Wide-Web (WWW), Hypertext (HTML) language, Mosaic, and, now, Netscape, to the Internet. The trio of HTML, WWW, and Netscape provide easy access to several excellent search engines, which allow users to quickly find and download many references to a given topic. The Association for Computing Machinery's Curriculum '91 is one of three models for a Computer Science curriculum. It does not prescribe a separate course in Computer Ethics or Computer Law. Instead, this curriculum recognized the importance of Computer Ethics by suggesting that eight different ethical modules be incorporated into existing courses. The challenge for computer science teachers was to find and incorporate good Computer Ethics into their existing courses. Scott and Voss [9] designed three different sets of ethical exercises that could be incorporated into many different Computer Science courses. The first exercise set contained ten different legal scenarios. In each scenario, a legal problem involving computers was presented and then a beginning legal opinion, by a board certified lawyer, was provided. These legal problems were designed so that changing a phrase or two might make a reasonable judge decide the case for one party or the other. The second exercise set used "Internet anonymous ftp" to pursue whether a possible computer violation was a felony or a misdemeanor. Students would download the text of computer crime laws for three states and then decide if the supposed violation was a crime based on these laws. The third set of exercises confronted students with many ethical questions by having them examine Computer Use Policies or CUPs. Most educational institutions have developed CUPs, and many provide them on their Internet Gopher or World Wide Web servers. Two "anonymous ftp" sites have over 100 sample, draft, and final CUPs available to download. Students doing these CUP exercises would choose three sample CUPs, answer a number of questions about them and ultimately formulate their own CUP. Students would incorporate the downloaded CUP documents into their local wordprocessors. These three sets of exercises foster ethical discussions by providing modern issues relating to campus computer use. Within a year after they had been published and discussed at national conferences, these exercises were being used in over 20 American universities. After surveying the 100 sample and draft CUPs, Scott and Voss [10] continued their research into CUP design. They generated, using Internet email, ftp, gopher, etc., a smaller sample of 40 official CUPs. The research plan was to construct a model for building viable CUPs, using the official CUPs as a base. Scott and Voss [10] and [11] presented their findings as the "7 P's Model". Briefly, each "P" in the model is a concept that should be carefully considered by CUP designers. The "7 P's" are Participation, Partitioning, Philosophy, Privacy, Persnickety, Phog Phactor, and Publication. 2. READABILITY MEASURES FOR CUPS The Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formula, proposed in [4], first calculates the average number of syllables in a word (SPW) and the average number of words in a sentence (WPS). The SPW is then multiplied by 84.6 and the WPS is multiplied by 1.015. The Flesch score is then FRE = 206.835 - SPW - WPS. Thus, a low FRE score means that either the SPW or the WPS is large, while a high FRE result means that the SPW is lower and WPS are smaller. Thus, according to this formula, documents with lower SPW and smaller WPS are easier to read. The Gunning Fog Index (GFI), proposed in [8], also uses average sentence length. Gunning also uses a percentage figure for "hard" polysyllabic words, which are words of three or more syllables. In counting polysyllables, Gunning omits familiar words like "grandfather" and capitalized proper names. His formula rates "successes" and "succeeded" as only two- syllable words by omitting the plural "-es" and past tense "-ed". The average sentence length and hard-word values are totalled and multiplied by 0.4. The resulting Fog Index represents the grade level of education required to read and understand a document. Thus a low Fog Index reflects a low level of difficulty while a high number (or grade level of education required) reflects material that is harder to read. The Microsoft Word 6.0 wordprocessor normalizes the Flesch Reading Ease to a range of 0 = worst to 100 = best. To be readable by the general population, the normalized FRE should be between 60 and 70. Word provides the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, similar to the GFI grade level. Word assigns the FKGL to a document when you run a grammar check. Using either the GFI or the FKGL, a grade level for a CUP should be approximately 13, i.e. 13 years of education, or the grade level for a typical freshman. To perform the readability or "Phog Phactor" analysis, we imported and re-formatted each of the 40 official CUPs into Wordperfect 6.0 for DOS. The CUPs were analyzed with Wordperfect grammar analysis tools, which calculate the Flesch Reading Ease score and GFI. Clearly a CUP for a university audience should be readable by a freshman, i.e., they should have a GFI of 12 to 13. Scott and Voss [11] calculated the average Fog Index for the 40 official CUPs at 