[Sussex] Do we confuse you?

[John D.]

On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 12:29 +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> "John D." <john at johnsemail.eclipse.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > erm, I also seem to recall that ComputerActive mag's use of the "CPEs"
> > crystal mark, may have gone someway in helping it become the UKs largest
> > circulation computer/IT mag.
> 
> Oddly I've never heard of this magazine...  I long ago got board of
> the sort of computer magazines you can get in your average WH Smiths.
> 
> > Sure, it's not gonna be of much interest to most here at the SLUG list,
> > but it does have it's uses (ha, it gives me a number of opportunities to
> > send the regular "Use Linux/why not" etc type emails), if only to show
> > how even vaguely technical issues CAN be explained in "plain
> > english".
> 
> Fair enough

As I say Geoff, I like plain english. It's also helpful for other
reasons, I suspect that if someone writes a "doc" about whatever aspect
of IT in plain english (possibly even "crystal marked") we'd be more
likely to get a good/reasonably copy when "it's" been shoved through a
piece of translation software so that others, who have english as a
first language, can also benefit (and the same example in reverse,
because I doubt it's just english speakers who "suffer" from this).


> > Though I'm pleasantly suprised to hear that the legal world have an
> > equivalent of the CPE. I've always presumed that the whole point of
> > legal draughtsmen writing is such a way was more to do with the self
> > serving nature of the Law Society (or the BMA/GMC in a similar fashion)
> > and vested interest (Ker-ching $$$£££$$$ etc), or perhaps I'm just being
> > too cynical!
> 
> Perhaps.  It's fair to say that the law is complex enough that using
> latin terms actually makes it _easier_ to understand.  Much like
> I.T. there are some concepts that just can't be shortcut. 
> 
> It's fine for people to moan that lawyer, programmers, doctors
> etc,.. speak in acronyms but the reality is that some things aren't
> simple to understands and require training and experience to grasp.
> There is often the prevailing air of the mistrustful surf about people
> who complain about these things.  
> 
> Sure there's a strong case for people to avoid unnecessary
> obfustication in the way we talk about things (and believe me
> programmers, the good ones at least, understand this far better than
> you might imagine) but it's not a hard and fast rule that can be
> applied in all cases.
> 
> Here's an interesting example. 
> 
> RAM.
> 
> Now, I conservatively guess that 100% of people on this list can tell
> me what it stands for (in an I.T. sense, anyone who says anything
> about "Atomic Mass" is going to get a slap (of their choice) next time
> I see them :-) ).
> 
> However, I feel equally confident that the proportion of this list who
> can give me an accurate description of what RAM _is_ and how it is
> used is actually much lower.  Of those people the number who could give you a
> description without resorting to using phrases like "Address Space",
> "Word", "Bit", "Semiconductor".. etc.. etc.. 
> 
> ... and at the end of all that would you be any wiser?  Maybe, it
> depends on your training and experience! 

A fair assessment, but I'm still inclined to disagree. I'd much prefer
it if there were proper rules/guidelines, only because good use of
"plain english" is considerably more inclusive. I'm all for "access for
all". Sure, there may always be those who don't have the capacity to
understand, but I've also come across people who can convey the most
complicated concepts into the plain english (the person that comes to
mind first, does this "blindfold", though only with his specific
subject(s) - in this example, it's medicine, followed by politics). 

> > Any group in the legal world who are aiming at concisness/clarity within
> > "things legal" deserve a pat on the back for their efforts, though I
> > also suspect that they've set themselves one hell of a big mountain to
> > climb.
> 
> They aren't just aiming for it - it is the _standard_ practice.  It's
> just hard to convey these things all the same.  I'm sure Sarah could
> spend a whole day talking about it, it's a subject she is particularly
> interested in.

Well, I feel that moves in such practices are to be highly commended.
Afterall, I'm sure theres lots of us who have dealt with
doctors/lawyers/accountants/architects/etc etc etc (programmers?) who
use language, not so much to convey the concepts/ideas that you allude
to, but to exclude, belittle, distance (etc etc) people or to "pidgeon
hole" i.e. I'm this, you're that, end of story!

Perhaps it's just that the "ones" I've had experience of, haven't been
the "good" ones?

regards

John D.