20 ms·

A simple guide on words to avoid in government

265 points by open-source-ux 4y ago

draw_down 4y ago
[dead]
susam 4y ago
UK Government Style Guide > Words to avoid: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style#words-to-avoid https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty... The link to this style guide is provided at the end of the article. However the article does not link to the exact section "Words to avoid" which is almost at the bottom of the style guide. The above link is a direct link to that section in the style guide.
- ivory54321 4y ago
  This one got me 'drive out (unless it’s cattle)'
  - sshine 4y ago
    I like the gotchas because they’re simultaneously funny and real: of course, the branches of government that deal with cattle and/or aircrafts aren’t speaking metaphorically.
- torben-friis 4y ago
  It might be a consequence of not being a native speaker, but many of those are completely arbitrary choice of synonyms to me. Can you guys shed some light? Why is discussion better than dialogue? Work with better than collaborate? Concentrate on better than focus on?
  - pifm_guy 4y ago
    Avoid words with multiple meanings, particularly where you intend to use the non-primary meaning. For example, 'dialogue' to many people means a dialogue box on a computer screen. So that word is ambiguous. But a discussion has a primary meaning that is what the writer desires to use. Particularly for non-native speakers, using secondary meanings of words can be confusing.
    - noctune 4y ago
      You are thinking of a 'dialog box'.
      - TotempaaltJ 4y ago
        From Wikipedia: > The dialog box (also called dialogue box (non-U.S. English), ... This is a British government website, so "dialogue box" might not be uncommon.
        tom_ 4y ago
        I don't think I've ever seen anybody call it a "dialogue box". Feels like at this point, along with "disk", "dialog" is a separate word with a separate (but not unrelated) meaning.
        KineticLensman 4y ago
        As a Brit, I would never use 'dialogue box' (and don't recall ever seeing it) Some of us distinguish between program (software) and programme (a collection of projects)
      - aliswe 4y ago
        Or Dialog for short
        stevesimmons 4y ago
        Where in the world are you? I am in the UK and I have never heard 'dialog' refer to a dialogue box.
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    They are mostly suggesting simpler, more common words, or words that have direct meaning rather than meaning by analogy. E.g. "focus on" is used to mean "look at in detail" by analogy with the focusing mechanism of eyes and cameras. Some of them are definitely debatable but that's the general trend.
    - torben-friis 4y ago
      But isn't that how most words are formed anyway? Sure, focus comes from optics, but concentrate is also an analogy (to bring something to a center). What is the line between analogies and etymology? Not really arguing with the specific choice, but considering words formed by analysis as harder to understand is a concept I've never seen before.
      - IshKebab 4y ago
        Yes I agree, it does show a slight misunderstanding of linguistics. But I think on the whole choosing simpler less flowery words and phrases makes sense in this context. "Simpler and less flowery" is obviously not very well defined but it's also definitely a real spectrum. One of those things that needs taste and judgement.
  - dan-robertson 4y ago
    Partly it’s using simpler, more common words, eg dialogue is quite uncommon outside of office-speak (or acting I guess). Partly it’s about avoiding (often very stale) metaphors which make the meaning less clear to people with poorer literacy or who aren’t native speakers. I think it also encourages more direct and concise writing which is a lot better for people who read slowly.
  - version_five 4y ago
    Having worked in consulting and government, I think it's just that many of those words have a slight connotation of pretension, like the writer is choosing words to sound smart. It's very subtle and in many cases probably not worth banning, but prohibition has the side effect of forcing people to think about what they're trying to write rather than just regurgitate pre-made phrases. Another subtlety in English is that words with Germanic roots feel more direct and simple while those with Latin roots feel flowery and pretentious so the former are often preferred. E.g. ask/inquire, answer/response. It's not always true, and some words may still be out of date. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germanic_and_Latinate_equivalents_in_English https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germanic_and_Latinat...
    - rikroots 4y ago
      I worked in the UK Civil service for a long while. The language barrier back in the late 1980s was a real thing[1]. While I had good English skills, I had never made it to university - unlike most of my colleagues. Oxbridge alumni were (still are?) over-represented, and the language I heard/had to learn felt very academic at times. Heck, when I started some of the Senior SC were still adding comments to minutes in Latin! The Plain English campaign - whose work has been excellent over the decades - and diversity in CS hiring, have hopefully broken the worst parts of the language barrier. [1] - silly example: while most of the office-working world would write a "memo", in CS Jargonese it was a "minute". To this day I have no idea why the distinction was important.
      - macintux 4y ago
        Thank you for sharing that, it’s a fascinating insight.
    - torben-friis 4y ago
      > Another subtlety in English is that words with Germanic roots feel more direct and simple while those with Latin roots feel flowery and pretentious so the former are often preferred. Ooh, That might explain why it was hard for me to understand! I'm a Spaniard, so latin-derived words are usually familiar. That's what's keeping me from perceiving them as literary, since their Spanish counterpart is in my 'common speech register', so to speak.
  - TomSwirly 4y ago