19.6, and only three had a Fog Index lower than 14. Thus, according to Flesch's Reading Ease scores, the average CUP is readable by less than 5% of the United States population. Linguistic scholars have long criticized using a single formula as the sole basis for readability. The Gunning and Flesch formulas do not consider the complexity of embedded propositions. For example, the six-word sentence "His losing the book annoyed me" contains three separate propositions: "he owned a book", "he lost the book", and "that fact annoyed me". Formulas that measure increased reading difficulties caused by embedded propositions are reviewed by J. Dawkins in [3]. Readability formulas do not consider the motivation of the reader. The importance of the audience is illustrated by Kevin Stevens, et al. [13]. They show that readers bring background and experience to their reading, which enables them to digest complex documents. Readability formulas should be correlated with the results of testing in an actual learning situation. Textbook writers relying on readability formulas may be tempted to "dumb down" their writing by chopping sentences in half or replacing long words, even accurate technical terms, with inexact shorter words. Edward Fry [6] and John K. Courtis [1] discuss writers who "beat the formula" and thus may be defeating the original purpose of the formulas. Jack Selzer [12] has examined the "pernicious" influence of the formulas in teaching business writing. A. Davison and R. Kantor [2] discuss how changes, such as splitting a sentence into two artificial parts, can make text harder to understand. Nevertheless, sentence length and word length do estimate readability levels. Excessive sentence length frequently accompanies writing that is disorganized in thought. Long sentences may be used, but in a balance with shorter sentences. Gunning [8] points out that the unconsciously-written long sentence causes trouble, and you should "question every long word you are tempted to use". 3. PRINCIPLES OF GOOD WRITING Gunning [8] provides 10 principles to help people write clearer English. Flesch [4] and [5] and many textbooks on Technical Writing list similar principles. Since our analysis deals with CUPs, we present several principles that should help CUP writers. Writing is an art, and a well-organized document adheres to commonly accepted principles of good writing. If you ask a group of teachers what they consider the first thing in good writing, they will often respond with "having something worthwhile to say" or "really understanding your subject". Gunning and Flesch both say that a fundamental principle of effective writing is "know your audience." With an average Fog Index of 19.6, CUP writers have clearly not understood this principle. To write readable prose, the writer should first imagine the audience as real persons, and then explain things for this audience. It is therefore appropriate to say "we" and refer to "you". According to Flesch [4], "the more you know about the kind of person you are writing for, the better you'll write." "Foggy" writing grows out of muddled prose that traditionally comes from bureaucrats and writers of arcane material, such as tax codes and computer manuals. The foggy writer confuses the reader by packing too much information into a single sentence. Ideas are then repeated in a futile attempt to cover every possible objection to every possible interpretation. Such repetitions mean even longer sentences. Often, to show a command of the material being presented, the foggy writer displays fancy words that may not have the intended meanings. To achieve readability, writers should see all the details and convey information as if they really know their audience. Good writing uses accurate technical terms where necessary and appropriate, but we should avoid unnecessary jargon. Strong writing sounds conversational, as if the writer speaks directly to the reader, without hedging, without vague passives, without the fancy words that may sound elegant while obscuring the real persona of the writer. Strong, active verbs convey meaning directly to the reader, who is not forced to puzzle over complicated exceptions and piles of prepositional phrases, and is not lulled to sleep by the passive voice and sentences with "is" and other connecting verbs. Good writing demands active verbs: "The bomb squad quickly evacuated the building" rather than the passive "It was recommended that an evacuation of the building be accomplished quickly." Long words are okay: December 7, 1941 is a date "that will live in infamy." But don't substitute complex words for common words merely to show off. Gunning's principle [8, p. 147] is "prefer the familiar word." The sentence "They want to buy curtains that wash well" is preferable to "Their chief motivation for the purchase of curtains is practicality." Another principle of good writing is to avoid "nominalizations." Nominalization is a process by which verbs are converted into nouns. In "Please copy these files as soon as possible", "copy" is an active verb. In "These files should be copied as soon as possible", "be copied" is a passive verb (who is really going to copy the files?). But in "The copying of these files should be accomplished as soon as possible", "copying" is