A simple guide on words to avoid in government(civilservice.blog.gov.uk)
civilservice.blog.gov.uk
A simple guide on words to avoid in government
https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2022/08/16/a-simple-guide-on-words-to-avoid-in-government/
245 comments
> I think this ignores the reason jargon exists. -- To demonstrate that the speaker is part of the "in" crowd.
That's unnecessarily cynical. It certainly can give off that impression. But it is also a shortcut for people who work together in a specific domain to be more precise (or more general) than would be implied by non-jargon speech. So to me those things in the sky are just clouds, but to a meteorologist they might be stratocumulus or cirrus.
Another case, a similar one, is the stickiness of obsolete language in a certain domains. I've never used the word "cloture" in a sentence,* but to use it is faster for those who need it than to spell it out. In law, some obsolete words not only carry specific meaning but can call back to existing case law.
For HN, CPU is a good example, being an old word whose precise meaning is quite fluid (used to be literally the cabinet with merely the ALU and some registers; instruction decode was just how it was wired together) and so is jargon too.
* until writing that sentence of course.
That's unnecessarily cynical. It certainly can give off that impression. But it is also a shortcut for people who work together in a specific domain to be more precise (or more general) than would be implied by non-jargon speech. So to me those things in the sky are just clouds, but to a meteorologist they might be stratocumulus or cirrus.
Another case, a similar one, is the stickiness of obsolete language in a certain domains. I've never used the word "cloture" in a sentence,* but to use it is faster for those who need it than to spell it out. In law, some obsolete words not only carry specific meaning but can call back to existing case law.
For HN, CPU is a good example, being an old word whose precise meaning is quite fluid (used to be literally the cabinet with merely the ALU and some registers; instruction decode was just how it was wired together) and so is jargon too.
* until writing that sentence of course.
I agree. The linked examples of jargon in the article feel more like precise wording chosen to reflect legal or contractual obligations. Not great for casual communication, but when you start talking about people's job duties and working hours then precision is important.
Always consider your audience. If you're writing casual communications for a mixed audience, ditch the jargon and use simple words.
If you're speaking to professional peers on business matters, use the precise language. Don't unnecessarily complicate sentences or use complex words when simple words are equally effective, though.
Always consider your audience. If you're writing casual communications for a mixed audience, ditch the jargon and use simple words.
If you're speaking to professional peers on business matters, use the precise language. Don't unnecessarily complicate sentences or use complex words when simple words are equally effective, though.
You are describing technical vocabulary, not jargon.
Jargon has a slightly pejorative sense, just like in the article.
The article does not say, "Do not use the correct words for your discipline." It says, "Do not use meaningless words or overdramatize."
Jargon has a slightly pejorative sense, just like in the article.
The article does not say, "Do not use the correct words for your discipline." It says, "Do not use meaningless words or overdramatize."
> Jargon has a slightly pejorative sense, just like in the article
Not necessarily. Jargon is not technical. But it is an emergent feature of language in semi-isolated groups. Things get nicknamed, inside jokes stick, and from the outside it looks performative while inside it’s quite natural. That it subsequently often takes on a performative element, in particular by new comers, is an in-group mechanism, but it’s not always useless as a signalling mechanism. There even seems to be an in-built sense of disgust with respect to overly performative jargon that keeps the system in check most of the time.
Not necessarily. Jargon is not technical. But it is an emergent feature of language in semi-isolated groups. Things get nicknamed, inside jokes stick, and from the outside it looks performative while inside it’s quite natural. That it subsequently often takes on a performative element, in particular by new comers, is an in-group mechanism, but it’s not always useless as a signalling mechanism. There even seems to be an in-built sense of disgust with respect to overly performative jargon that keeps the system in check most of the time.
Jargon means exactly the same as "technical vocabulary", but without carrying the connotation that requires their area of interest to be "technical".
Jargon is an old file of hacker culture slang definitions from the MIT-AI Lab "HUMOR;" directory, including the word "hacker" itself, that that Eric S Raymond hijacked and redefined to spread his bat-shit crazy political ideology.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20382529
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20382529
Jargon is a word derived from Old French, and has been used in its current meaning since at least 1849. ESR may have listed some examples of jargon, but he for damn sure didn't get to define it.
The response to your comment seems to be negative, but I personally think it’s accurate and on-topic, including the note about ESR and his ideology.
You didn't use it, you mentioned it.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinctio...
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use%E2%80%93mention_distinctio...
He used it as an example.
CPU is short for Central Processing Unit, and is often used to contrast with GPU, which is short for Graphics Processing Unit, which is often used for ML, which is short for Machine Learning, even though ML isn't just Graphics, and TPU is short for Tensor Processing Unit, which is also used for Machine Learning.
Also, C-3PO is short for See-Threepio, and is used for interacting with organics, while R2D2 is short for Artoo-Detoo, which is used for interacting with digitals and arguing with C-3P0, while TWKE-4 is short for Twiki, which is used for saying BDBDBDBD, which is short for Bee Dee Bee Dee Bee Dee Bee Dee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeCb_abgig0
Also, C-3PO is short for See-Threepio, and is used for interacting with organics, while R2D2 is short for Artoo-Detoo, which is used for interacting with digitals and arguing with C-3P0, while TWKE-4 is short for Twiki, which is used for saying BDBDBDBD, which is short for Bee Dee Bee Dee Bee Dee Bee Dee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeCb_abgig0
Precisely: this gets annoying really quickly. Hence jargon.
> If you stop using jargon then people assume you don't know what you're talking about
I think it's starting to go the other direction. As a technical-minded person if I have a business meeting and the other person starts throwing those yuppie buzzwords in my face I'll just mentally put them in the "empty suit with an MBA" bin.
It might be my Southern European sensibilities, but I value straightforwardness very highly than time wasting nonsense to signal you're part of the in crowd. Unless the hacker ethos has died, and we're back to the 1980 where middle managers in business suits are the cool guys.
I think it's starting to go the other direction. As a technical-minded person if I have a business meeting and the other person starts throwing those yuppie buzzwords in my face I'll just mentally put them in the "empty suit with an MBA" bin.
It might be my Southern European sensibilities, but I value straightforwardness very highly than time wasting nonsense to signal you're part of the in crowd. Unless the hacker ethos has died, and we're back to the 1980 where middle managers in business suits are the cool guys.
But jargon is not the opposite of straightforwardness, a lot of jargon exists for concise precision[0], and hacker spaces are extremely jargon-heavy.
Hell, your comment is full of jargon. "Yuppie", "buzzword", "suit" (and "empty suit"), ...
[0] though it's usually very contextual when that's the case, which is really frustrating when things are taken out of context and either become completely unintelligible, or easily misinterpreted (and sometimes wilfully misrepresented).
Hell, your comment is full of jargon. "Yuppie", "buzzword", "suit" (and "empty suit"), ...
[0] though it's usually very contextual when that's the case, which is really frustrating when things are taken out of context and either become completely unintelligible, or easily misinterpreted (and sometimes wilfully misrepresented).
I used those words to be polite and not to call them pillocks. Empty suit isn't jargon, it's a commonly used idiom. Yuppie isn't jargon, I was thinking about the movie American Psycho. It's just a term to refer to your stereotypical middle managers high on their own farts.
Avoiding business jargon doesn't mean having to stick to the 1000 most used English words.
Avoiding business jargon doesn't mean having to stick to the 1000 most used English words.
> Empty suit isn't jargon, it's a commonly used idiom.
Sorry to burst your bubble but that’s jargon.
> Yuppie isn't jargon, I was thinking about the movie American Psycho.
It’s also jargon.
> It's just a term to refer to your stereotypical middle managers high on their own farts.
I know what those terms mean.
> business jargon
Oh wow look at those goalposts flying by, amazing.
Sorry to burst your bubble but that’s jargon.
> Yuppie isn't jargon, I was thinking about the movie American Psycho.
It’s also jargon.
> It's just a term to refer to your stereotypical middle managers high on their own farts.
I know what those terms mean.
> business jargon
Oh wow look at those goalposts flying by, amazing.
In what sense are these words jargon? According to both the dictionary and common usage, jargon is the vocabulary of a specific trade or profession. And yet, yuppie is a word understand and used by everyone from crab fisherman to welders to lawyers to software engineers.
This was the first time I was reading the word yuppie. So certainly not a jargon to me.
Yuppie although originally likely a demographic term now has a well understood meaning. It is no longer jargon.
There's not a straightforward consideration of what is jargon, what is slang, and what is argot. Some linguists use the terms synonymously and some have strict theories of categorization, but there's no universal consensus.
In any case, your language here would certainly run afoul of the "simple English" the OP is espousing, and the OP terms such things "jargon", so contextually, yes, it's jargon.
Although personally I agree, the OP is using a particularly sloppy definition of "jargon", which often has a stronger technical connotation than merely metaphorical or business newspeak language.
In any case, your language here would certainly run afoul of the "simple English" the OP is espousing, and the OP terms such things "jargon", so contextually, yes, it's jargon.
Although personally I agree, the OP is using a particularly sloppy definition of "jargon", which often has a stronger technical connotation than merely metaphorical or business newspeak language.
> commonly used idiom
Which the article points out, though not plainly, should be avoided.
Which the article points out, though not plainly, should be avoided.
> It's just a term to refer to your stereotypical middle managers high on their own farts.
It means “young urban professional.”
It means “young urban professional.”
I always heard "young upcoming professional ".
You're still status signalling, just in a different way.
When I wear a T-shirt from a Hackathon to a developer conference I'm signalling just as hard as the sales rep in the suit.
When I wear a T-shirt from a Hackathon to a developer conference I'm signalling just as hard as the sales rep in the suit.
Of course. I'm not so cool (or naive) to think I'm immune to peer pressure and tribalism.
