Choosing the Right Reading Level for Your Audience
Published October 03, 2025 • 8–12 min read
A decision framework for selecting appropriate readability targets by domain, risk, and user intent.
Map Audience and Risk
For low‑risk content (blog intros, marketing), aim higher Flesch (65–90). For high‑risk (finance, healthcare), favor clarity and definitions, even if the score drops. Consider the consequences of misunderstanding.
Consider Context and Channel
Mobile users skim; shorten sentences and lead with outcomes. For email, aim for 70–90. For API docs or legal notes, accept 40–60 but add summaries and examples.
Test, Don’t Assume
Run usability sessions with 5–7 people. Ask them to explain a paragraph in their own words. If they paraphrase accurately, your level is right. If not, iterate and test again.
Localization
Plain language translates better. Avoid idioms and culture‑bound references. Keep measurements and dates locale‑appropriate. Consider building a glossary.
Governance
Document targets by page type and add them to your editorial checklist. Review quarterly as products and audiences change.
Audience/Domain Matrix
| Domain | Low risk | Medium risk | High risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marketing | Grade 7–9 | Grade 9–10 | Grade 10–12 |
| How‑to/docs | Grade 6–8 | Grade 8–10 | Grade 10–12 |
| Finance/health | Grade 6–8 | Grade 8–10 | Grade 10–12 (with definitions) |
Decision Steps
- Identify reader intent and domain risk.
- Check competitor baselines and legal constraints.
- Set a target band (±1 grade) and test with a sample.
Quick Audience Test
- Give five readers a short paragraph and one task.
- Track time to complete and questions asked.
- Adjust examples and definitions, not just sentence length.
Edge Cases
For regulated domains (finance, health), pair plain definitions with precise terms. Provide a glossary sidebar so experts get exact language and newcomers aren’t lost.
Contextual Examples
- For beginners: swap acronyms for short definitions.
- For evaluators: add tradeoffs and selection criteria.
- For experts: foreground specs and edge cases.
Field Testing Script
Task: <what to accomplish> Success signal: <what “done” looks like> Timebox: 5 minutes Notes: confusing terms, missing steps, unclear labels
Decision Tree
- What’s the risk of misunderstanding? (low / med / high)
- What’s the reader’s likely familiarity? (new / mixed / expert)
- Pick a band and test one section; adjust with examples.
Stakeholder Sign‑Off
For regulated content, log the agreed reading level with the legal or compliance reviewer and attach examples that show clarity plus precision.
Examples by Domain
| Domain | Keep precise | Explain simply |
|---|---|---|
| Security | MFA, OAuth scopes | Why each control matters |
| Finance | APR, amortization | Impact on monthly payment |
| Health | Dosage, interactions | Plain risks and next steps |
Reader Validation
Recruit 3–5 users in the target group. Ask them to highlight confusing words and to complete one task while thinking aloud.
Signals You Picked the Wrong Level
- Users ask for definitions you assumed were obvious.
- Readers bounce after the intro; headings don’t match intent.
- Experts skip to specs; add a summary table up top.
Retrospective Prompt
What confused readers? What edit would have prevented that? Which terms should move to a glossary? What example or table would clarify faster?