a nominalization; i.e., the active verb "copy" has become a noun "the copying". Additional words arise around a nominalization. Usually the active verb is preferable to an abstract noun. English words ending in -ion, -tion, -ance, -ing, -ment, etc. are clues that a nominalization has smothered an active verb [7]. To increase readability, try to find the active verb hiding inside a nominalization and rewrite the phrase using a strong active verb. A phrase from an existing CUP that states "The Vice President shall make a determination as to whether ..." might become "The Vice President shall determine whether ..." The final principle, often used in technical writing courses and seminars, is to "use lots of white space." White space gives the reader a chance to pause and to put things into visual perspective. Using white space and bullets is especially important when long lists are provided. Putting five to seven items on one or two lines invites fog and confusion. 4. APPLYING GOOD WRITING PRINCIPLES TO CUPS We have taken actual sections of text from some of the 40 official CUPs. Rather than indict a university for its CUP writing, each unclear section of text is attributed to the University of Dubious Diction, or UDD for short. We then apply principles of effective writing to these same CUP sections, changing the name to Clarity University. Reasonable Sentence Length Modern readers expect shorter sentences. The average written sentence in Shakespeare's England was about 45 words; the average Victorian sentence was 29 words. Well-edited magazines in wide circulation today have sentences averaging 20 words or less [4]. A compound sentence with clear internal punctuation causes no problem. But we need to be wary of the complex sentence. Run-on sentences need to be split up. The first paragraph of the CUP at UDD is a barrier to readability; note ten repetitions of the word "and" and seven uses of "or". "To protect the integrity of the University's computing facilities and the users thereof against unauthorized or improper use of those facilities, UDD reserves the right, without notice, to: limit or restrict any individual's use, and to inspect, copy, remove or otherwise alter any data, file, or system resource which may undermine the authorized use of any computing facility. UDD also reserves the right periodically to check any system and any other rights necessary to protect its computing facilities. The University disclaims responsibility for loss of data or interference with files resulting from its efforts to maintain the privacy and security of those computing facilities. As used herein and in the Policy on Computing Ethics below, the term 'computing facility' means, refers to and includes any and all forms of computer-related equipment, tools and intellectual property, including computer systems, personal computers and computer networks and all forms of software, firmware, operating software and application software, which is owned by the University or is under the University's possession, custody or control." We analyzed the above paragraph with Microsoft Word 6.0 and found a FRE of 16.8 and a FKGL of 15.8. Remember that more readable documents have high FRE scores, that the general population needs an FRE of between 60 and 70, and a freshman needs an FKGL of 13. A freshman may be bewildered after reading this expression of "who can do what" with the university computer system. Since these types of statements often begin a CUP, many readers will not continue to read or understand details in the CUP. Surprisingly, paragraph 3 of the same CUP is more readable: "Thousands of users share the computing facilities at UDD. These facilities must be used responsibly by everyone, since misuse by even a few individuals has the potential to disrupt University business or the work of others. You are therefore required to exercise responsible, ethical behavior when using the University's computing facilities." Removing Roadblocks to Effective Writing To combat the problems of obscure writing, we need to remove certain roadblocks which appear again and again in various CUPs. From a UDD passage, we find: "As a condition of these privileges being granted to an Affiliate, the Project Leader agrees to bear responsibility for supervising the use of resources, with the understanding that an Affiliate bears the same responsibility for mature, ethical and accountable use of those facilities as do students, faculty and staff." At Clarity U, two distinct sentences are used: "An Affiliate bears the same responsibility for mature, ethical and accountable use of those facilities as do students, faculty and staff. Affiliates will be supervised by the Project Leader." Again from UDD, "Users and system administrators must ALL guard against abuses that disrupt or threaten the viability of ALL systems, including those at the University and those on networks to which the University's systems are connected." At Clarity U: "Users, as well as system administrators, must guard against abuses of the computer system." Writers at UDD often construct long sentences by repeating the word or: "Such an ethical context implies that computing resources will not be abused, wasted, or employed in such a way as to interfere with, or cause harm or damage to