Gold Pigeon Shoes Party Party 1613 Comfort Evening Dress Pump Sandals Women Ballroom Dance Shoes 25 3 35 High Heels 1613l Black 22uR0

B0774XV7XN
Gold Pigeon Shoes Party Party 1613 Comfort Evening Dress Pump Sandals, Women Ballroom Dance Shoes (2.5, 3 & 3.5 High Heels) 1613l- Black
  • satin
  • Leather sole
  • Presented by Very Fine Dance Sport Shoes, the Google ranking #1 company in ballroom dance shoes. This style seamlessly combines a fashionable designer look with the comfort of the classic dance shoes. Let you take every step glamorously and making sure it stays on you till the end for any events. 100% Hand made with high quality. Very light weight and flexible. Swede outsole creates frictionless movement on the dance floor. Add sole stopper for use on other surface.
  • Cushioned insole for shock absorption and lasting comfort. Easy/quick release buckling (Clip/Hook)
  • Accessories: Add $5.5 'Heel Protector' for dance pros. Add $7.5 'Cushion Halter' for extra cushion & comfort
  • Feel free to call/text/write us for any concerns. US Customer Service: 818.794.0988 Mon-Fri 9am-4pm (Pacific Time)
  • Images show the 3" heel option. Easy exchange with free shipping. Full item refund within 14 days in original condition. Shoes will be shipped without box. Size 10 1/2 - 12 are special order items, process time will be 4-6 weeks and are not eligible for exchange/refund.
Gold Pigeon Shoes Party Party 1613 Comfort Evening Dress Pump Sandals, Women Ballroom Dance Shoes (2.5, 3 & 3.5 High Heels) 1613l- Black Gold Pigeon Shoes Party Party 1613 Comfort Evening Dress Pump Sandals, Women Ballroom Dance Shoes (2.5, 3 & 3.5 High Heels) 1613l- Black Gold Pigeon Shoes Party Party 1613 Comfort Evening Dress Pump Sandals, Women Ballroom Dance Shoes (2.5, 3 & 3.5 High Heels) 1613l- Black Gold Pigeon Shoes Party Party 1613 Comfort Evening Dress Pump Sandals, Women Ballroom Dance Shoes (2.5, 3 & 3.5 High Heels) 1613l- Black Gold Pigeon Shoes Party Party 1613 Comfort Evening Dress Pump Sandals, Women Ballroom Dance Shoes (2.5, 3 & 3.5 High Heels) 1613l- Black
Menu
Skip to main content

GOV.UK blogs use cookies to make the site simpler. Find out more about cookies

GOV.UK

https://insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk/2014/08/04/sentence-length-why-25-words-is-our-limit/

Posted by: Sara Vincent , Posted on: - Categories: Best practice

We recently blogged about our checklist for reviewing content and got a lot of questions about sentence length.

The Service Design Manual explains how people read and why sentences longer than 25 words aren't accessible.

In the style guide we’re now saying that if you have sentences longer than 25 words, try to break them up or condense them. If you can’t, make sure they’re in plain English.

When you write more, peopleunderstand less

GOV.UK should be an authoritative, trusted source. This means we need to write in a way everybody understands. We know people distrust jargon and that being clear and direct helps - as do shorter sentences.

Writing guru Ann Wylie describes research showing that when average sentence length is 14 words, readers understand more than 90% of what they’re reading. At 43 words, comprehensiondrops to less than 10%.

Studies also show that sentences of 11 words are considered easy to read, while those of 21 words are fairly difficult. At 25 words, sentences become difficult, and 29 words or longer, very difficult.

People don’t read

Long sentences aren't just difficultfor people who struggle with reading or have a cognitive disability like dyslexia or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. They're also a problemfor highly literate people with extensive vocabularies.

This is partly because people tend to scan, not read . In fact, most people only read around 25% of what’s on a page. This means it’s important to get information across quickly.

If it’s complex, make it simple

Long, complicated sentences force users to slow down and work harder to understand what they’re reading. This isn’t something people want to do, even if they’re familiar with the subject or language you’re using.