It doesn't necessarily mean that I'll have to go the other way and adopt the mannerisms of the annoying tech guy.
https://youtu.be/02a723LsoFA
It doesn't necessarily mean that I'll have to go the other way and adopt the mannerisms of the annoying tech guy.
https://youtu.be/02a723LsoFA
> Unless the hacker ethos has died, and we're back to the 1980 where middle managers in business suits are the cool guys.
Those hackers got cool and became the guys in the suits. Dollar Uber Alles
Those hackers got cool and became the guys in the suits. Dollar Uber Alles
[deleted]
Hum... You lost some changes.
> and we're back to the 1980 where middle managers in business suits are the cool guys.
Nope, we are at the 20's, when social-only corporate climbers know not to use suits on development-dominated cultures (not software development, but "creating new things from known principles" development). So suits are irrelevant nowadays and lost all signaling meaning.
> and we're back to the 1980 where middle managers in business suits are the cool guys.
Nope, we are at the 20's, when social-only corporate climbers know not to use suits on development-dominated cultures (not software development, but "creating new things from known principles" development). So suits are irrelevant nowadays and lost all signaling meaning.
Twenty years ago or so I got a copy of Database Design for Mere Mortals to review for a users' group. The author spent several pages almost-but-not-quite defining Third Normal Form, without ever using the expression. I complained of this in the review.
That's why jargon exists. It is much better to use 3NF or BCNF or simply normalize or denormalize than to bury the point in many words. .
That's why jargon exists. It is much better to use 3NF or BCNF or simply normalize or denormalize than to bury the point in many words. .
Why do people use phrases like "ring-fence", "circle-back", "let's take this offline" ?
Those do not increase precision and phrases like "let's take this offline" are even more confused. Are they talking about an annoying idea in a meeting or a broken web server?
I do agree that some technical jargon can help communication between experts. Understanding the jargon marks you out as an expert. That's the root of why so much status-signalling jargon exists.
If someone says let's circle back to topic X they probably know a lot about project management...
Those do not increase precision and phrases like "let's take this offline" are even more confused. Are they talking about an annoying idea in a meeting or a broken web server?
I do agree that some technical jargon can help communication between experts. Understanding the jargon marks you out as an expert. That's the root of why so much status-signalling jargon exists.
If someone says let's circle back to topic X they probably know a lot about project management...
Because they often are intended to obfuscate and save face — and that is the point — the ‘plain English’ alternative for “let’s take this offline” is “you’re dragging this discussion off topic” or “I want to avoid having a row with you about this in public.”
You are right but calling this 'obfuscate and save face' is a pretty uncharitable take. "let's take this offline" is just a polite jargon for 'this is off-topic or inappropriate for this venue'.
I generally find hacker news interpretation of business jargon as uncharitable and unnessarily hostile. Not sure why such an innoccous expression like 'circle-back' sends people into fits of rage. There is good reason to be circumspect about heavy project-management overhead as its often misapllied, but that really has nothing to do with this jargon.
I generally find hacker news interpretation of business jargon as uncharitable and unnessarily hostile. Not sure why such an innoccous expression like 'circle-back' sends people into fits of rage. There is good reason to be circumspect about heavy project-management overhead as its often misapllied, but that really has nothing to do with this jargon.
I didn’t actually intend it to be uncharitable - sometimes allowing a stakeholder (even a ‘key’ stakeholder) an off ramp to a potentially awkward situation is a much better outcome for the long term health of the project where it’s a reasonable assumption you’re going to have to work with this person again, for a period of possibly months or years.
HN probably has a higher proportion of people who prefer a slightly more direct style of communication, and enjoy working with code which is much more functional IO than working with humans. If those people are coming to HN to blow off steam, that’s what you should expect - doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be disastrous if anyone tried to implement it in the real world.
HN probably has a higher proportion of people who prefer a slightly more direct style of communication, and enjoy working with code which is much more functional IO than working with humans. If those people are coming to HN to blow off steam, that’s what you should expect - doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be disastrous if anyone tried to implement it in the real world.
Because it doesn't clarify nor is it more concise than the alternatives.
A good example of this is "learnings". I have seen multiple managers use the word "learnings", usually in in phrases like, "What were our learnings from this?" Or, "What learnings can we take away?" But there's already a perfectly fine word to use: lessons! The only reason to use "learnings" instead of "lessons" is to show that you're a serious manager. It's just empty signalling.
Similarly, "ring fence". Is it really that much better than, "set aside"? Does it add any nuance, or is it just meaningless change for change's sake?
I am far more tolerant of jargon in law and technology than I am of it in business, because, in my experience, legal and technology jargon does function as shorthand, putting complex topics into a labeled box that allows the speaker to quickly make their point without having to repeat a bunch of knowledge that the audience can be assumed to be familiar with. Business jargon, on the other hand, is far more often merely different for the sake of being different.
A good example of this is "learnings". I have seen multiple managers use the word "learnings", usually in in phrases like, "What were our learnings from this?" Or, "What learnings can we take away?" But there's already a perfectly fine word to use: lessons! The only reason to use "learnings" instead of "lessons" is to show that you're a serious manager. It's just empty signalling.
Similarly, "ring fence". Is it really that much better than, "set aside"? Does it add any nuance, or is it just meaningless change for change's sake?
I am far more tolerant of jargon in law and technology than I am of it in business, because, in my experience, legal and technology jargon does function as shorthand, putting complex topics into a labeled box that allows the speaker to quickly make their point without having to repeat a bunch of knowledge that the audience can be assumed to be familiar with. Business jargon, on the other hand, is far more often merely different for the sake of being different.
> The only reason to use "learnings" instead of "lessons" is to show that you're a serious manager. It's just empty signalling.
I can’t really comment on Signalling, but the word learnings isn’t a new and modern invention. It’s in Shakespeare!
It’s also a fallacy to think that there’s a canon of ‘acceptable’ words we can choose from, nor that we are only allowed one word per concept. Language evolves over time and acquires meaning through use.
I can’t really comment on Signalling, but the word learnings isn’t a new and modern invention. It’s in Shakespeare!
It’s also a fallacy to think that there’s a canon of ‘acceptable’ words we can choose from, nor that we are only allowed one word per concept. Language evolves over time and acquires meaning through use.
I can guarantee that none of the managers I've interacted with who used "learnings" were making a reference to the Bard of Avon.
I’m sure they weren’t either, but that is kind of my point — English is one of the most flexible languages in the world and no-one except linguists really looks too hard into the etymology of the words they use, but use the words that fit the occasion and adapt accordingly. And sometimes this works rather well — much as you may despise the word learnings, we got the word scrumptious through the same process.
Non-native speaker here and I've always taken "learnings" as just a notch more formal and business speak than lessons, but I've mostly filed it under personal preference for the native speakers who used it. Not completely synonymous but mostly.
> Not sure why such an innoccous expression like 'circle-back' sends people into fits of rage.
Because it’s not innocuous, it’s fucking obnoxious, that’s what.
Just as I was thanking my deities of choice a few years ago that “touch basing” all the time had become uncool and all but disappeared from the workplace parlance, now all of a sudden everyone is happily “circling back” to topics of choice. It seems to be coming and going in waves.
This new hotness of a slang is also particularly shitty because it alludes to going through a few rounds of unnecessary talk before getting to the point.
It’s also one thing if one person is doing this, but if everyone and their dog keep circling back to stuff, it sounds quite idiotic.
The only thing that’s even worse is when a manager adopts military terminology while knowing nothing whatsoever about military.
Because it’s not innocuous, it’s fucking obnoxious, that’s what.
Just as I was thanking my deities of choice a few years ago that “touch basing” all the time had become uncool and all but disappeared from the workplace parlance, now all of a sudden everyone is happily “circling back” to topics of choice. It seems to be coming and going in waves.
This new hotness of a slang is also particularly shitty because it alludes to going through a few rounds of unnecessary talk before getting to the point.
It’s also one thing if one person is doing this, but if everyone and their dog keep circling back to stuff, it sounds quite idiotic.
The only thing that’s even worse is when a manager adopts military terminology while knowing nothing whatsoever about military.
It’s professional management jargon. If you’re communicating with managers or McKinsey people, it gets added to your vernacular.
Caltech had its own special jargon, simply because it was fun:
flicking - do something fun
trolling - studying (opposite of flicking)
troll - someone who studies
infinite troll - someone who studies a lot
Boeing had the "tin benders" for structural engineers, and the "tube benders" for the hydraulics engineers.
In one company I worked at, the marketers were the "weasels" and the engineers were the "swine". A good piece of engineering was complimented as being "swinish".
Good times
flicking - do something fun
trolling - studying (opposite of flicking)
troll - someone who studies
infinite troll - someone who studies a lot
Boeing had the "tin benders" for structural engineers, and the "tube benders" for the hydraulics engineers.
In one company I worked at, the marketers were the "weasels" and the engineers were the "swine". A good piece of engineering was complimented as being "swinish".
Good times
The gov.uk team want to make a site for everyone in the country to use. Making it for some smaller “in” group would not help achieve that goal.
I don’t know what other word to use for launching a website but maybe there’s a better one.
I don’t know what other word to use for launching a website but maybe there’s a better one.
Launching a website has a precise technical definition. That's why it's GREAT jargon. It means "deploy to production" or "make it available to the users". Using it correctly is a strong honest signal that you know about web development.
For the general public, you could use: Make website, build website, develop website, update website, create a new page. To an expert those feel wrong because they all mean slightly different things, the jargon is being used incorrectly.
That's exactly how government people feel when you mis-use: "ring fenced budget", "allocate money to", "assign money to", "raise money for". Those all mean slightly different things and using them wrong feels wrong and marks you out as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
For the general public, you could use: Make website, build website, develop website, update website, create a new page. To an expert those feel wrong because they all mean slightly different things, the jargon is being used incorrectly.
