| Ivan |
Ron, what is plain language? |
| Ron |
I think of plain language as
the Goldilocks Factor in well-written text. Readers find it not too hard to read, not too
easy either, but "just right." Getting that effect means imagining yourself as
actual people reading what you're writing and then using language and structure that tells
them what they want to know in a way that's easy for them to understand. Your readers,
finally, are the best judge of what's "plain" to them. |
| Ivan |
Why do clients need plain
language expertise - what are the tell-tale signs that should warn someone that their copy
needs plain language treatment? |
| Ron |
To judge whether a client needs
plain language, you would look for any sign of communication failure in feedback from their
clients (customers, users, etc.). Feedback will show up at points of customer contact --
customer service, sales, market research with focus groups. It will show up in sales data,
rates of customer retention, and so on. It will show up as a cost. |
|
Evidence will often be hidden
because people don't think to look at lack of plain language as a potential factor. But if
you send out a blanket notice and the call center volume suddenly skyrockets with unwanted
calls from confused customers, there's a clue that maybe there was something wrong with
the way the notice was written. |
| Ivan |
What has contributed to the
writing styles that undermine good English, for example IT jargon and marketese? |
| Ron |
I believe you have to speak a
language that people understand. Depending on your readers, that will vary. There's not
one style of plain language but many. Jargon is a kind of shorthand, and for the people
who know it, it's clear. There's no problem until you try to use that shorthand to write
for readers outside the community that understands it. I think you can make a similar
argument regarding marketese, legalese, and all the other -eses. They have their uses. |
|
I should add that this kind of
relativity is not widely embraced by plain language practitioners. There's an
understandable impulse to hold to a "standard" of plain language which is the
same everywhere and always. Departures from that standard are perceived as undermining
English. But there are differences among readers. Your first job is to understand your
particular audience and use the kind of English that makes the most sense to them. That
may mean letting go of an idea of "good English." |
| Ivan |
When speaking with prospective
clients, how do you explain the value that plain language will make to their publications?
A colleague recently mentioned that he avoided the term "plain language" as
clients thought it was a dumbed-down version of English. |
| Ron |
Well, I think this is a perfect
example of the need to understand your audience first. I've encountered this bias, as
well, and I avoid using the term if I think it will be misunderstood. When a prospective
client seems comfortable with "plain language," I position it as added value.
But I focus on the clients' objectives and do the best I can to understand their business
strategy and their customers. You can't really solve a problem for someone until you fully
understand it as they do. |
|
I think most clients appreciate
the value of plain language. They lack the budget or the leverage within their
organization to give it a high priority. Commercial clients expect it to pay for itself in
the short-term, and they want a cost analysis that will reflect the anticipated payback.
Without a crystal ball, making predictions like this is a difficult task. |
| Ivan |
The US President, George W.
Bush, has been praised for his ability to use plain language techniques to argue his
point. Have you seen an increase in public figures following this line? |
| Ron |
My first impulse is to sidestep
this question. For one thing, it's about the spoken word, which is comprehended in a
different way from the written word. And in the case of a president, the primary medium of
communication is TV, which chiefly takes the form of the sound bite. |
|
An analysis of President Bush's
speech would probably reveal an attempt to speak "plainly," although it would
also reveal ambiguities in that plain talk resulting from the strategy of persuasion
underlying it. But before drawing any conclusions about that, you'd need to take into
account the man's manner, appearance, behavior, tone of voice, regional accent, facial
expressions, and body language. The plain talk is a small part of that whole package -- as
it has been with most of our media-savvy presidents, including Reagan and Clinton. |
|
This may come across as a
blatantly biased opinion, but what I have noticed over the last 10-15 years, as politics
in the U.S. has grown progressively bipartisan, is not more plain language but an
escalation of political rhetoric. If politicians speak more plainly, it hardly matters,
since they are not all that dependable as sources of information. |
| Ivan |
On the Internet, what sites
impress you with their use of clear writing and good English? |
| Ron |
I also have the impulse to
sidestep this question. You never know when a site you like will be taken down and
replaced by something else, so for future readers, I could praise something that no longer
exists. |
|
I guess I'd point readers to
one of the online newspapers, such as washingtonpost.com and nytimes.com. In spite of the
recent troubles at the New York Times, I have a lot of respect for journalists, their
discipline, and their ability to make complex information readable. But I realize I'm
hedging. These are really online versions of print publications. |
|
So I'll play a couple of
personal favorites here. I've always liked the online prose style of Nick Usborne, who has
a book I wish I'd written on Web writing called Net Words and a website,
www.nickusborne.com. He said once that the trick of online writing is to write like you
talk. I would modify that by saying it's the ability to seem like you're talking,
which is somewhat different. At any rate, he can do it. |
|
Another Web writer I've admired
is Mark Hurst at www.goodexperience.com. He may not have invented the
term "customer experience," but he has done a good job of getting the word out
about communicating effectively with customers. He has a consulting firm based in New York
called Creative Good, and he continues to be a voice of clarity, reason, and
accountability. |
| Ivan |
What advice would you share
with web writers (and those moving web-wards) to sharpen their online writing? |
| Ron |
Well, besides what I've said
already about speaking a language that your readers understand, I'm inclined to point out
the human factors of reading from a screen, which in nearly every respect compares
unfavorably with the printed page. |
|
Resolution of letter forms is
so much poorer on screen, the illumination of the screen tires the eyes, and sitting at a
monitor or with a laptop has yet to equal the comfort and flexibility of sprawling out on
the couch, reading on a bus, over lunch, in the checkout line, or at the beach. Also,
absorbing the loosely linked content of a website is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle
without a picture to go by. |
|
Anything you can do to make any
of this easier for the reader will make you a hero. Say it in half the words and shorten
the time it takes to read. Break up the copy with short paragraphs, headings and
subheadings for easier scanning and skimming. Rely less on words, and use visuals, graphs,
charts to illustrate the text. |
|
Know how your copy will fit
into the architecture of the site and anticipate the various navigational routes readers
may take to find what you've written. Then make it easy for them to judge whether it's
what they're looking for and to find it again if they need to. Finally, as a last resort,
make it readable as a printout. |
