November 12, 2007

Government Weighs Common Form for Research-Progress Reports

The federal government has requested comment on a proposal to develop a common form that recipients of federal research grants would use to submit annual progress reports.

Various agencies use different forms for that purpose, but they collect similar information, according to an announcement in Friday’s Federal Register. The possible move toward a common form is part of a broader effort by the government to streamline the administration of federal grants. University officials often say the government’s requirements are duplicative and cumbersome.

The National Science Foundation requested comment on a draft form, which is based on a form the agency now uses. The NSF made the request on behalf of the White House’s National Science and Technology Council, which coordinates policy across agencies. Comments will be received until January 8. —Jeffrey Brainard

Comments

1. Dear NSF Staff:

   Before the final draft of a common form for federal research grants is submitted to the WH NSTC for review, I would suggest consultation with Roger C. Parker, author of Looking Good in Print, or Karen Schriver, author of Dynamics in Document Design: Creating Text for Readers (or simply read those books). While I understand that designing a common form that “looks good” may not even be a minor objective, Parker, Schriver and others who have studied document design, (and lectured on the topic), could review the common grant form draft for its “readability” and offer a number of recommendations to increase the reader’s “ease of reading”. (See the well-designed SEC Plain English Handbook published by the Office of Investor Education and Assistance in 1998.)

   For example, most technical writers who study/understand readability and the research surrounding reading comprehension could quickly recommend seemingly insignificant changes to a draft of text that would significantly enhance readability:
   1. Do not use underlining.
   (Undermines readability).
   2. Headings should be one-two point sizes larger than primary text.
   3. Use more white space above each heading than below. (Do not use equal space above and below headings —creates “floating headings” and decreases reading speed.)
   4. Use Bold type for headings and italicized type for emphasis.
   5. Use a sans serif font for headings.
   6. Use a serif font for primary text.

   Therefore, my opinion is that the NSF draft of a common form for research grants should be reviewed by a reputable document designer/researcher before the final draft is submitted to the National Science and Technology Council. Good design saves a reader time.

   — Monica Mitchell    Nov 12, 06:01 PM    #

Previous: Things Are 'as Normal as Possible' at the U. of Baghdad
Next: U of Iowa Battles 'Thirsty Thursdays' With Scholarly Fridays