That's exactly how government people feel when you mis-use: "ring fenced budget", "allocate money to", "assign money to", "raise money for". Those all mean slightly different things and using them wrong feels wrong and marks you out as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
i like your take here. I have this problem with people. If someone says: Can you create a website that describes this process? My first question is what domain name? Then they say, what do you mean we already have our website on ...com? Then I say: You said create a website - that indicates you want an entire website, it sounds like you just wanted a new page on the existing website.
Oh yes, so much this. The nice thing is that it's not unique to tech, I notice to many terms which are colloquially used only slightly wrong than by professionals when talking about my wife's work (in that case it's usually about legal/medical stuff).
>I don’t know what other word to use for launching a website but maybe there’s a better one.
The "portal" term is deeply overused, because it means so many different things to so many different people. Sometimes it means a special site for a particular topic; sometimes it means a landing page.
That's the problem with jargon. A lot of people hear a term, think they understand it, and then use it. They often have the wrong end of the stick, but they will not let go of their understanding of the word.
The "portal" term is deeply overused, because it means so many different things to so many different people. Sometimes it means a special site for a particular topic; sometimes it means a landing page.
That's the problem with jargon. A lot of people hear a term, think they understand it, and then use it. They often have the wrong end of the stick, but they will not let go of their understanding of the word.
Maybe "createad a website", "built a website" are simpler and deliver the meaning.
My thinking is that if by "launched" we mean "deployed to production" then it's useless for the end user. If it's not deployed to production, then the user has nothing to visit so for all intents and purposes of the end user you haven't built anything (or launched).
My thinking is that if by "launched" we mean "deployed to production" then it's useless for the end user. If it's not deployed to production, then the user has nothing to visit so for all intents and purposes of the end user you haven't built anything (or launched).
”deploying” is the closest I can come up with right now, but it’s not quite the same.
On the other hand, simplicity is a hallmark of brilliance.
"Feynman was a truly great teacher. He prided himself on being able to devise ways to explain even the most profound ideas to beginning students. Once, I said to him, 'Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.' Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, 'I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it.' But he came back a few days later to say, 'I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don't really understand it.'"
— Goodstein & Goodstein, Feynman's Lost Lecture: The Motion of Planets Around the Sun (Norton, New York, 1996)
"Feynman was a truly great teacher. He prided himself on being able to devise ways to explain even the most profound ideas to beginning students. Once, I said to him, 'Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.' Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, 'I'll prepare a freshman lecture on it.' But he came back a few days later to say, 'I couldn't do it. I couldn't reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don't really understand it.'"
— Goodstein & Goodstein, Feynman's Lost Lecture: The Motion of Planets Around the Sun (Norton, New York, 1996)
I hate how often I need to use words like “stack”, “anti pattern” and “key value store” so people believe I know my stuff. I feel like a tech bro.
What other terminology might better describe those concepts? These seem to be technical terms that describe specific things. Unless using them in an unrelated context (e.g. describing your pantry as a key value store), these seem relevant.
* stack → (depending on context): server, operating system etc.
* anti pattern → bad design
* key value store → (almost always) database
* anti pattern → bad design
* key value store → (almost always) database
> stack → (depending on context): server, operating system etc
On that context, "stack" means exactly the set of all those things and a few more. You can't replace it by any one of those things. The alternative is enumerating all of them (that's what people used to do), what is bad (that's why people coined the "stack" term).
> anti pattern → bad design
Hum... Now are you talking about software architecture, UI, UX, communications design? Your replacement is confusing.
> key value store → (almost always) database
It is an specific kind of database, with performance characteristics that are completely different from the relational databases that the "database" word alone implies.
On that context, "stack" means exactly the set of all those things and a few more. You can't replace it by any one of those things. The alternative is enumerating all of them (that's what people used to do), what is bad (that's why people coined the "stack" term).
> anti pattern → bad design
Hum... Now are you talking about software architecture, UI, UX, communications design? Your replacement is confusing.
> key value store → (almost always) database
It is an specific kind of database, with performance characteristics that are completely different from the relational databases that the "database" word alone implies.
This is kinda making a pretty good case for the jargon. :-)
I'm still looking for a good alternative term than "use case" without resorting to a whole sentence trying to ask what the person needs solving or how the thing is going to be used. Doubly so in German.
Why not just ask "what problem are you trying to solve?", or "What do you want it to do?"?.. Not only does this put the requirement back on the asker to describe what they want you to do, it removes your preconceptions from the request.
A mistake I often see myself making is that as soon as I get asked to do something I stop listening and start planning how I'm going to implement the solution. In many cases my preconceived solution will not solve the actual problem, because I've not actually found what the problem is that needs to be solved.
In many cases the requester doesn't really know what they are asking for and will need some prompting to actually think it through. This requires a discussion, rather than a simplistic request to define "use case".
A mistake I often see myself making is that as soon as I get asked to do something I stop listening and start planning how I'm going to implement the solution. In many cases my preconceived solution will not solve the actual problem, because I've not actually found what the problem is that needs to be solved.
In many cases the requester doesn't really know what they are asking for and will need some prompting to actually think it through. This requires a discussion, rather than a simplistic request to define "use case".
Jargon adds context in a community.
“Tubular” was a term of art for surfers before the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles showed up.
It’s a normal and natural thing to develop. But it’s also normal and good to have communications professionals mandate editorial standards so that people can understand outside of the niche.
“Tubular” was a term of art for surfers before the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles showed up.
It’s a normal and natural thing to develop. But it’s also normal and good to have communications professionals mandate editorial standards so that people can understand outside of the niche.
Luckily, gov.uk has credibility without resorting to jargon. Because it's got a special TLD and a crown icon on every page. And it's the government.
> 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.
So let them learn it the hard way. If people prefer to trust someone they don't understand over making the effort to understand what they are being told in simple words, they only reveal their own ignorance.
I once was reprimanded in school (in absentia), for choosing my words to impress and not to be understood. That was probably the most important lesson I ever received.
But I think you are wrong about why jargon exists: Jargon lets us express complex ideas in a very compressed way, because, among peers, we understand exactly what is being said. It is just detrimental to effective communication with people outside our area of expertise. So yes, sometimes "NOP sledge" says it all, while with a different audience one might just skip that subject...
So let them learn it the hard way. If people prefer to trust someone they don't understand over making the effort to understand what they are being told in simple words, they only reveal their own ignorance.
I once was reprimanded in school (in absentia), for choosing my words to impress and not to be understood. That was probably the most important lesson I ever received.
But I think you are wrong about why jargon exists: Jargon lets us express complex ideas in a very compressed way, because, among peers, we understand exactly what is being said. It is just detrimental to effective communication with people outside our area of expertise. So yes, sometimes "NOP sledge" says it all, while with a different audience one might just skip that subject...
Correct.
Jargon === Signaling
Signaling === Status
Status === Power
Like it or not, it's what humans are wired to do.
That said, the wise do both. For example, use the acronym, but the spell it out as well. Well, you think about those who leverage signaling the most effectively, they tend to be more inclusive in their arc.
Jargon === Signaling
Signaling === Status
Status === Power
Like it or not, it's what humans are wired to do.
That said, the wise do both. For example, use the acronym, but the spell it out as well. Well, you think about those who leverage signaling the most effectively, they tend to be more inclusive in their arc.
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. That's the logical next step from my OP.
Policing jargon is also a marker of being in the "in" crowd, at least, a different one.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34039816
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34039816
That post is a whole new level. We're using jargon to signal competence. They're using jargon to signal morality. If someone is incompetent then maybe don't promote them. If someone's immoral, what punishment should be dolled out against them?
[deleted](1)
First of all, that's false. Time and again, experts who can explain complicated concepts with everyday words seem smarter, not dumber. To wit: Richard Feynman, Steven Pinker, C.S. Lewis.
Second, even if it were true, that would be all the more reason to stop it, because the reason is bad. It is selfish, at the expense of others. If you make things harder for people so that life is easier for you, then you are by definition evil.
"Short words are best, and old words are best of all." --- Winston Churchill
Second, even if it were true, that would be all the more reason to stop it, because the reason is bad. It is selfish, at the expense of others. If you make things harder for people so that life is easier for you, then you are by definition evil.
"Short words are best, and old words are best of all." --- Winston Churchill
> To demonstrate that the speaker is part of the "in" crowd.
I think the point of removing jargon is to remove the "in" and "out" crowds as much as possible, at least for the mundane aspects of government.
I think that some people will still try to make an "in" crowd in which they are a member by introducing jargon, but separating people into these groups doesn't benefit most, so let's try to fight that.
Simple words is better as it is inclusive and also makes things understandable.
I think the point of removing jargon is to remove the "in" and "out" crowds as much as possible, at least for the mundane aspects of government.
I think that some people will still try to make an "in" crowd in which they are a member by introducing jargon, but separating people into these groups doesn't benefit most, so let's try to fight that.
Simple words is better as it is inclusive and also makes things understandable.
It does link directly to the Plain English examples on "government jargon". These are mostly written in legalese.
It does not mean to avoid all jargon, it means you should say what you mean, not say things in a way to satisfy 300 year old rules on jurisprudence for the statute books.
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/examples/governmen...
It does not mean to avoid all jargon, it means you should say what you mean, not say things in a way to satisfy 300 year old rules on jurisprudence for the statute books.
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/examples/governmen...
>If you stop using jargon then people assume you don't know what you're talking about.
This works in reverse. If you use enough jargon then you can often convince people that you know what you are talking about, even if you don't... :)
You will rarely get called on it because people hate to admit when they don't understand something.
This works in reverse. If you use enough jargon then you can often convince people that you know what you are talking about, even if you don't... :)
You will rarely get called on it because people hate to admit when they don't understand something.
