Tips and Insights

In case you missed it, Lake Superior State University (LSSU) just published their 2008 List of Banished Words. Included this year are some terms I'm embarrassed to say I've used, like authored and wordsmith (you can read it in my blog about last year's LSSU list!).

Funny how different words can grate on ears and how impassioned people become when they hear a word they believe has been used incorrectly. I just learned from a colleague that my choice of the word reinstall to cover the action of installing a part that was removed for a manufacturing changeover and returned to the same position irritated her "like nails on a blackboard." She believes you can only install something once; after that, you're doing something else. Unfortunately, neither of us could figure out what word would work better. Reassemble and reinsert share the same problem. Install, assemble and insert don't emphasize the fact that you're working with the same piece of machinery or hardware. Reposition or replace can have other meanings, creating confusion for a user instead of clarification. That's why I chose reinstall—succinct and clear . . . until my colleague gave me reason to pause. We still haven't found a good solution. What do you think would be a good way to say reinstall, without actually saying it?

Labels: clarity, plain language

Readability = the measure of how easy a document is to read and understand.

Over the years, reading and writing experts have developed several indexes that attempt to make a science out of document usability. These indexes count syllables, words in a sentence and other parameters, then plug those numbers into a formula to come up with a readability statistic people can understand.

Let me give you an example:

• The text written in the above paragraph registers a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 15.1, indicating a person would need three years of college to read it.
• It also registers a Flesch Reading Ease number of 30, which means about 30 percent of all readers could understand the document.

How did I figure out the readability of my writing? I used the grammar tool included in Microsoft Word. You can access it from the Tools menu:

• Select Spelling and Grammar.
• Click on the Options button.
• Check "Show readability statistics" box.

After running the Spelling and Grammar check, you'll get a box showing your readability statistics, along with other counts and averages.

Out of curiosity, I had the indexes measure this text:

Eliquat. Lor in utpat. Nosti odion senit aliscn. Verat lorto odol obor. In hent alit alit. Nulla faci blaor senis dolesit. Irit vulam onmsan. Ularem. Velnit eu feised. Do ea conlum. Zril ute dolo borp erat. In ut adia feu faci blam. In vel dion. Utat lum quatum. Velest cort del ero. Com nulla.

Even though it's unreadable, the Flesch Reading Ease index score suggests that 60% could understand it. And "Out, Out," a poem by Robert Frost which I love, scores a 3.1 with the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level index. It took me more than one pass-through to comprehend all the tragedy in this poem; I can't imagine how many passes a third grader would need.

Technically, you shouldn't check reading scores on samples that contain less than 300 words, which I've done here. And to be fair, poetry should probably be assessed in another way, but I wanted to give you a taste of what these indexes reveal.

I think these examples highlight the need to be careful about relying on readability statistics. Rules that tell you to "always write" or "never write" to a particular level generally don't work. Comprehension includes more than just reading words. Knowing your audience and the writing's purpose—and gearing the text toward those—have a lot more to do with readability than these indexes do.

Labels: aliteracy, clarity, plain language, readability

I discovered another website that pays attention to words. The Ridiculous Business Jargon Dictionary identifies terms they believe should be banned from the everyday lexicon of the business world. Some of the terms I would miss if deleted:

Dicker . . . to negotiate. "We just spent four hours dickering the details of this contract." (Dicker is over 200 years old. We can't throw out that history.)

Gofer . . . a subordinate worker who is often given menial tasks. (Doesn't it still apply?

And I've always loved the imagery in this one:

Lipstick on a pig . . . an attempt to put a favorable spin on a negative situation. "Tim's sales numbers are terrible. Even he can't put lipstick on that pig."

Others, I agree, should be removed:

Availability . . . a convenient way of separating the individual from the ability to manage her own time. "I'd love to come, but I'm not sure about my availability." (If she's not sure, who is?)

Spokesweasel . . . a public relations agent who possesses a remarkable gift for spin. (Hmm . . . government officials? Politicians?)

Here in the office, we've captured a few misnomers, too. People get excited, they're eager to share new information or discoveries, and they let a word slip, without regard for its legitimacy in the English language. We have a whiteboard where we collect the latest. Currently, these "Bishopisms" are making headlines:

• see-throughiness
• blabble ("I came around the corner and started to blabble.")
• funkitude ("Give that sketch some funkitude.")
• understandableness
• Pong session (bouncing ideas—collaboration at its finest)

The Ridiculous Business Jargon Dictionary website welcomes your additions, but if they don't publish it, send it to us. We'll post it on the whiteboard.

Labels: clarity, plain language

I like words . . . like their possibilities, their elusiveness, like how I can deliberately manipulate them, like how the same words can mean different things to different people.

I also like how different organizations make it a point to identify new expressions that should or should not come into our language. For instance, the American Dialect Society (ADS) celebrates new additions and chose plutoed as their 2006 Word of the Year, which means "to demote or devalue someone or something." You know, like the planet that's no longer a planet.

Lake Superior State University, however, likes to identify the words we need to banish, often for their overuse or superficial nature. Included on their 2007 List of Banished Words are Gitmo, awesome, boasts and last year's ADS winner truthiness. (Check out their reasons for banishment. If you're a word nerd like me, you'll find them funny.)

Of course at Bishop, we can't play with words when we're writing standard work instructions. Our job is to make our words—the few we choose to use—as explicit as possible.

This type of brevity and clarity also finds a place in a wordsmith's heart. I like having to figure out how to tighten a phrase or cluster information to fit in a list. Both challenge my mind and my skills, and though I may be generalizing, I don't believe most lawyers or auditors aspire to such simplicity. I suspect that's why traditional procedure manuals are filled with verbiage. (Before any lawyers contact me and complain, let me say that I do know a plain language movement is afoot, and, thankfully, a committee with the State Bar of Michigan is promoting it. Now, if we can just get everyone to actually use it. . . .)

Over the next few weeks, I'll share some of the editorial reasons and techniques behind our visual work instructions, and talk about the ways illustrations affect our decisions.

Labels: clarity, plain language, procedure manuals, work instructions