Lower-Literacy Users: Relevant to a Campaign?

Jakob Nielsen's article on lower-literacy users raises some interesting questions for political operatives putting together a campaign website. The first that comes to mind is, should we care? Do lower-literacy users visit campaign websites? Given that web users have above average literacy to begin with and the on-line influentials a campaign website needs to target probably raise the average even more, should lower-literacy users even be a concern?

After reading the article and doing some thinking, I think the questions is clearly "Yes, we should care." Just because I and just about everyone I know around here would be considered a high-literacy user (we are in a master's program, after all), that certainly doesn't mean every potential user of a site is the same way. Making the assumption that everyone is just like you or your close friends is certainly a good way to quickly find yourself out of touch with reality.

Nielsen estimates that "30% of Web users have low literacy," so this is clearly a demographic that needs to be considered. This is especially true for a presidential or other high-visibility campaign that would be likely to draw more casual users to their sites, but smaller campaigns should keep lower-literacy accessibility in mind as well. While lower-literacy users are probably less likely to be politically active, a local campaign that strikes a nerve with such a voter could be exactly what gets him or her interested in politics, and having an accessible website could be what ultimately draws them in or drives them away.

As Nielsen notes, there are certainly circumstances where it is appropriate to target higher-literacy users, and there will certainly be sections on a campaign website, such as the issues page, that do just that. For a detailed policy brief that is targeted at the media, interest groups, and super political junkies, a higher reading level is acceptable. But the site should also include a summary version, perhaps in the form of bullet points, that is accessible to lower-literacy viewers. Place this summary at the top of each issue page (making sure it's in the first 800x600 so the user doesn't have to scroll), and the section can now be helpful for lower-literacy users while retaining the more specific and detailed aspects for more "serious" users.

While sections like the issues pages can appropriately user a higher reading level, the home page in particular should be made as accessible as possible. Catering to lower-literacy users on this page will also serve to enhance the general usability of the site, and make it accessible for the largest audience possible. Perhaps lower-literacy users will rarely make it past this page, which gives all the more reason to make the home page as accessible as possible. The home page should certainly be designed to reach the lowest common denominator (and I truly mean that in the non-perjorative sense), with the literacy level being ratcheted up when appropriate in deeper pages on the site.

Also, it should be noted that a government-funded website such as an elected official's website should be almost entirely designed with lower-literacy users in mind. Whereas a campaign website presents strategic reasons to increase the accessibility for these users, a government-funded website really should be accessible to as many constituents as possible. And that certainly includes lower-literacy and disabled users.