Three versions of a financial form were compared to each other with regard to usability, understanding and respondents’ experiences. The first version did not explicitly use any plain language techniques; the second version of the form explicitly used some plain language techniques and in the third version even more plain language techniques were employed. Mixed methodologies were used to analyse the three versions. The results of the study show that the first version of the form is the least usable, understandable and is associated with the worst experience, while the second version is more usable, understandable and respondents had a better experience with it. Despite this, the second version still has many issues which are solved in the third version. The study concluded that successfully implementing plain language techniques is an iterative process of testing and refining. The study also concluded that the third version of the form had only marginally better results than the second version, suggesting that the success of implementing plain language techniques might be influenced by other factors – that certain themes or fields are difficult by their very nature and that the employment of plain language techniques do not always have the desired effect.