I think this ignores the reason jargon exists. -- To demonstrate that the speaker is part of the "in" crowd.<p>If you stop using jargon then people assume you don't know what you're talking about. This affect is real. Your precieved credibility goes way down when you stop speaking in jargon.<p>It's the reason that the speaker used all of the tech jargon (launching a website). If they didn't do that then we would think they didn't know about websites.
UK Government Style Guide > Words to avoid:<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style#words-to-avoid" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty...</a><p>The link to this style guide is provided at the end of the article. However the article does not link to the exact section "Words to avoid" which is almost at the bottom of the style guide. The above link is a direct link to that section in the style guide.
English is a second language for me. It feels like this list is there to avoid newspeak / bullshit / being unnecessarily abstract.<p>It seems like rephrasing with the replacement of many of these terms can make you think again and check that you aren't bullshitting a bit. "progress" => "Are we indeed actually working on this?"<p>I'll certainly consult this list in the future to check my writing for simplicity.
Forgive the typical HN metacomment:<p>I click the link and I get a full screen pop up with the sentence in my face “cookies enable core functionality”<p>I’m trying to read some text man. All this tech and we can’t send a frickin link that opens to some text. Cmon.
I'm always proud of the UK government web services. A lot of work is done to make high quality accessible tools to explain: the law, regulations, health (nhs website), travel guidelines, tax services, etc.<p>Related to this post, the EU guidelines for inclusive language was a nice read for me.<p><a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-europeenne" rel="nofollow">https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-eu...</a><p>(The tables on page 10, 14, 17, etc, being for me the main point of interest)
Most of the "amusing" examples in the linked seem to me to be pretty legitimate attempts at being precise. Yeah, the definition of hot food seems nitpicky but it kind of <i>has</i> to be nitpicky for their purposes of enforcing the rules (dumb rules maybe, but they didn't pick the rules).<p>The advice against using the phrase "combat problems" or even "key stakeholders" instead of just "stakeholders" seems somewhat pointless to me. I don't think these are changes that will significantly improve reader comprehension. Maybe avoiding the use of the word "stakeholder" at all will but they dont seem to want to go that far.
To u/helloooooooo whose comment has been flagged:<p>> Why should the government water down documents and treat people like morons? It’s insulting.<p>Governments have the sometimes formal (e.g. ADA), sometimes informal requirement that its public-facing communication should be accessible to all citizens. Historically, that has been mostly seen in websites that were accessible to people with various disabilities, e.g. proper alt tags on images, subtitles in video / audio, ensuring legibility with high contrast and avoiding various forms of colors that have common color blindnesses associated, but given that over half of the US is barely able to comprehend a 6th grade text [1] and in the UK anything from 12 to almost 27% (depending on the state) has "very poor literacy skills", it makes sense to use simplified language.<p>Additionally, given that low literacy rates are usually closely related to socio-economic disadvantages and/or migration history, it is very important for those people to have information about basic government aid programs available in an even clearer, more simplified subset of English (and, if possible, also in the dominant languages of immigrants).<p>[1] <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-literacy-levels-among-us-adults-could-be-costing-the-economy-22-trillion-a-year/?sh=db073854c904" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/" rel="nofollow">https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-lite...</a>
All hail the newspeak, protecting us from wrongthink.<p>Seriously, avoid the exact domain-specific terms (“jargon”), don’t use “rich” figurative language (“tackle” is out)?<p>The recommendation is really going for the lowest common linguistic denominator, like it’s inspired from Simple English Wikipedia.<p>Weren’t we all supposed to elevate each other? Now it seems we aim for a common soft mushy muddy bottom.<p>(“Elevate”, “aim”... off with me head!)
<i>..."We haven't opened a 'one-stop shop' as we're not a supermarket. We've probably launched a website."</i><p>Have you really <i>launched</i> a website, or just started one? Since the same article rejects the use of 'drive' and 'land', I'd say that 'launch' is fairly comparable.