I seem to remember the Richard Feynman story of how he hard to re-learn how to pronounce both math and science jargon.
This is not the reason jargon exists. What made you say that?
> 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.
To "launch" something is jargon?
> 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.
To "launch" something is jargon?
What is the real reason that jargon exists?
Ostensibly it's to increase precision and allow experts to communicate quickly with each other. However that explaination can't explain phrases like "Ring-fence", "Let's take this offline", "360 degree feedback". All of those phrases have better simple English translations.
Ostensibly it's to increase precision and allow experts to communicate quickly with each other. However that explaination can't explain phrases like "Ring-fence", "Let's take this offline", "360 degree feedback". All of those phrases have better simple English translations.
Your examples are not jargon, they're metaphors.
Jargon exists because specialists in a subject want to communicate quickly among themselves, instead of paraphrasing all the time. I'm a mathematician, if I had to use plain-English words instead of jargon in my papers, I would go insane. But my papers aren't meant for the general public (although they're welcome to read them), they're meant for a specialist audience. This is not the case of government websites.
Jargon exists because specialists in a subject want to communicate quickly among themselves, instead of paraphrasing all the time. I'm a mathematician, if I had to use plain-English words instead of jargon in my papers, I would go insane. But my papers aren't meant for the general public (although they're welcome to read them), they're meant for a specialist audience. This is not the case of government websites.
Your not recognising jargon from other fields. All of those phrases have precise technical definitions.
For example "360 degree feedback" is when a manager's direct report is asked to give feedback about their manager. In other words you give feedback about your boss, often to your boss.
It doesn't really make sense as a phrase or metaphor. It should really be 180 degree feedback because if you turn 360 degrees you're facing the same way that you started.... But that makes it even better jargon. It signals that you've been on some management training courses.
For example "360 degree feedback" is when a manager's direct report is asked to give feedback about their manager. In other words you give feedback about your boss, often to your boss.
It doesn't really make sense as a phrase or metaphor. It should really be 180 degree feedback because if you turn 360 degrees you're facing the same way that you started.... But that makes it even better jargon. It signals that you've been on some management training courses.
Some government websites are intended for a specialist audience. I think it's great that the site for paying my car tax is very simple but I would not expect the instructions for using a government data API to be written in the same way.
I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. It's clear that the discussion is about general public-facing government websites. Something for which the intended audience is a large portion of the population.
> To "launch" something is jargon?
Not if it's a boat or a plane. Otherwise, probably yes.
Not if it's a boat or a plane. Otherwise, probably yes.
You can always go for the high-risk, high-reward approach of demonstrating your stature by refusing to use the jargon by virtue of being too important to deal with it. Project confidence, do as you like, see how the dice roll.
That works if you're super high status and you demonstrate status by breaking the rules. Think CEOs in turtlenecks and fundraising in your pajamas.
Government is NOT a crowd, and if that was the case, it shouldn't be concerned about undefinable "in" status.
Just simple words and sentences, unambiguous. ELI5. Those guys know their stuff.
Just simple words and sentences, unambiguous. ELI5. Those guys know their stuff.
Government folks typically do not know their stuff
> Your precieved credibility goes way down when you stop speaking in jargon.
I don't agree - unless you're using jargon to conceal your intrinsic lack of credibility.
If you really understand a thing, then you can explain it in plain words. The use of jargon serves to conceal from both the listener and the speaker that the explanation is shallow. It's like a "code smell".
I don't agree - unless you're using jargon to conceal your intrinsic lack of credibility.
If you really understand a thing, then you can explain it in plain words. The use of jargon serves to conceal from both the listener and the speaker that the explanation is shallow. It's like a "code smell".
They're making a general statement about perception. This is markedly true and an important human dynamic. There's even a meme that plays on this: "How do you do, fellow kids?"
The linguistic patterns (including jargon but also more than that) peg us as part of various subcultures, as educated or not, rich or not, from Florida or not. I was interviewing with some random dude who went to Duke and he said "You remind me of my college roommate." I'd known this dude for 15 minutes: what else could there be, really, other than linguistic cues? Naturally, I was offered the job.
Jargon _can_ mean that the explanation is shallow; it just depends on which jargon employed when. Take any jargon filled non-sense - you can say equally shallow things entirely without the jargon!
The linguistic patterns (including jargon but also more than that) peg us as part of various subcultures, as educated or not, rich or not, from Florida or not. I was interviewing with some random dude who went to Duke and he said "You remind me of my college roommate." I'd known this dude for 15 minutes: what else could there be, really, other than linguistic cues? Naturally, I was offered the job.
Jargon _can_ mean that the explanation is shallow; it just depends on which jargon employed when. Take any jargon filled non-sense - you can say equally shallow things entirely without the jargon!
I wish that were true. The problem is that lots of things are hard to understand and there's a good chance you're listener won't get it.
UK Government Style Guide > Words to avoid:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty...
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.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty...
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.
It might be a consequence of not being a native speaker, but many of those are completely arbitrary choice of synonyms to me.
Can you guys shed some light?
Why is discussion better than dialogue? Work with better than collaborate? Concentrate on better than focus on?
Can you guys shed some light?
Why is discussion better than dialogue? Work with better than collaborate? Concentrate on better than focus on?
Having worked in consulting and government, I think it's just that many of those words have a slight connotation of pretension, like the writer is choosing words to sound smart. It's very subtle and in many cases probably not worth banning, but prohibition has the side effect of forcing people to think about what they're trying to write rather than just regurgitate pre-made phrases.
Another subtlety in English is that words with Germanic roots feel more direct and simple while those with Latin roots feel flowery and pretentious so the former are often preferred. E.g. ask/inquire, answer/response. It's not always true, and some words may still be out of date.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germanic_and_Latinat...
Another subtlety in English is that words with Germanic roots feel more direct and simple while those with Latin roots feel flowery and pretentious so the former are often preferred. E.g. ask/inquire, answer/response. It's not always true, and some words may still be out of date.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germanic_and_Latinat...
I worked in the UK Civil service for a long while. The language barrier back in the late 1980s was a real thing[1]. While I had good English skills, I had never made it to university - unlike most of my colleagues. Oxbridge alumni were (still are?) over-represented, and the language I heard/had to learn felt very academic at times. Heck, when I started some of the Senior SC were still adding comments to minutes in Latin!
The Plain English campaign - whose work has been excellent over the decades - and diversity in CS hiring, have hopefully broken the worst parts of the language barrier.
[1] - silly example: while most of the office-working world would write a "memo", in CS Jargonese it was a "minute". To this day I have no idea why the distinction was important.
The Plain English campaign - whose work has been excellent over the decades - and diversity in CS hiring, have hopefully broken the worst parts of the language barrier.
[1] - silly example: while most of the office-working world would write a "memo", in CS Jargonese it was a "minute". To this day I have no idea why the distinction was important.
Thank you for sharing that, it’s a fascinating insight.
> Another subtlety in English is that words with Germanic roots feel more direct and simple while those with Latin roots feel flowery and pretentious so the former are often preferred.
Ooh, That might explain why it was hard for me to understand!
I'm a Spaniard, so latin-derived words are usually familiar. That's what's keeping me from perceiving them as literary, since their Spanish counterpart is in my 'common speech register', so to speak.
Ooh, That might explain why it was hard for me to understand!
I'm a Spaniard, so latin-derived words are usually familiar. That's what's keeping me from perceiving them as literary, since their Spanish counterpart is in my 'common speech register', so to speak.
Partly it’s using simpler, more common words, eg dialogue is quite uncommon outside of office-speak (or acting I guess). Partly it’s about avoiding (often very stale) metaphors which make the meaning less clear to people with poorer literacy or who aren’t native speakers. I think it also encourages more direct and concise writing which is a lot better for people who read slowly.
Avoid words with multiple meanings, particularly where you intend to use the non-primary meaning.
For example, 'dialogue' to many people means a dialogue box on a computer screen. So that word is ambiguous. But a discussion has a primary meaning that is what the writer desires to use.
Particularly for non-native speakers, using secondary meanings of words can be confusing.
For example, 'dialogue' to many people means a dialogue box on a computer screen. So that word is ambiguous. But a discussion has a primary meaning that is what the writer desires to use.
Particularly for non-native speakers, using secondary meanings of words can be confusing.
You are thinking of a 'dialog box'.
From Wikipedia:
> The dialog box (also called dialogue box (non-U.S. English), ...
This is a British government website, so "dialogue box" might not be uncommon.
> The dialog box (also called dialogue box (non-U.S. English), ...
This is a British government website, so "dialogue box" might not be uncommon.
I don't think I've ever seen anybody call it a "dialogue box". Feels like at this point, along with "disk", "dialog" is a separate word with a separate (but not unrelated) meaning.
As a Brit, I would never use 'dialogue box' (and don't recall ever seeing it)
Some of us distinguish between program (software) and programme (a collection of projects)
Some of us distinguish between program (software) and programme (a collection of projects)
Or Dialog for short
Where in the world are you? I am in the UK and I have never heard 'dialog' refer to a dialogue box.
I've never seen the words "dialogue box". If I'm speaking of drama, that's dialogue; but but an interactive box in a computer UI is a "dialog".
In the same way, the instructions controlling a computer are a "program"; the TV drama with the dialogue is a "programme".
/me British English speaker (obv)
In the same way, the instructions controlling a computer are a "program"; the TV drama with the dialogue is a "programme".
/me British English speaker (obv)
Check out GIMP - its window menu includes an entry for "Dockable Dialogues", at least on macOS. Might be close enough? I don't think I've ever seen anybody else spell it that way though!
(This would also, if you squint a bit, serve as an example of "dialog" being short for dialog box.)
(This would also, if you squint a bit, serve as an example of "dialog" being short for dialog box.)
