7 ms·

"Avoid using gray-box, graybox, or gray box to describe testing." "grayed-out, greyed-out, gray out, grey out Don't use. Instead, use unavailable." WTF ar

• Spivak 5y ago
  It’s not a race thing, it’s a disability thing — “greyed out” is only something that makes sense to someone who can see, it’s confusing the actual concept with the visual indicator of the concept. It’s the same with “the box is checked” to mean “selected” or “redlining a contract” to mean “negotiating.” The point of inclusive language isn’t some weird political points contest. It’s writing in a manner that’s clear to people of lots of different backgrounds and doesn’t rely on just having to know English idioms or have common shared experiences. Why is blacklist the one that excludes and whitelist the one that includes — you just have to know, English right? But you can avoid the need for that entirely by allowlist and denylist.
  • epivosism 5y ago
    Yeah, I appreciate the sentiment and I don't think most of it is out of ill-will. I just think it's ineffective. I'd rather just accept the need to educate every generation of its own responsibility for treating people fairly - rather than pretend that fixing words would make a difference. There are also cases like "white-glove" where the phrase doesn't just represent the stereotypical "white = good & black = bad" - there is real meaning here, since white is a color which makes dust more visible.
    • Spivak 5y ago
      I completely agree, although in my own writing I would probably avoid white-glove not because of any race association but again because it’s an idiom that you have to have existing context to know. If your upbringing didn’t make you associate white gloves with fastidious butlers then you will probably be confused. You might instead associate cleanliness with the yellow gloves worn by many cleaning staff.
      • noduerme 5y ago
        Or people could learn something by, for example, encountering the phrase and looking up the historical context. The extension of your logic is that all writing should be geared to people with no knowledge, no historical reference, no firm understanding of the language, no visual or auditory cues (how do you talk about music without harming someone? Seriously, I ask this as a former music columnist). That is not language. [Edit: It's at best a graphic, except even that would be prohibited]. That is the conveyance of minimal information, like, 'don't stand here (in the place formerly known as being in front of a door).' It's completely absurd. It's inhuman. It's bent and wicked.
        • neetle 5y ago
          Yeah nah, old mate over here putting in the hard yakka and ignoring the place of code-switching. There's a middle ground between "souless corpo speak" and speaking colloquially. You need to give everyone a fair shake of the stick and assuming everyone comes from the big smoke doesn't. Words are a tool used to convey meaning mate. Cracking the shits because you've gotta make concessions means you're not seeing a hammer as a hammer
          • noduerme 5y ago
            Look, if I wasn't a big fan of Paul Hogan and had to look up what you meant, I'd still put in the time to wiki all of it. And sometimes that's the whole point of using words in a certain way (as you did): to get people to reflect on the subtler shades of meaning. And that should be perfectly fine, because you're choosing the audience you want to address and how you want to address them. I don't understand half of Ulysses without reading the footnotes, but I don't expect I was supposed to. If you want people to ponder what you're saying or hear it in a certain poetic way, that's absolutely your prerogative, whether you're writing documents for an app or addressing Parliament. It's not as if Google is suggesting that dropping colloquialisms is a clearer way of communicating to more people for the sake of efficiency. They're essentially demanding uniform corpo-speak and trying to stop you from even using your own words in your own private docs. It's tyranny.
  • noduerme 5y ago
    >> The point of inclusive language isn’t some weird political points contest. It’s writing in a manner that’s clear to people of lots of different backgrounds and doesn’t rely on just having to know English idioms or have common shared experiences. I don't think efficiency and universal comprehension is the point at all. Deaf people understand the phrase "loud and clear" just as well as hearing people. Blind people understand "redlining" as well as sighted people do. Policing every bit of language to cater to every potential group robs the language of its color, which is something I suppose you couldn't say anymore. Robs it of its beauty. Robs it of its poetry. Destroys its capacity for nuance. In the name of what? Can you possibly be serious? Is your idea of perfect communication something that omits every daily experience of every person who can see, hear, read, and walk? Should these concepts never be mentioned? How is it "violence" to someone in a wheelchair to talk about walking to the store? They know they're in a wheelchair. They know other people can walk. You think preaching "avoiding the need" for idioms that refer to walking is somehow fixing inequality? It's daft and ludicrous virtue signaling, and worse, it's insulting to everyone you think you're protecting. [Edit] The worst is, it's a power play. Google should not nudge or dictate the language you use in any document, let alone a private text document! Words are our tools, human tools, to use as we wish to express what we want, the way we want, and you and Google have no right to police them.
    • Spivak 5y ago
      You are assuming so much about what I said. Writing inclusively is not for everyone all of the time, it’s when you’re writing to the broadest possible audience and clarity, ease of understanding, and accessibility are paramount. > Is your idea of perfect communication something that omits every daily experience… No, what? It’s about avoiding terms where the context for understanding them are experiences not everyone has — “temba his arms wide” only makes sense to the Darmok. > How is it "violence" to someone in a wheelchair to talk about walking to the store. It’s not what are you even taking about? You should not presume that your reader can walk by saying things like “when you are out walking to the store” but there’s literally nothing wrong with mentioning walking. > Policing every bit of language to cater to every potential group robs the language of its color So this isn’t true, nobody is trying to force this on all language. But you have to take a step back and reflect on this. Given a hypothetical world where the choice was language color and including groups different from your own experience you really picked the former?
  • DavidSharff 5y ago
    Sincere question: since idioms and metaphors are rooted in history and shared experience, isn't dropping extremely common usages kicking the can (if you will) in the other direction? In other words, by trying to be inclusive about allowlist aren't you taking away opportunity to include ESL folks in that rich history? Anyone will have to ask/learn about able/denylist behavior anyways on their first encounter, and learning "whitelist" would have a multiplier effect that increases comprehension of the numerous similar usages they will inevitably encounter. That seems like active inclusivity to me, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something (I hadn't ever thought down this line until I read your comment). Note: I'm specifically asking about otherwise neutral terms and have come around on avoiding any terms that are still used in the same way as their offensive history (e.g. no master/slave but yes master debater).
• Too 5y ago
  Curious what they suggested instead of gray box. Did it even have a suggestion or is every word containing a color just blindly labeled dirty?