another person, institution, or company within or outside the College community." Too many prepositions are often used at UDD: "A university has a duty to encourage the dissemination of knowledge and the broad use of results of intellectual endeavor in whatever form they appear" (25 words). As it adds nothing to the sentence, the phrase "broad use of" can be eliminated. But the phrase "in whatever form they appear" actually includes two different ideas: "in whatever form" plus "in which they appear". This added idea of "they appear" is superfluous. Thus at Clarity U: "The university encourages the dissemination of knowledge and the results of intellectual endeavor in all forms" (16 words). Sentences of moderate length are readable when they are constructed to flow logically. Unfortunately, many official CUPs ignore this advice. At UDD, writers endeavor to list all alternatives: "Without specific authorization, users of [campus] computing or network facilities must not cause, permit, or attempt any destruction or modification of data or computing or communications equipment, including but not limited to alteration of data, reconfiguration of control switches or parameters, or changes in firmware." Another UDD example: "Such an ethical context implies that computing resources will not be abused, wasted, or employed in such a way as to interfere with, or cause harm or damage to another person, institution, or company within or outside the College community. It is up to the individual to act responsibly in the use of computer hardware and software, data and computer outputs." Complex sentences like these wander along, trying to cover everything, but discourage an inquiring student from reading the document. Microsoft Word rates the above UDD sentences at 9.8 FRE and 20.8 grade level. These paragraphs are basically unintelligible. Clearly, these writers violated the first principle of good writing, as they were only interested in what they had to say. They obviously paid no attention to who the readers might be. They forgot that readers of such lengthy lists need ample white space. Prohibitions will stand out with bullets. Use Active Verbs for Readability Writers at UDD also love the obvious: "This policy exists to provide guidance for the protection of Laboratory unclassified computer systems and computer information" and again "Ensure that adequate back-up protection exists for the application data." Clarity U writes: "This policy provides guidance for the protection of Laboratory unclassified computer systems and computer information" and, again, "Ensure adequate back-up protection for the application data." Also at UDD: "The laboratory supervisor has the authority to expel the user if it is determined that this user is abusing his/her privileges in any way. If difficulties are encountered, request help from the assistant that is available in the laboratory" (40 words). At Clarity U, "The laboratory supervisor can expel a user who abuses any computer privileges. The laboratory assistant can help with difficulties" (19 words). Sentences without active verbs are frequently ambiguous, as at UDD: "Exceptions to this policy are restricted computer resources that have been explicitly identified for public use (such as the Library's system)". Clarity U. states: "As an exception to this policy, the public may use some restricted computer resources such as the Library's system." At worst, verbs without action lead to excessive repetition. At UDD: "If abuse of computer systems occurs, those responsible for such abuse will be held accountable. The following are some actions which are considered prohibited" (24 words). At Clarity U: "Those responsible for abuse of computer systems will be held accountable. The following actions are prohibited" (16 words). Complex sentences with little parallelism are hard to read. From UDD: "... all forms of software, firmware, operating software and application software, which is owned by the University or is under the University's possession, custody or control." From Clarity U: "... all forms of operating software and application software, owned by the University or controlled by the University." Long sentences are easily readable when the verbs are clearly parallel: "Unauthorized copying of software can deprive developers of a fair return for their work, increase prices, reduce the level of future support and enhancement, and inhibit the development of new software products." Inappropriate Diction Obscure words (especially multisyllabic words) interfere with readability. From UDD: "using excessive CPU time or disk space thereby preventing access by other users ... consuming excessive volumes of printing resources." From UCD: "using excessive CPU time or disk space which prevents access by other users ... consuming excessive amounts of printing resources." To a college freshman who knows little about computers, what is a "volume of printing resources"? From UDD: "To protect the integrity of the University's computing facilities and the users thereof against unauthorized or improper use of those facilities. As used herein and in the Policy on Computing Ethics below, the term 'computing facility' means, refers to and includes any and all forms of computer-related equipment. Rules and regulations