Plain Language Translation
Where possible, convert legal jargon and technical terms into 8th-grade reading level language that average users can understand.
Design Guidelines
Aim for a Flesch Reading Ease score of 60 or higher, which corresponds to 8th-9th grade reading level, making content accessible to most users.
Replace legal terminology and corporate jargon with conversational equivalents: use "required for core features" instead of "essential," "combined with other users' data" instead of "aggregate," and "we share your data" instead of passive constructions like "data may be shared."
Use concrete examples rather than abstract descriptions whenever possible, such as "We keep your data for 5 years" instead of "retention period as required by applicable law."
Avoid euphemisms that obscure meaning, and provide a glossary for any unavoidable technical terms that must be retained for legal accuracy.
Do's and Don'ts
Don’t
Use legal jargon: "aggregate," "de-identified," "processing purposes"
Write in passive voice: "Your data may be shared by third parties"
Use euphemisms: "leverage," "optimize," "ecosystem"
Create abstract categories: "Enhanced," "Premium," "Personalized"
Do
Use plain language: "combined," "with names removed," "how we use it"
Write actively: "We share your data with Google Analytics"
Be direct and clear with language: "use," "improve," "network"
Be specific: "Optional features requiring location," "Paid tier," "Based on your activity"
Research Foundation
Participants struggled to parse terminology even when they actively tried to understand. One asked:
"What does Essential even mean?" (P07)
unable to determine what data the category actually contained. Terms like "Enhanced Experience", "Marketing & Personalization" and "aggregate" created confusion about actual data practices.
Research on consent comprehension consistently shows that privacy policies score median Flesch Reading Ease of 34, far below the recommended 60+ threshold for general audiences (Jensen & Potts, 2004). Even children's literature like Charlotte's Web scores 80-90, illustrating the accessibility gap in legal text.