TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
To me, formal writing is nothing more than written communications that serve
to inform or provide resolution on a specific subject or topic to a specific
audience. Therefore, IMHO, dumbing down does seek to speak to the lowest
common denominator, but does not seek to remove or obfuscate information.
For example, "obfuscate" conveyed to me much more meaning than simply
"hiding" or "make confusing," however I doubt that many college freshmen
would understand it. So many words whose meanings or whose usages are much
more accurate in a specific context cannot be used today because they are
polysyllabic or not part of the jargon (or patois) that today's children
speak. Even relatively simple words such as acumen, insidious, or venal are
not used in "formal writing" in newspapers and some journals because the
audience just would not understand them. To me, as a writer and English
speaker, is a shame.
David B. Dubin, PHR
Senior Curriculum Developer
Sage Software
727-579-1111 x 3356
david -dot- dubin -at- sage -dot- com
Your business in mind.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Garison [mailto:john -at- garisons -dot- com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:43 PM
To: Dubin, David
Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: Formality is going bye-bye?
Dumbing down is different than writing informally. Dumbing down is
removing or obfuscating content/information, and pandering to the
absolute lowest common denominator. That is not what Google is doing or
what I am advocating.
<soapbox>
Dumbing down is also pandering to the politically correct and easily
offended, neither of which am I advocating, and which, David, your
school system seems to be practicing. I totally disagree with the
approach that panders to self esteem by making everyone a winner and no
one a loser.
Go read Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" (collected in "Welcome to
the Monkey House"), a story of a young boy blessed with the physical and
mental prowess of a god who lives in a society that insists upon extreme
equality for all its citizens. Vonnegut presents a scary view of a
future society, where everyone is equal. "Nobody was smarter than
anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was
stronger or quicker than anybody else." It's the job of the agents of
the United States Handicapper General to keep it this way. Beautiful
people have to wear ugly masks. Graceful people had to wear handicap
bags full of lead. Clever people had to wear a radio in their ear tuned
to the government transmitter, which sent out sharp noises to keep
people from taking advantage of their brains.
</soapbox>
I'm all for complete, accurate information, I just feel that the way
it's presented should follow more of the 'spoonful of sugar' approach.
My 2¢,
John
Dubin, David wrote:
>Here is one man's (very jaded) opinion. (Bringing out soap box)
>
>It seems to me that there is a "dumbing down" of communications at every
>level of American society. Collin refers to it as a trend towards
>informality, but I see this as a much more insidious threat to our culture.
>It goes hand in hand with our children's inability to read and write at
>grade levels consistent with the Flesch-Kincaid reading index or understand
>math beyond basic arithmetic.
>
>I don't know how the school system in your state/county/district works, but
>our school board in Pinellas County, Florida, wants to do away with the
>valedictorian and salutatorian because they don't feel it is fair to the
>other students. And we wonder why Americans cannot compete in a global
>economy. (Putting away soap box)
>
>Sorry, I had to vent.
>
>David B. Dubin, PHR
>Senior Curriculum Developer
>Sage Software
>727-579-1111 x 3356
>david -dot- dubin -at- sage -dot- com
>Your business in mind.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: techwr-l-bounces+david -dot- dubin=sage -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+david -dot- dubin=sage -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On Behalf
>Of John Garison
>Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:09 PM
>To: Collin T
>Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>Subject: Re: Formality is going bye-bye?
>
>Hi Colin,
>
>IMHO, they know their audience, and they're talking clearly and directly
>to them.
>
>I don't have a real problem with this. But then I advocate using
>contractions in my documentation, too. Anything that makes the content
>more readable and less off-putting is a good thing. If formality is a
>barrier between me and my audience, and if I can get my message across
>while using less stilted language, I'm all for it.
>
>Ever read the manuals associated with games? They're pretty informal,
>too. And I believe one of them won an STC Best of Show award a few years
>ago - complete with torn pages, 'handwritten' crib notes, and so forth
>... it made the documentation part of the game.
>
>As long as accuracy and completeness are not compromised - and the
>Google Q&A format does a good job of presenting complete information - I
>say go for it. ANYTHING that will encourage (and not discourage) people
>from reading and learning is acceptable (as long as it doesn't alienate
>other readers).
>
>Hmmm ... maybe instead of levels of documentation: beginner, advanced,
>wizard - we need to think about age stratification: teenz, adults, and
>mature.
>
>My 2¢,
>
>
>John
>
>
>
>Collin T wrote:
>
>
>
>><snip>
>>I was reading Google's explanation regarding their new chat features
>>in Gmail. It dawned on me that their language is very informal. Now,
>>I've noticed this before, but never thought too much about it.
>>Recently, however, I've noticed a few instances of Help text seeming
>>to follow Google's lead.
>><snip>
>>So my question is this: Are "General Public" documents (help, etc)
>>going to shift with Google's lead?
>>
>>I'm not talking about technical documents aimed at specific segments.
>>I'm talking about documents that are geared towards general
>>consumption.
>>
>>
>>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
>format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
>delivery. Try it today!. http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
>
>Doc-To-Help includes a one-click RoboHelp project converter. It's that
easy.
>Watch the demo at http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as david -dot- dubin -at- sage -dot- com -dot-
>
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>or visit
>http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/david.dubin%40sage.com
>
>To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
>format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
>delivery. Try it today!. http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
>
>Doc-To-Help includes a one-click RoboHelp project converter. It's that
easy. Watch the demo at http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as john -at- garisons -dot- com -dot-
>
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to
>techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/john%40garisons.com
>
>To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
>
>Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
>http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
>
>
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word features support for every major Help
format plus PDF, HTML and more. Flexible, precise, and efficient content
delivery. Try it today!. http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