I am in the uk and have never heard "dialog" used by British speakers any other way. My experience has near universally that everybody that knows the term spells it "dialog", same as nobody spells "disk" with a c when it comes to the rectangular computer variety.
As a well-read native speaker, I agree with all these decisions, and yet it's pretty subtle.
"Focus" is a metaphor.
"Work with" is at a considerably simpler level of English education than "collaborate".
A "dialog" was originally a literary work with people responding to each other, so it's a bit more pretentious.
Also, a dialog has a slightly more argumentative feel than a discussion - there is more of a sense of opposition.
"We had a quick discussion to make sure we were on the same page and then had lunch." Dialog would be weird here.
"We are trying to start a dialog between one side and the other."
"Focus" is a metaphor.
"Work with" is at a considerably simpler level of English education than "collaborate".
A "dialog" was originally a literary work with people responding to each other, so it's a bit more pretentious.
Also, a dialog has a slightly more argumentative feel than a discussion - there is more of a sense of opposition.
"We had a quick discussion to make sure we were on the same page and then had lunch." Dialog would be weird here.
"We are trying to start a dialog between one side and the other."
Same question as the other answerer: When does metaphor become etymology for a new meaning? concentrate is bringing something to a center, which seems metaphorical when used as keeping a goal in mind, and I'd guess a majority of words are originally formed that way - should they not talk about cranes (in the sense of construction) because they are name after a bird?
Strangely I find the word discussion to sound more argumentative than dialogue.
Though I guess that used in an international context (say, between countries) discussion would sound stranger than dialogue, and there is usually some degree of opposition between countries.
Though I guess that used in an international context (say, between countries) discussion would sound stranger than dialogue, and there is usually some degree of opposition between countries.
They are mostly suggesting simpler, more common words, or words that have direct meaning rather than meaning by analogy. E.g. "focus on" is used to mean "look at in detail" by analogy with the focusing mechanism of eyes and cameras.
Some of them are definitely debatable but that's the general trend.
Some of them are definitely debatable but that's the general trend.
But isn't that how most words are formed anyway? Sure, focus comes from optics, but concentrate is also an analogy (to bring something to a center).
What is the line between analogies and etymology?
Not really arguing with the specific choice, but considering words formed by analysis as harder to understand is a concept I've never seen before.
What is the line between analogies and etymology?
Not really arguing with the specific choice, but considering words formed by analysis as harder to understand is a concept I've never seen before.
Yes I agree, it does show a slight misunderstanding of linguistics. But I think on the whole choosing simpler less flowery words and phrases makes sense in this context.
"Simpler and less flowery" is obviously not very well defined but it's also definitely a real spectrum. One of those things that needs taste and judgement.
"Simpler and less flowery" is obviously not very well defined but it's also definitely a real spectrum. One of those things that needs taste and judgement.
It’s a preference for choosing simpler more common words and expressions. This makes writing easier to understand for more people, but perhaps more importantly it prevents the writer from using some bizarre circumlocution in an attempt to sound sophisticated.
[deleted]
This made me smile:
> facilitate, say something specific about how you’re helping - for example, use ‘run’ if talking about a workshop
“Facilitate” is one of those words of which useless people doing useless work in an organization are very fond. I think that when asked to describe what specific work they are doing, they will just implode.
> facilitate, say something specific about how you’re helping - for example, use ‘run’ if talking about a workshop
“Facilitate” is one of those words of which useless people doing useless work in an organization are very fond. I think that when asked to describe what specific work they are doing, they will just implode.
"Facilitate" can have a very useful and precise meaning when used to describe someone who is running a meeting of some sort and their role is to keep it on track, making sure it progresses in a timely manner and sticks to the agenda. That said, "run" also works for that meaning, it's just a little less precise.
When it's used in a vaguer way then that I tend to agree with you.
When it's used in a vaguer way then that I tend to agree with you.
Isn’t the meeting role called a „moderator”, or even „chair”?
Both of those work too. Chair suggests the person called the meeting and cares about the outcome, where "facilitator" or "moderator" sounds more neutral.
> “Facilitate” is one of those words of which useless people doing useless work in an organization are very fond.
It also names those activities of some essential people without whom no work ever manages to get done.
It also names those activities of some essential people without whom no work ever manages to get done.
This one got me 'drive out (unless it’s cattle)'
I like the gotchas because they’re simultaneously funny and real: of course, the branches of government that deal with cattle and/or aircrafts aren’t speaking metaphorically.
> collaborate, use ‘work with
Sorry... collaborate means to share focus, while work with is ambiguous. It may simply mean work at the same time.
Sorry... collaborate means to share focus, while work with is ambiguous. It may simply mean work at the same time.
English is a second language for me. It feels like this list is there to avoid newspeak / bullshit / being unnecessarily abstract.
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?"
I'll certainly consult this list in the future to check my writing for simplicity.
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?"
I'll certainly consult this list in the future to check my writing for simplicity.
You might also enjoy "Misused English words
and expressions in EU
publications": https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOG...
I love this.
In particular because I was once very close to someone working in some UE-related organization in Brussels. They routinely complained about the EU having its own English, mentioning the use of "persons" where "people" would be more correct. This use is not mentioned in this publication, maybe "persons" is actually fine-ish.
I can see how many of these mistakes could come from the French language. Ah ah. Whoops. Sorry! :-) For instance, "foresee" used to mean "plan" where it really means "predict". I never made the mistake because I never made the connection myself, but in French "prévoir" indeed means both things.
I wonder how much French being used in Brussels has influenced this. But I guess many European languages are similar to French for many of these things.
Maybe some of these misuses are a testimony of the complexity of English, like the uncountable words, the prepositions or the usage rules of "allow".
Maybe English could adopt some of these uses that seem convenient. Like, "transpose" instead of "incorporate into".
And yes, I cringe a bit whenever I see "actually" used to mean "currently". It happens all the time.
I guess English has its peculiarities in each area where it is spoken, and Europe is not an exception to this…
And I mean, a big chunk of the English vocabulary is already French, we might as well continue the trend x)
In particular because I was once very close to someone working in some UE-related organization in Brussels. They routinely complained about the EU having its own English, mentioning the use of "persons" where "people" would be more correct. This use is not mentioned in this publication, maybe "persons" is actually fine-ish.
I can see how many of these mistakes could come from the French language. Ah ah. Whoops. Sorry! :-) For instance, "foresee" used to mean "plan" where it really means "predict". I never made the mistake because I never made the connection myself, but in French "prévoir" indeed means both things.
I wonder how much French being used in Brussels has influenced this. But I guess many European languages are similar to French for many of these things.
Maybe some of these misuses are a testimony of the complexity of English, like the uncountable words, the prepositions or the usage rules of "allow".
Maybe English could adopt some of these uses that seem convenient. Like, "transpose" instead of "incorporate into".
And yes, I cringe a bit whenever I see "actually" used to mean "currently". It happens all the time.
I guess English has its peculiarities in each area where it is spoken, and Europe is not an exception to this…
And I mean, a big chunk of the English vocabulary is already French, we might as well continue the trend x)
also, the english used by the EU is sometimes far more easier to understand for people who are not native english speakers but have english as a second or third language. Mainly because it uses words "wrong" according to english, but it makes sense in most latin/german based languages. (actual is a good example of this for instance).
British english especially can have some weird vocabulary which is hard to use if one is not actually from britiain and understands the implied meaning of the words.
adequate is a good example of this for instance. according to british english, adequate means that is barely doable/good enough, while in most german/latin based languages. Adequate means that it is satisfactory.
British english especially can have some weird vocabulary which is hard to use if one is not actually from britiain and understands the implied meaning of the words.
adequate is a good example of this for instance. according to british english, adequate means that is barely doable/good enough, while in most german/latin based languages. Adequate means that it is satisfactory.
I cannot use the word "transpose" to mean "incorporate into". Perhaps with the help of one or more additional words, like "transpose into"? For me, "transpose" by itself does not contain the separate or combined meanings of "incorporate" or "into".
Par example, s'il vous plaît?
Par example, s'il vous plaît?
That’s really interesting thanks for sharing
As a German native speaker reading the first few examples this just sounds a lot like literal translations from German that I hear a lot of German speakers use when their English level isn’t that advanced (as I often perceive it to be the case for politicians as well) or only used at work and not gained from using/being exposed to English in native/cultural contexts:
Actor – Aktoren (commonly used fancy word in German government communication)
Actorness (not a direct translation but very common in German to make any noun into a different one through pre-/suffixes)
Actual – aktuell (means current and definitely not actual)
Adequate – adequat (means appropriate and definitely not adequate)
As a German native speaker reading the first few examples this just sounds a lot like literal translations from German that I hear a lot of German speakers use when their English level isn’t that advanced (as I often perceive it to be the case for politicians as well) or only used at work and not gained from using/being exposed to English in native/cultural contexts:
Actor – Aktoren (commonly used fancy word in German government communication)
Actorness (not a direct translation but very common in German to make any noun into a different one through pre-/suffixes)
Actual – aktuell (means current and definitely not actual)
Adequate – adequat (means appropriate and definitely not adequate)
Same for French:
- Acteur
- Actuel
- Adéquat
(we don't have anything like actorness to my knowledge though)
What did they think if actual does not come from German nor French? :-)
- Acteur
- Actuel
- Adéquat
(we don't have anything like actorness to my knowledge though)
What did they think if actual does not come from German nor French? :-)
On a similar note: bullshit detection script [1]. For some fun, try using it on some large well-known tech corp's homepage.
[1] https://mourner.github.io/bullshit.js/
[1] https://mourner.github.io/bullshit.js/
Thanks for that! EU "English" seems to be a hybrid of an English lexicon and a French lexicon. I got as far as 'C', and so far I haven't seen one usage that wasn't either misleading or just plain wrong.