Whenever someone uses the word ‘portal’, I always glance at the calendar nervously to make sure it's not still 2006. Luckily it almost always becomes apparent that they meant to say ‘website’ and have no clue what a ‘portal’ is.
The Plain English Campaign's list of examples [0] (linked in TFA) was quite amusing. My favorite:<p><i>'the hours of non-hours work worked by a worker in a pay reference period shall be the total of the number of hours spent by him during the pay reference period in carrying out the duties required of him under his contract to do non-hours work.'</i><p>[0]: <a href="http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/examples" rel="nofollow">http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/examples</a>
UK Government’s Plain English website:<p>- <a href="http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/</a><p>And related free guides page:<p>- <a href="http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html</a><p>———————<p>Wikipedia also has a “simple” version here:<p>- <a href="https://simple.wikipedia.org/" rel="nofollow">https://simple.wikipedia.org/</a>
"Every single week we receive requests to create a 'one-stop shop', a 'hub', a 'single front door' or a 'portal'. We often wonder whether we're expecting colleagues to open the single front door or step through the portal and find themselves in the one-stop shop. In nine out of 10 cases, what people really want is some new pages on our intranet."
These words are not for providing direction to people after the decisions have been taken - they are used by people in the process of discussing problems and finding consensus across different (stakeholders?!) - when words that have ambiguity are useful in avoiding unnecessary conflict and saving the conflict for later when the lines are drawn
Related: Vale is a plain-language or "prose" linter. Built a version of this for use with the US DVA<p><a href="https://vale.sh/" rel="nofollow">https://vale.sh/</a>
> This last example is a particularly hot topic for us on the intranet team. Every single week we receive requests to create a 'one-stop shop', a 'hub', a 'single front door' or a 'portal'.<p>I too was on an intranet team, and I too often received requests for a "portal". It took me a long time to grasp why they were so fond of that word. Was a "portal" subtly different from a "page" or "site"? After many years, I concluded that a "portal" is a page with a bunch of links on it --- a hypertextual table of contents, if you will, for the requester's department or project.<p>I did not work in government, just for a large company. This article is useful because highfalutin language is commonplace in any bureaucracy.
This is well written, but frustrated me because the "guide", which is referenced early in the article, is only linked at the end. And even then, they link to a larger page, with instructions on how to search for the actual list of words.<p>Here a direct link: <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style#words-to-avoid" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty...</a>
I like it. It can be hard to a avoid idioms like tackle as they are used alot. Avoiding acronyms, jargon etc. is a great start for everyone. Especially in IT!
I liked this:<p>"We don't 'drive' anything forward unless we're in a car, and we haven't opened a 'one-stop shop' as we're not a supermarket. We've probably launched a website."<p>But there is a place for esoteric terms. I just try to write with my audience in mind. Sometimes that's with technical terms other times with everyday metaphors.
Well, to avoid in general. One thing I've notice in switching between working for companies and organizations from various regions is how management speak.<p>For instance:<p>Danish company: "We're doing great, here's how much we made last quarter". Or: "You fucked up, don't do that."<p>Norwegian company: "We be looking to aligning our pricing strategy using market benchmarks." "We'll be needing to conduct a behavioral correction session in the near future to ensure that you better understand your role in our organizational structure".<p>US company: .... I can't... you get a three page email with long words, no obvious structure to the text, only to make a single point. You're not really sure what that point was, even if you spend 45 minutes trying to parse the content.<p>Generally speaking, use fewer words, try not to communicate just because you think you must.
Do not use "excellent", use very good.<p>Do not use "amazing", use very good.<p>Do not use "extraordinary", use very good.<p>Do not use "incredible", use very good.<p>Do not use "terrific", use very good.<p>Do not use "abominable", use very bad.<p>Do not use "awful", use very bad.<p>Do not use "horrible", use very bad.<p>Do not use "terrible", use very bad.