are posted in each laboratory. All students should read these postings and adhere to them" (67 words). Pseudo-legalistic words, like thereof and herein, heighten obscurity. Clarity U prefers "The University must protect its computing facilities from unauthorized or improper use. In our policies, the term 'computing facility' refers to all forms of computer-related equipment. All students should follow the rules and regulations posted in each laboratory" (39 words). The UDD jargon is sometimes piled high: "The University reserves the right to copy and/or examine any files or information that resides on the network or on University property that is related to inappropriate use." As usual, Clarity U jettisons the jargon: "To investigate inappropriate use, the University reserves the right to copy or examine any files or information on the network or on University property." UDD likes obscure words: "Word processing may be accomplished using personal computers which are located in several laboratories around campus" where one common word would be clearer: "Word processing may be done on personal computers in several laboratories around campus." Again at UDD: "The policies stated here apply to all campus computing resources unless superseded or countermanded by specific policies defined by schools and/or departments for their own computing resources." These 28 words contain too many passive verbs besides the off-putting superseded or countermanded. Clarity U has only 23 words: "These policies apply to all campus computing resources except where specific policies are defined by schools or departments for their own computing resources." Again, from UDD: "You must not access, alter, copy, move or remove information, proprietary software or other files (including programs, members of subroutine libraries, data and electronic mail) without prior authorization from the appropriate University data trustee, security officer or other responsible party. You must not copy, distribute, display or disclose third party proprietary software without prior authorization from the licensor. Proprietary software must not be installed on systems not properly licensed for its use " (72 words, FRE 0, grade level 21.6). Can you imagine a reading ease score of 0, the lowest possible? Or a grade level requirement of 10 years of college? Compare this to the Clarity U version: "Software is valuable property, protected under copyright law. You may not copy protected software, including college owned software, without permission from the copyright holder, whether for your own use or for others. Copying protected software and the use of illegally copied software are offenses subject to criminal prosecution" (48 words, FRE 34.6, grade level 12.4). This Clarity U passage, clearly readable by a freshman, is verbatim from a well-known liberal arts college that understands its audience. Flesch [4, p. 135] quotes Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo: "There is an accuracy that defeats itself by the over-emphasis of details.... The sentence may be so overloaded with all its possible qualifications that it will tumble down of its own weight." UDD's love for legalistic language can lead to using the wrong word: "Upon receipt of a complaint alleging abuse of computing resources as defined in this document, the Vice President for Computing and Information Services shall make a determination as to whether enough cause is warranted to instigate the normal judicial proceedings of the University." Here, instigate is a malapropism for initiate. Incredibly, this UDD document continues: "In any case where suspension has occurred, all procedures identified in this document are immediately instigated". The Passive Voice The passive voice is overused at UDD: "The formulation of this guide was motivated by a need to develop guidelines for all Internet protocols to ensure that users at this university realize the Internet capabilities as a resource available, with the provision that they are responsible in how they access or transmit information through the Internet (The Net)" (51 words). At Clarity U: "This university has provided guidelines for all Internet users to reasonably access and transmit information through the Internet" (18 words). The verb in the passive voice is frequently redundant. At UDD: "it is assumed that the reader has some familiarization with the terms and protocols that are referenced in this document" (20 words). Clarity U simplifies this to: "The reader should have some familiarization with the terms and protocols in this document" (14 words). It is our contention that sentences in the passive voice are not just stylistically weak. The passive voice frequently obscures or omits essential information. A vague passive voice may puzzle the reader, e.g. "In rare cases, detailed logs of each command invocation may be kept." How does the reader know who is keeping the logs? Nominalizations Nominalizations detract from readability by using nouns instead of active verbs. The Vice President "shall make a determination as to whether ..." really means that the Vice President "shall determine whether ..." Policies that exist "to provide guidance for the protection of computer information" might better be policies that protect computer