Thank you! I saw that years ago and have wanted to reference it on several occasions, but never was able to find it again.
I'm curious if other languages have similar issues. Does French suffer from too many metaphors, or Russian from euphemisms? The relationship between party slogans and Chinese always seems interesting and seems to often be an attempt to lean into such a phenomenon. Phrases like "let 100 flowers bloom," "the people's democratic dictatorship," "the Chinese dream," "the five pests," "socialism with Chinese characteristics," suggests to me that indirect use of language and euphemisms are rampant, though that seemed common in the USSR as well. I wonder if it's a byproduct of the political system, the language, or just the way these phrases are translated.
German government speak suffers from turning all verbs into nouns and the overuse of compound words (traffic light in regular German is "Ampel", in government German it's "Lichtsignalanlage" - light signal installation). If anything there's an underuse of metaphors, to the point that excessive clarity starts obfuscating the intent because it forms its own dialect.
Meanwhile corporate German is very different, and notable for the use of English or pseudo-English words where perfectly good German words exist. And of course an unhealthy dose of euphemisms.
Regular German probably tends more to understatement (the highest praise is "there's nothing to complain about")
Meanwhile corporate German is very different, and notable for the use of English or pseudo-English words where perfectly good German words exist. And of course an unhealthy dose of euphemisms.
Regular German probably tends more to understatement (the highest praise is "there's nothing to complain about")
> traffic light in regular German is "Ampel", in government German it's "Lichtsignalanlage" - light signal installation
Ampel is so boring though!
It makes me think of people I met at a conference doing research on vertical people transportation. In other words, lifts, or elevators.
Ampel is so boring though!
It makes me think of people I met at a conference doing research on vertical people transportation. In other words, lifts, or elevators.
> I'm curious if other languages have similar issues
French does indeed. For instance, the government and the corporate world love to use vocabulary to downplay situations. Like "mouvement social" (social movement) for "grève" (strike). It's like people are moving a bit, like they are dancing. It's cute. Or "restructuration" for "massive layoffs". Newspeak is all over the place. Like the sibling commenter says about Germany, "an unhealthy dose of euphemisms". We also have all the faux English startup vocabulary that makes things feel much more extraordinary than they are, or positive when they are not particularly so. In part to make France look cool internationally probably ("French Tech" [1] - "technologies françaises" sounds boring I guess).
There are also tricks you can use to make things feel less acceptable, like saying "charge sociale" (social benefits charge, feels like social burden) for "cotisation sociale" (social security contribution).
[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Tech (this logo, yikes)
French does indeed. For instance, the government and the corporate world love to use vocabulary to downplay situations. Like "mouvement social" (social movement) for "grève" (strike). It's like people are moving a bit, like they are dancing. It's cute. Or "restructuration" for "massive layoffs". Newspeak is all over the place. Like the sibling commenter says about Germany, "an unhealthy dose of euphemisms". We also have all the faux English startup vocabulary that makes things feel much more extraordinary than they are, or positive when they are not particularly so. In part to make France look cool internationally probably ("French Tech" [1] - "technologies françaises" sounds boring I guess).
There are also tricks you can use to make things feel less acceptable, like saying "charge sociale" (social benefits charge, feels like social burden) for "cotisation sociale" (social security contribution).
[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Tech (this logo, yikes)
All imperialists are paper tigers.
I'm all for reducing bullshit and unnecessary TLAs, but I feel like you could invert over half of the entries on this list and I wouldn't know. They're all just words I use in different circumstances. They have different connotations and aren't always interchangeable. I don't live in the UK, much less work for the UK govt, but if I did I would ignore this memo in the name of simplicity.
The list also looks useful to "translate" existing corpspeak.
But on the other hand, it can be misused as well by reversing the left and right sides...
But on the other hand, it can be misused as well by reversing the left and right sides...
Forgive the typical HN metacomment:
I click the link and I get a full screen pop up with the sentence in my face “cookies enable core functionality”
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 click the link and I get a full screen pop up with the sentence in my face “cookies enable core functionality”
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.
People like to blame GDPR or the ePrivacy directive but GDPR explicitly states that cookies set for an essential purpose of the site are exempt from consent:
> Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies.
it further explains:
> [Strictly necessary cookies] are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user.
Makes me wonder why we have all these cookie consent dialogs, either it's people playing it safe or they really do not set cookies for a true purpose.
if the latter: then all that's happened with GDPR is that we've been given visibility to the problem.. and it feels like everyone (including governments apparently) will adopt some measure of dark patterns to ensure they can still track people.
> Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies.
it further explains:
> [Strictly necessary cookies] are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user.
Makes me wonder why we have all these cookie consent dialogs, either it's people playing it safe or they really do not set cookies for a true purpose.
if the latter: then all that's happened with GDPR is that we've been given visibility to the problem.. and it feels like everyone (including governments apparently) will adopt some measure of dark patterns to ensure they can still track people.
Wait...so the rule is
> These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user
How do you explain to the user what those cookies do and why they are necessary?
Is it OK just to have an explanation on your site's terms of service page or on its legal page, or do you have to put it somewhere you are sure the user will see?
> These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user
How do you explain to the user what those cookies do and why they are necessary?
Is it OK just to have an explanation on your site's terms of service page or on its legal page, or do you have to put it somewhere you are sure the user will see?
its ok to have an explanation on your privacy policy or cookie policy pages.
you do not need to issue a pop-up, you just need the user to be able to find the explanation if they want to.
you do not need to issue a pop-up, you just need the user to be able to find the explanation if they want to.
> what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user.
Which would require showing this info somewhere even for essential cookies. Is a popup required for this?
Which would require showing this info somewhere even for essential cookies. Is a popup required for this?
No, a popup is not required, it can be part of the privacy policy.
https://termly.io/faq/do-i-need-a-cookie-policy-on-my-websit...
https://termly.io/faq/do-i-need-a-cookie-policy-on-my-websit...
That website has a popup when I load it from the UK.
"We use essential cookies to make our site work. With your consent, we may also use non-essential cookies to improve user experience and analyse website traffic. By clicking 'Accept', you agree to our website's cookie use as described in our Cookie Policy. You can change your cookie settings at any time by clicking “Preferences”. Preferences/ Decline/ Accept"
"We use essential cookies to make our site work. With your consent, we may also use non-essential cookies to improve user experience and analyse website traffic. By clicking 'Accept', you agree to our website's cookie use as described in our Cookie Policy. You can change your cookie settings at any time by clicking “Preferences”. Preferences/ Decline/ Accept"
yes. they set marketing and tracking cookies.
if you're not doing that then they're telling you that you don't need a pop-up.
if you're not doing that then they're telling you that you don't need a pop-up.
Thanks, useful information.
A bit funny that this page does show a large popup so that you can accept their use of cookies.
A bit funny that this page does show a large popup so that you can accept their use of cookies.
I never want to accept popup that isn't required. Why do we even have that.
Analytics are necessary - without analytics sites' design would be much worse.
They don't meet the legal definition of strictly necessary.
They don't really "track you" in any meaningful way - the most interesting info in the gov.uk cookies seems to be language (English or Welsh) and if the user provides it, country (England, Wales, Scotland or NI).
Still, the data falls under GDPR, so we get consent dialogs.
https://www.gov.uk/help/cookie-details
They don't meet the legal definition of strictly necessary.
They don't really "track you" in any meaningful way - the most interesting info in the gov.uk cookies seems to be language (English or Welsh) and if the user provides it, country (England, Wales, Scotland or NI).
Still, the data falls under GDPR, so we get consent dialogs.
https://www.gov.uk/help/cookie-details
the ones you mention would fall into “essential use”, since its first party and is used for functionality on the site.
what you didnt mention is that:
> We also use LUX Real User Monitoring software cookies from SpeedCurve to measure your web performance experience while visiting GOV.UK.
stuff like this is why they need the consent dialog.
if instead of embedding tracing cookies and analytics JS they processed access logs, they would learn a lot without needing the dialog. However, since everyone just throws up the dialog (and users are trained to expect it) its “not worth solving”.
what you didnt mention is that:
> We also use LUX Real User Monitoring software cookies from SpeedCurve to measure your web performance experience while visiting GOV.UK.
stuff like this is why they need the consent dialog.
if instead of embedding tracing cookies and analytics JS they processed access logs, they would learn a lot without needing the dialog. However, since everyone just throws up the dialog (and users are trained to expect it) its “not worth solving”.
Here's a more plausible and less cynical take:
Most people, whether in government or in business, can't give a flying fsck about GDPR or whatever. They just want to get their primary job done, and to them stuff like GDPR is just legal red tape that's imposed on them and that serves no value whatsoever, merely serving as roadblocks slowing them down from doing their real job. They don't want to understand the intricacies of GDPR, they just want to get it over with as quickly as possible, which means slapping a cookie banner on the site, checking the "I am now compliant" checkbox that the GDPR officer nagged them with, and calling it a day. They don't want to go through the trouble of researching a couple of weeks what the best user-friendly way is of being GDPR compliant when they can just install a cookie banner in 5 minutes.
Sounds familiar? If you're a developer in a large corporation then I'm sure you have also been annoyed by the tons of security and firewall rules, and most of you would rather work around them than trying to understand why they exist and how to best comply to them both in mechanics and in spirit. Just like you're not deliberately trying to be evil and breaking the company's security, they're not deliberately being evil and trying to violate privacy.
Most people, whether in government or in business, can't give a flying fsck about GDPR or whatever. They just want to get their primary job done, and to them stuff like GDPR is just legal red tape that's imposed on them and that serves no value whatsoever, merely serving as roadblocks slowing them down from doing their real job. They don't want to understand the intricacies of GDPR, they just want to get it over with as quickly as possible, which means slapping a cookie banner on the site, checking the "I am now compliant" checkbox that the GDPR officer nagged them with, and calling it a day. They don't want to go through the trouble of researching a couple of weeks what the best user-friendly way is of being GDPR compliant when they can just install a cookie banner in 5 minutes.