There’s a tinge of irony that the first few paragraphs talk about avoiding the audience needing to be “in-the-know” and then expects you to be when referring to House language or the old website.<p>I’m not really the audience… at least I don’t remember becoming a British civil servant, but I’d still love to know some examples.<p>Separately:<p>“ We often wonder whether we're expecting colleagues to open the single front door or step through the portal and find themselves in the one-stop shop. In nine out of 10 cases, what people really want is some new pages on our intranet.”<p>I would bet that in nine out of ten cases the people don’t know what they really want up front. When I get similar requests, and ask for concrete details for expectations, quite often they simply can’t provide them. It’s a feeling they have.
The style guide linked in the document seems to refer to the "6 types of British Nationalities", but fails to list them out.<p>Of the 6, the most quirky seems the "British Subject":<p>"You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, until then, you were either:<p>a British subject without citizenship, which means you were a British subject on 31 December 1948 who did not become a citizen of the UK and Colonies, a Commonwealth country, Pakistan or Ireland
a person who had been a citizen of Ireland on 31 December 1948 and had made a claim to remain a British subject.<p>You also became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if you were a woman who registered as a British subject on the basis of your marriage to a man in one of these categories. "
I am compelled to plug "Politics and the English Language" (1946) by George Orwell. It's a short essay. You can find PDF copies for free via your favourite search engine.
New Zealand government hopes to establish a plain language law when communicating with the public:<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/new-zealand-hopes-to-banish-jargon-with-plain-language-law" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/new-zealand-ho...</a><p>Even if there's such a law, people will find a way around it.
> Avoid using metaphors - they do not say what you actually mean and lead to slower comprehension of your content.<p>Then what is the point of a metaphor?
What is fascinating to me is that it isn’t just about jargon - this is also about the complex spatial metaphors that english native speakers use to sound „better”.<p>Reminds me of „Metaphors we Live By” <a href="https://george-lakoff.com/books/metaphors-we-live-by/" rel="nofollow">https://george-lakoff.com/books/metaphors-we-live-by/</a>
>We don't 'drive' anything forward unless we're in a car, and we haven't opened a 'one-stop shop' as we're not a supermarket.<p>But the very next sentence:<p>>We've probably launched a website<p>Surely we don’t launch anything unless it’s a boat or a rocket?<p>I mostly agree with the author, but they nicely demonstrated how hard it is to avoid jargon.
The Australian Government has quite a good, related guide: <a href="https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/writing-and-designing-content/clear-language-and-writing-style/plain-language-and-word-choice" rel="nofollow">https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/writing-and-designing-content...</a>
> Avoid jargon<p>I can get behind that.<p>Some words, like "hub" are, to me, so overused that they've lost all meaning.<p>Also there's a group of people who use jargon without understanding what they're saying, which would have been harmless if not for the positions they often have.
US based companies would be well served by applying this list to their communication as well.<p>These are real life words from a real life human, recently observed: "The value drivers reducing company spend"<p>Spend is a verb and value is not street-legal here in the states.
This is an area where machine learning could make a positive impact to society. Have something like GPT rewrite/review all public facing text. Preferably a required rewrite, which is published unless it is factually incorrect.
This is pretty much the polar opposite ofhow VCffunded companies communicate. And given that this guide is about making things crystal clear for any reader, I'd say that's not coincidental. For most VC backed companies, stating their mission, approach, and progress in plain English would mean an immediate end to their funding...
I know bureaucrats, this guide will not be read, it will be actively ignored.
Programmers like to flex with one liners, and crazy Rube Goldberg style design patterns. Bureaucrats versions of this is documents and wordplay.
People laugh at jargon but my take is that most people learn things without any critical evaluation. If you do your internship at a big corporate, all you will hear is "kicking the wheels", "criteria-based project team" or "key stakeholders".<p>I think people just assimilate it, don't question why and then re-iterate it.<p>As others have said, it is also an example of "weasel words". Words that are designed to make what you are saying sound more impressive.
There's also the issue of words that sound offensive.<p>Case in point, niggard [0] has cost people their jobs. Wikipedia maintains a list of controversies[1].<p>[0] <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggard" rel="nofollow">https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggard</a><p>[1] <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word...</a>