Re: Gore orders "plain language"

[Jill Burgchardt <jburgcha -at- PESTILENCE -dot- ITC -dot- NRCS -dot- USDA -dot- GOV>]

As someone who writes for the government, I support efforts to use plain
language.  The guideline is fairly reasonable--as long as it's a
guideline.  Unfortunately, there's a tendency to complicate good ideas.
Who's going to make sure this happens?  (Better hire some editors.) When
is a guideline a guideline and when must it be enforced?  (Better hire
some quality assurance folks.)  How many government agencies have
technical writers twiddling their thumbs with nothing better to do than
rewrite every document produced before 10/1/98? (Better hire LOTS more
writers.)  This could provide more employment opportunities than the year
2000 problem has.

I can just picture someone coming in and interpreting the "72 words will
be reduced to six" as a mandate to cut all documentation by 92%.  What
about documents that were already written much as the guideline suggests?
(If anyone has looked at the site, it's ironic that some of the "after"
examples are longer than the excerpts they correct.  They are clearer,
but not necessarily shorter.)

The guidelines also suggest using pronouns such as you/we.  The you
pronoun works for what I document, but we is often confusing.  Government
agencies combine resources on many projects.  There are times when I want
to refer to project sponsors collectively (we), and times when it needs
to be clear which sponsor I'm referring to.  If implementation of the
plain language guideline allows room for common sense, that won't be a
problem.  But will it?

Jill Burgchardt
jburgcha!pestilence.itc.nrcs.usda.gov

I have a great plan for surviving a bureaucratic implementation of a good
idea:  Reissue all documents with a date later than 10/98, but prior to
1/1/99.  Those don't appear to be covered by Gore's plan. :) (Just
kidding!)