information. Instead of "If suspension of access to the system has occurred...", it is clearer to write "If access to the system has been suspended..." The warning "must not cause, permit, or attempt any destruction or modification of data" lacks the active verbs contained in Clarity U's: "must not destroy or modify data." Nominalizations abound at UDD: "Appropriate university administrators should adopt guidelines for the implementation of this policy in each unit". At Clarity U: "University administrators within each unit should adopt guidelines to implement this policy." UDD will deny access "If ... such access on the part of the Affiliate results or could reasonably be expected to result in significant interference with customary services to Students, Faculty and Staff." At Clarity U: "if ... such access by an Affiliate might interfere with customary services to Students, Faculty and Staff." At UDD: "It is assumed that the reader has some familiarization with the terms ... in this document" while Clarity U simply writes: "It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the terms ... in this document." At UDD: "Information Systems reserves the right to act when an individual uses the network facilities in flagrant violation of this policy" where Clarity U writes: "Information Systems reserves the right to act when an individual violates this policy." Writers at UDD even find it hard to tell users what they cannot do: "Academic dishonesty, disruption and destruction of computer facilities, violation of licenses and copyright agreements, and unauthorized use of university computers for private or commercial purposes are among the prohibitions explained in detail in the above documents." At Clarity U, fewer words are needed: "These documents prohibit academic dishonesty, disruption and destruction ...", etc. Frequently, prepositions are added to a nominalization, which worsens readability. UDD "Conducts evaluations of adherence to the laboratory's Computer Protection Plan ... and manages the documentation and reporting of computer security incidents." Clarity U "Evaluates the laboratory's Computer Protection Plan ... and documents and reports computer security incidents". 6. CONCLUSIONS This paper is not a witch-hunt of other people's writing. Writing a CUP is a daunting task. Those who are totally familiar with the computing environment may not be effective writers, so the CUP may become over-protective and filled with jargon. CUP writing is an on-going task. The ethical questions addressed in CUPs need to be re-thought with each new generation of computer activity. Most schools produce CUPs which are understandable to the whole campus community only after several generations' experience. This paper has attempted to show, by analyzing snippets of text, how writers of CUPs can improve their documents. We pointed out the overweight CUPs, and then discussed how to make a leaner, more attractive, more readable CUP. Gunning's advice to know your audience, and write to them, is still fundamental. CUP writers testing the readability of their nearly finished CUPs would be astonished at how little the typical freshman understood. Writers will become aware of both the jargon they use and the assumptions they made in writing their CUPs. Clear writing should be a passion for those in academia, where writing is prized and taught semester after semester. A university which ignores its commitment to good writing, producing a CUP readable by only 3% of the public or someone with more than 20 years of education, clearly violates its own mission. BIBLIOGRAPHY [1]Courtis, J.K. "Fry, Smog, Lix and Rix: Insinuations About Corporate Business Communications". The Journal of Business Communication, 24(2), 19-27, 1987. [2]Davison, A. and R.N. Kantor, "On the Failure of Readability Formulas to Define Readable Texts: A Case Study from Adaptations". Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 187-209, 1982. [3]Dawkins, J. Syntax and Readability. International Reading Association, 1975. [4]Flesch, R. The Art of Readable Writing. 25th Anniversary Edition, Harper and Row, New York, NY, 1974. [5]Flesch, R. How to Write Plain English. Harper and Row, New York, NY, 1979. [6]Fry, E. "Writeability". ERIC, ED 220799, 1982. [7]Gunning, R. More Effective Writing In Business and Industry. Industrial Education Institute, Boston, MA, 1964. [8]Gunning, R. The Technique of Clear Writing. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, (1952): Revised Edition, 1968. [9]Scott, T., and R. Voss, "Teaching an Ethics Component to CS Majors", Proceedings, 24th SIGCSE National Conference, Indianapolis, IN, Feb. 1993. [10]Scott, T., and R. Voss, "An Efficient Method for Rewriting Computer Use Policies", Proceedings, 4th Computers on Campus National Conference, Myrtle Beach, SC., Nov. 1994. [11]Scott, T., and R. Voss, "Ethics and the 7 P's of Computer Use Policies", Proceedings, ACM SIGCAS Ethics in the Computer Age Conference, Gatlinburg, TN, Nov. 1994. [12]Selzer, J., "Readability Is a Four-Letter Word". The Journal of Business Communication. 18(4), 23-34, 1981. [13]Stevens, et. al. "Measuring the Readability of Business Writing: The Cloze Procedure Versus Readability Formulas". The Journal of Business Communication 29(4), 367-382, 1992.