Are pictorial signs, symbols, and charts more effective than words for a low-literate reader?
Not necessarily. Some experts suggest that “universal” symbols, such as a stop sign, an arrow, or a big black “X” usually test well with this audience. When a pictorial representation is open to interpretation, however, it can fail to communicate with any audience. Likewise, while a simple chart may work well, a large matrix or visually busy schema are likely to confuse. For example, functionally illiterate individuals have trouble using a bus schedule. I know that low-literate products should focus only on a few key concepts. How do I handle a complex topic with 8 or 10 important messages when I can only afford to do one low-literacy publication? A strong grouping of main and subpoints is a common solution to this problem. When individual sections are sequenced effectively and each can stand alone, readers can approach the text at their own pace. I cannot afford to do separate low-literacy publications for all of our organization’s publications. Is there an effective way to adapt high