Sounds familiar? If you're a developer in a large corporation then I'm sure you have also been annoyed by the tons of security and firewall rules, and most of you would rather work around them than trying to understand why they exist and how to best comply to them both in mechanics and in spirit. Just like you're not deliberately trying to be evil and breaking the company's security, they're not deliberately being evil and trying to violate privacy.
So it is an UX problem.
Most people don't give a fuck about anything that isn't related to their current task. However, there are laws, and company must give a fuck about it and do such UX so that those that don't give a fuck are not fucked on spot.
Most people don't give a fuck about anything that isn't related to their current task. However, there are laws, and company must give a fuck about it and do such UX so that those that don't give a fuck are not fucked on spot.
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.
Related to this post, the EU guidelines for inclusive language was a nice read for me.
https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-eu...
(The tables on page 10, 14, 17, etc, being for me the main point of interest)
Related to this post, the EU guidelines for inclusive language was a nice read for me.
https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-eu...
(The tables on page 10, 14, 17, etc, being for me the main point of interest)
Sad to see it hosted on one of the most far-right, fake-news spreading French website https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdesouche (today's headline is a terrorist attack that killed 3 persons in Paris this morning… perpetrated by a far-right extremist).
The same PDF can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-eu...
The same PDF can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-eu...
Many thanks for this information, I found the original URL via Google and was unaware of the parent site's reputation.
I am updating my link to the one you suggest.
I am updating my link to the one you suggest.
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 has to be nitpicky for their purposes of enforcing the rules (dumb rules maybe, but they didn't pick the rules).
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.
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.
Using fewer words introduces less cognitive load and drives your point better.
For example, you wrote "The advice [...] seems somewhat pointless to me." Well, are you saying that it is pointless, or not? I don't know you, so I don't know what your scale of pointlessness is. I don't know what "somewhat pointless" corresponds to. Is it a tiny bit pointless, is it a medium amount of pointlessness, something else? I don't know, but I have to think about it because you wrote a meaningless word in your sentence. And even once I have understood the sentence, I am left thinking: "well, if it's only somewhat pointless, maybe it's not pointless after all!"
The same thing happens with "key stakeholders": now I have to think about a hierarchy of stakeholders. What scale is being used? Who's key, who's non-key? Does the sentence apply to all stakeholders, only some of them?
Multiply this by a hundred occurrences in a long document, and you obtain something that will be more difficult to read. But government documents have to be readable by everyone: people whose native tongue is not English, uneducated people who have trouble reading simple texts, etc. And for what? Sugarcoating your text so that it's less assertive? Showing literary prowess?
For example, you wrote "The advice [...] seems somewhat pointless to me." Well, are you saying that it is pointless, or not? I don't know you, so I don't know what your scale of pointlessness is. I don't know what "somewhat pointless" corresponds to. Is it a tiny bit pointless, is it a medium amount of pointlessness, something else? I don't know, but I have to think about it because you wrote a meaningless word in your sentence. And even once I have understood the sentence, I am left thinking: "well, if it's only somewhat pointless, maybe it's not pointless after all!"
The same thing happens with "key stakeholders": now I have to think about a hierarchy of stakeholders. What scale is being used? Who's key, who's non-key? Does the sentence apply to all stakeholders, only some of them?
Multiply this by a hundred occurrences in a long document, and you obtain something that will be more difficult to read. But government documents have to be readable by everyone: people whose native tongue is not English, uneducated people who have trouble reading simple texts, etc. And for what? Sugarcoating your text so that it's less assertive? Showing literary prowess?
>For example, you wrote "The advice [...] seems somewhat pointless to me." Well, are you saying that it is pointless, or not?
I am stating something controversial and leaving open the possibility that I might be wrong or partially wrong.
What you are inadvertently arguing here is that humility is unnecessary.
I am stating something controversial and leaving open the possibility that I might be wrong or partially wrong.
What you are inadvertently arguing here is that humility is unnecessary.
The sentence "seems ... to me" already carries that meaning.
To u/helloooooooo whose comment has been flagged:
> Why should the government water down documents and treat people like morons? It’s insulting.
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.
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).
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-...
[2] https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-lite...
> Why should the government water down documents and treat people like morons? It’s insulting.
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.
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).
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-...
[2] https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-lite...
Unfortunately, I think most governments around the world, despite efforts to make government websites easy to use for everyone, still fall short for a good chunk of the population.
I suspect there might be a better approach... Eg. A 15 minute phone call or meeting once a year with a 'government expert', whos role is to ask about your life, and then enroll you in any government programs which you would benefit from.
For those who would benefit from government assistance and aren't making use of it, meetings could be longer or done with a subject area expert.
For example, in the UK, under 50% of people eligible for free monetary benefits from the government claim them.
I suspect there might be a better approach... Eg. A 15 minute phone call or meeting once a year with a 'government expert', whos role is to ask about your life, and then enroll you in any government programs which you would benefit from.
For those who would benefit from government assistance and aren't making use of it, meetings could be longer or done with a subject area expert.
For example, in the UK, under 50% of people eligible for free monetary benefits from the government claim them.
Some government agencies already do something like this. (There has been some resistance to implementing it for "money-saving" reasons, but IIRC it was 5hen pointed out that it was hypocritical for agencies that had supposedly the job to help to only have an anti-fraud department but not its "reverse".)
> For example, in the UK, under 50% of people eligible for free monetary benefits from the government claim them.
These bureaucratic hurdles are by design to limit the amount of people actually using the services they are entitled to by law.
These bureaucratic hurdles are by design to limit the amount of people actually using the services they are entitled to by law.
You also have the problem that metaphors and euphemisms are less pre use than plain language, leading to misunderstandings.
All hail the newspeak, protecting us from wrongthink.
Seriously, avoid the exact domain-specific terms (“jargon”), don’t use “rich” figurative language (“tackle” is out)?
The recommendation is really going for the lowest common linguistic denominator, like it’s inspired from Simple English Wikipedia.
Weren’t we all supposed to elevate each other? Now it seems we aim for a common soft mushy muddy bottom.
(“Elevate”, “aim”... off with me head!)
Seriously, avoid the exact domain-specific terms (“jargon”), don’t use “rich” figurative language (“tackle” is out)?
The recommendation is really going for the lowest common linguistic denominator, like it’s inspired from Simple English Wikipedia.
Weren’t we all supposed to elevate each other? Now it seems we aim for a common soft mushy muddy bottom.
(“Elevate”, “aim”... off with me head!)
One thing it’s important to remember is that there’s a big difference between recreational prose and documents which are important for a wide variety of people to easily understand. This is especially true when there are potential legal implications such as when a government staffer is giving instructions to a contractor or someone is telling citizens how to access public services. No, “tackle” probably isn’t going to be a showstopper but it’s also usually an incorrect metaphor so there’s little lost by saying precisely what you mean.
For a government website it's important that all the citizens can understand it, so it makes sense to use simpler vocabulary. Remember that ~50% of the population has IQ less than 100.
It’s also the government’s job to educate its citizens (or in this case subjects).
Has the UK government thrown in the towel wrt education, and now just goes for bare minimum?
What’s next, stopping the teaching of grammar in schools? :)
Has the UK government thrown in the towel wrt education, and now just goes for bare minimum?
What’s next, stopping the teaching of grammar in schools? :)
You really don't understand the difference between "throwing in the towel wrt education" and "acknowledging that not everyone meets those standards" (for a variety of reasons)?
I just woke up so don’t feel like fact checking this. Is the population really that mentally challenged? Can you provide a reference to your statistic?
Changed “general population” to “population”
See, it already had an effect on my writing.
Changed “general population” to “population”
See, it already had an effect on my writing.
It's in the definition of the IQ (assuming a bell curve distribution)
Modern IQ tests are normalized with mean 100 and standard deviation 15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
m0rissette says> "I just woke up so don’t feel like fact checking this. Is the population really that mentally challenged? Can you provide a reference to your statistic?[i.e. parent statement: 'Remember that ~50% of the population has IQ less than 100.']<"
Thanks for the laugh!8-)) Now go have a cup of coffee.
Thanks for the laugh!8-)) Now go have a cup of coffee.
Roughly 10% of the UK does not use English as their main language.
Roughly 30% of English speakers in the UK are bilingual (or more).
The aim of this is not to improve peoples english ability, it's to ensure that they can understand and access the relevant gov services they require.
There are a significant amount of Gov services available from childhood to adult education to learn, or improve their English separately to this.
Roughly 30% of English speakers in the UK are bilingual (or more).
The aim of this is not to improve peoples english ability, it's to ensure that they can understand and access the relevant gov services they require.
There are a significant amount of Gov services available from childhood to adult education to learn, or improve their English separately to this.
..."We haven't opened a 'one-stop shop' as we're not a supermarket. We've probably launched a website."
Have you really launched 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.
Have you really launched 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.
In India we refer to most government websites as portals, even the very recent ones. I have no idea why because "website" is used for private websites regularly
Wait, what is a portal, then, and where are you getting that definition from? I have been a web dev for a decade and I also understand a "portal" to be a broadly applicable term meaning basically any webapp that grants access to some data. Did it once have some narrower meaning, in times long past before I was a dev?
I've always taken it to be a portion of a website that takes you onward to different areas of the website. Like, at least in Wikipedia, a portal is generally a list of links to areas related to a topic. In sales software, a sales portal generally leads you to areas in the website like sales flows, or something else.