It’s easy to assume this isn’t the case for highly literate readers or people considered experts. Yet the more educated a person is, and the more specialist their knowledge, the more they want it in plain English .

These people often have the least time and most to read. Which means they just want to understand your point and move on, quickly.

Cut through the noise

It’s also important to think about how people access your content. They might be in a busy office, fighting for space on a crowded train or peering at their mobile in bed.

They don’t have time to deconstruct sentences and contemplate clauses, they just want you to get to the point.Doing thisshows you respect your reader’s time, interest and attention.

If you write short sentences using plain English, it’ll help more people understand your content. And by making it more accessible, you won’t just help your busiest readers, you’ll open it up to people who might otherwise struggle to understand it.

The information in this blogpost may now be out of date. See the current GOV.UK content and publishing guidance .

By contrast, people are much less likely to place diminishing returns on reducing suffering – at least 17 insofar as the disvalue of extreme suffering, or the suffering in lives that on the whole do not seem worth living, is concerned. Most people would say that no matter the size of a (finite) population of suffering beings, adding more suffering beings would always remain equally bad.

It should be noted that incorporating diminishing returns to things of positive value into a normative theory is difficult to do in ways that do not seem unsatisfyingly arbitrary. However, perhaps the need to fit all one’s moral intuitions into an overarching theory based solely on intuitively appealing axioms simply cannot be fulfilled. Some have pointed out that human moral intuitions are complex , which makes it non-obvious that one's normative views must follow directly from just a couple of simple and elegant principles.

Views that incorporate this intuition: Next to being a plausible (partial) explanation why people reject the Repugnant Conclusion, diminishing returns to happiness and other values might explain the appeal of average versions of consequentialism and the fact that most people do not consider it morally important to fill the entire universe with happy beings. David Tate Womens Lilly Sandal Silver Cosmo qdbHxA

We introduced four separate motivating intuitions for suffering-focused ethics. Endorsing one or several of these intuitions as a guiding principle can ground concern for suffering as the main focus of someone’s morality, while leaving room for other things to value. In addition to the intuitions discussed above, some people’s focus on reducing suffering may also derive from a suffering-focused disposition or temperament when they contemplate the value of lives and outcomes in practice: Quantifying suffering and happiness can be done in several different ways, and people’s judgments may differ even if they use the same methods for their assessment. When doing rough, impressionistic aggregations, some people – who we can call “suffering-focused” – tend to conclude that various lives and outcomes are overall bad, while others tend to conclude that they are overall good. 19

It should be noted that pointing out strongly held intuitions or principles does not yet yield a comprehensively specified goal or moral system. For instance, some of the views discussed above may be tricky to formalize in satisfying ways. Oofos Oofos Unisex Ooriginal U Thong Sandals 9 BM Us Women / 7 DM Us Men Black uVI1B3U

Most people have intuitions about many things, including selfish interests, altruism, our personal (moral?) self-image, game-theoretic considerations or cultural community norms. Deciding which of these we want to reflectively endorse and to what extent, and then bringing all of this together into a coherent goal that ranks not just situations we are culturally or evolutionarily familiar with, but all possible world states, 21 is indeed challenging.

REMOTE TEAMS

MOBILE CLOUD

VERTICALS

Ever Near N.V./S.A.

  • Culliganlaan 1 B, 1831 Diegem, BELGIUM
  • Map link
  • + 32 (0) 2 400 55 25 (Brussels office)
  • + 49 (0)40/55204 295 (Hamburg office)
  • + 32 (0) 2 400 55 26
  • info@ever-near.com

Ever Near DOO

  • str. Makedonija no. 11-A, Lottery of Macedonia Building, 1st-2nd Floor, 1000 Skopje, MACEDONIA
  • Map link
  • + 389 2 3096 778
  • + 389 2 3232 265
  • jovan@ever-near.com
Copyright © ever-near . All Rights Reserved .

^