Around Y2K, a portal was a web-page that linked to assorted on- and off-site resources; the Yahoo! front page was a portal. It was a kind of aggregator, and commonly the off-site content would display within the portal site (don't let them navigate away from our site!)
The term "Portal" was hijacked by the video game in 2007!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_(video_game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_(video_game)
The Plain English Campaign's list of examples [0] (linked in TFA) was quite amusing. My favorite:
'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.'
[0]: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/examples
'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.'
[0]: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/examples
I briefly worked in the Swedish public sector that had at that point been pushing for plain language for a while.
The problem they encountered is that the government still needs to be able to specify what they mean with precision. So what happened is that common words became overloaded with specific and often non-obvious legal meanings.
People at large with no clue how to "speak government" still didn't understand what the government said, but instead of a bunch of known unknowns it turned the language into a minefield of unknown unknowns.
(This got at least some attention notice during the covid pandemic, during which there was clear miscommunication between the government which used 'recommendations' to mean a strong non-legal mandate, and parts of the public which took it to mean helpful tips, like a movie recommendation)
The problem they encountered is that the government still needs to be able to specify what they mean with precision. So what happened is that common words became overloaded with specific and often non-obvious legal meanings.
People at large with no clue how to "speak government" still didn't understand what the government said, but instead of a bunch of known unknowns it turned the language into a minefield of unknown unknowns.
(This got at least some attention notice during the covid pandemic, during which there was clear miscommunication between the government which used 'recommendations' to mean a strong non-legal mandate, and parts of the public which took it to mean helpful tips, like a movie recommendation)
Well, what's the difference between a "strong non-legal mandate" and a "helpful tip"? Either it's mandatory or not.
Both are non-mandatory, but the first carries the connotation that this is something the government thinks you should be doing, but the latter is more like a suggestion of something cool you may want to do, like visit the Vasa museum next time you're in Stockholm.
Yes, they are both voluntary, but the nuance is quite different. That ambiguity in nuance is a problem, given that "recommendation" is the strongest wording for a non-legal mandate the Swedish government will use.
Yes, they are both voluntary, but the nuance is quite different. That ambiguity in nuance is a problem, given that "recommendation" is the strongest wording for a non-legal mandate the Swedish government will use.
> but the first carries the connotation that this is something the government thinks you should be doing
Unfortunately that distinction was deliberately obfuscated by the UK Government during the COVID crisis. They would issue "guidelines" that you could be arrested for violating. As I recall, they began as real guidelines, and morphed into legal mandates without ever becoming laws.
Unfortunately that distinction was deliberately obfuscated by the UK Government during the COVID crisis. They would issue "guidelines" that you could be arrested for violating. As I recall, they began as real guidelines, and morphed into legal mandates without ever becoming laws.
If I understand you correctly, the issue is that the Swedish government used jargon masquerading as a common word, and as a result people didn't understand the meaning. That's another example of jargon being a problem!
Yeah. The deeper problem is that the government needs more precision than common words offer.
Just as programmers invented programming languages to unambiguously express an idea, the legal system uses legal jargon to unambiguously express an idea. Getting rid of jargon means you need to express specific meanings some other way. The Swedish government chose overloading specific meanings to ambiguous words, which is really strictly worse than legal jargon.
Just as programmers invented programming languages to unambiguously express an idea, the legal system uses legal jargon to unambiguously express an idea. Getting rid of jargon means you need to express specific meanings some other way. The Swedish government chose overloading specific meanings to ambiguous words, which is really strictly worse than legal jargon.
UK Government’s Plain English website:
- http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
And related free guides page:
- http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html
———————
Wikipedia also has a “simple” version here:
- https://simple.wikipedia.org/
- http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/
And related free guides page:
- http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html
———————
Wikipedia also has a “simple” version here:
- https://simple.wikipedia.org/
> UK Government’s Plain English website:
That website has nothing to do with the government.
That website has nothing to do with the government.
"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
https://vale.sh/
https://vale.sh/
So besides being a programming language you mean?
https://vale.dev/
Just kidding... A bit off topic perhaps.
https://vale.dev/
Just kidding... A bit off topic perhaps.
Oh, cool collision! Looks like I have a weekend project to toy with, never seen Vale before. Thanks!
[deleted]
> 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'.
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.
I did not work in government, just for a large company. This article is useful because highfalutin language is commonplace in any bureaucracy.
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.
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.
Here a direct link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty...
Here a direct link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty...
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!
>Avoiding acronyms, jargon etc. is a great start for everyone. Especially in IT!
There's a reason why we have jargon and acronyms. They condense a lot of information into few words.
There's a reason why we have jargon and acronyms. They condense a lot of information into few words.
> Especially in IT
Especially in what?
Especially in what?
As they say in fencing: touche!
In IT (a term most of HN (a term most of Hacker News understands) understands), it is probably OK to agree the really common jargon that everyone probably knows. HTTP, WWW, etc. But be cognizant that eBPF for example isn't something you can assume everyone knows what it is. Use it, but then expand or include a link to where it is defined.
In IT (a term most of HN (a term most of Hacker News understands) understands), it is probably OK to agree the really common jargon that everyone probably knows. HTTP, WWW, etc. But be cognizant that eBPF for example isn't something you can assume everyone knows what it is. Use it, but then expand or include a link to where it is defined.
I liked this:
"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."
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.
"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."
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.
For instance:
Danish company: "We're doing great, here's how much we made last quarter". Or: "You fucked up, don't do that."
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".
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.
Generally speaking, use fewer words, try not to communicate just because you think you must.
For instance:
Danish company: "We're doing great, here's how much we made last quarter". Or: "You fucked up, don't do that."
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".
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.
Generally speaking, use fewer words, try not to communicate just because you think you must.
Do not use "excellent", use very good.
Do not use "amazing", use very good.
Do not use "extraordinary", use very good.
Do not use "incredible", use very good.
Do not use "terrific", use very good.
Do not use "abominable", use very bad.
Do not use "awful", use very bad.
Do not use "horrible", use very bad.
Do not use "terrible", use very bad.
Do not use "amazing", use very good.
Do not use "extraordinary", use very good.
Do not use "incredible", use very good.
Do not use "terrific", use very good.
Do not use "abominable", use very bad.
Do not use "awful", use very bad.
Do not use "horrible", use very bad.
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.
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.
Separately:
“ 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.”
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.
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.
Separately:
“ 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.”
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.
Of the 6, the most quirky seems the "British Subject":
"You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, until then, you were either:
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.
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. "
Of the 6, the most quirky seems the "British Subject":
"You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, until then, you were either:
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.
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.
Yes! In our post-truth era, this essay is an absolute must-read.
New Zealand government hopes to establish a plain language law when communicating with the public:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/new-zealand-ho...
Even if there's such a law, people will find a way around it.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/new-zealand-ho...
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.
Then what is the point of a metaphor?
Then what is the point of a metaphor?
There are many reasons to use metaphors [0], but not if you're aiming for maximal comprehension by people who may not have advanced reading comprehension or English language skills. This advice is intended for writing in a very specific context.
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200710-the-words-that-...
(Plus, you used a metaphor in your question: "point")
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200710-the-words-that-...
(Plus, you used a metaphor in your question: "point")
...addendum, words to avoid:
Point, unless talking about a sharp object
;)
Point, unless talking about a sharp object
;)
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”.
Reminds me of „Metaphors we Live By” https://george-lakoff.com/books/metaphors-we-live-by/
Reminds me of „Metaphors we Live By” https://george-lakoff.com/books/metaphors-we-live-by/
>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.
But the very next sentence:
>We've probably launched a website
Surely we don’t launch anything unless it’s a boat or a rocket?
I mostly agree with the author, but they nicely demonstrated how hard it is to avoid jargon.
But the very next sentence:
>We've probably launched a website
Surely we don’t launch anything unless it’s a boat or a rocket?
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: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/writing-and-designing-content...
> Avoid jargon
I can get behind that.
Some words, like "hub" are, to me, so overused that they've lost all meaning.
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.
I can get behind that.
Some words, like "hub" are, to me, so overused that they've lost all meaning.
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.
These are real life words from a real life human, recently observed: "The value drivers reducing company spend"
Spend is a verb and value is not street-legal here in the states.
These are real life words from a real life human, recently observed: "The value drivers reducing company spend"
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.
I hate seeing 'utilise' where 'use' would be perfectly fine.
Whenever I see "utilize" on wikipedia, I fix it.
"Utilize" is a word, but I don't think it means the same as "use". I think it means "to take something that is useless, and make it useful", or "to turn something into a tool". So you could utilize a written-off car as a source of parts, perhaps.
If you utilize "utilize" to mean "use", you're indulging in grand language to look more authoritative. And nobody utilizes "utilize" in spoken English.
"Utilize" is a word, but I don't think it means the same as "use". I think it means "to take something that is useless, and make it useful", or "to turn something into a tool". So you could utilize a written-off car as a source of parts, perhaps.
If you utilize "utilize" to mean "use", you're indulging in grand language to look more authoritative. And nobody utilizes "utilize" in spoken English.
Wait, that definition is too constraining. And imho Wikipedia articles don't need that "fix", unless the articles are in the Simple English Wikipedia: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
But a disclaimer: in my native language "utilize" is relatively common.
But a disclaimer: in my native language "utilize" is relatively common.
Sir Humphrey disapproves. What has become of the Civil Service?
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 enjoy the comments obviously using jargon without knowing it like “drop me a email”
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".
I think people just assimilate it, don't question why and then re-iterate it.
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.
I think people just assimilate it, don't question why and then re-iterate it.
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.
Case in point, niggard [0] has cost people their jobs. Wikipedia maintains a list of controversies[1].
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggard
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word...
Case in point, niggard [0] has cost people their jobs. Wikipedia maintains a list of controversies[1].
[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggard
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word...
Or this Chinese example
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...
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.
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.