    As a well-read native speaker, I agree with all these decisions, and yet it's pretty subtle. "Focus" is a metaphor. "Work with" is at a considerably simpler level of English education than "collaborate". A "dialog" was originally a literary work with people responding to each other, so it's a bit more pretentious. Also, a dialog has a slightly more argumentative feel than a discussion - there is more of a sense of opposition. "We had a quick discussion to make sure we were on the same page and then had lunch." Dialog would be weird here. "We are trying to start a dialog between one side and the other."
    - torben-friis 4y ago
      Same question as the other answerer: When does metaphor become etymology for a new meaning? concentrate is bringing something to a center, which seems metaphorical when used as keeping a goal in mind, and I'd guess a majority of words are originally formed that way - should they not talk about cranes (in the sense of construction) because they are name after a bird?
    - ask_b123 4y ago
      Strangely I find the word discussion to sound more argumentative than dialogue. Though I guess that used in an international context (say, between countries) discussion would sound stranger than dialogue, and there is usually some degree of opposition between countries.
  - blululu 4y ago
    It’s a preference for choosing simpler more common words and expressions. This makes writing easier to understand for more people, but perhaps more importantly it prevents the writer from using some bizarre circumlocution in an attempt to sound sophisticated.
- rgblambda 4y ago
  >drive out (unless it’s cattle), use ‘stop’, ‘avoid’ or ‘prevent’ Would a better substitute not be 'remove'? To drive out something is to get rid of it.
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    St. Patrick avoided all the snakes in Ireland.
- diydsp 4y ago
  > collaborate, use ‘work with Sorry... collaborate means to share focus, while work with is ambiguous. It may simply mean work at the same time.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
  This made me smile: > facilitate, say something specific about how you’re helping - for example, use ‘run’ if talking about a workshop “Facilitate” is one of those words of which useless people doing useless work in an organization are very fond. I think that when asked to describe what specific work they are doing, they will just implode.
  - hrnnnnnn 4y ago
    "Facilitate" can have a very useful and precise meaning when used to describe someone who is running a meeting of some sort and their role is to keep it on track, making sure it progresses in a timely manner and sticks to the agenda. That said, "run" also works for that meaning, it's just a little less precise. When it's used in a vaguer way then that I tend to agree with you.
    - WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
      Isn’t the meeting role called a „moderator”, or even „chair”?
      - hrnnnnnn 4y ago
        Both of those work too. Chair suggests the person called the meeting and cares about the outcome, where "facilitator" or "moderator" sounds more neutral.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    > “Facilitate” is one of those words of which useless people doing useless work in an organization are very fond. It also names those activities of some essential people without whom no work ever manages to get done.
Manfred 4y ago
Whenever someone uses the word ‘portal’, I always glance at the calendar nervously to make sure it's not still 2006. Luckily it almost always becomes apparent that they meant to say ‘website’ and have no clue what a ‘portal’ is.
- XCabbage 4y ago
  Wait, what is a portal, then, and where are you getting that definition from? I have been a web dev for a decade and I also understand a "portal" to be a broadly applicable term meaning basically any webapp that grants access to some data. Did it once have some narrower meaning, in times long past before I was a dev?
  - icepat 4y ago
    I've always taken it to be a portion of a website that takes you onward to different areas of the website. Like, at least in Wikipedia, a portal is generally a list of links to areas related to a topic. In sales software, a sales portal generally leads you to areas in the website like sales flows, or something else.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    Around Y2K, a portal was a web-page that linked to assorted on- and off-site resources; the Yahoo! front page was a portal. It was a kind of aggregator, and commonly the off-site content would display within the portal site (don't let them navigate away from our site!)
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  In India we refer to most government websites as portals, even the very recent ones. I have no idea why because "website" is used for private websites regularly
- DonHopkins 4y ago
  The term "Portal" was hijacked by the video game in 2007! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_(video_game)
helloooooooo 4y ago
[flagged]
kfrzcode 4y ago
Related: Vale is a plain-language or "prose" linter. Built a version of this for use with the US DVA https://vale.sh/ https://vale.sh/
- aatd86 4y ago
  So besides being a programming language you mean? https://vale.dev/ https://vale.dev/ Just kidding... A bit off topic perhaps.
  - kfrzcode 4y ago
    Oh, cool collision! Looks like I have a weekend project to toy with, never seen Vale before. Thanks!
Waterluvian 4y ago
There’s a tinge of irony that the first few paragraphs talk about avoiding the audience needing to be “in-the-know” and then expects you to be when referring to House language or the old website. I’m not really the audience… at least I don’t remember becoming a British civil servant, but I’d still love to know some examples. Separately: “ We often wonder whether we're expecting colleagues to open the single front door or step through the portal and find themselves in the one-stop shop. In nine out of 10 cases, what people really want is some new pages on our intranet.” I would bet that in nine out of ten cases the people don’t know what they really want up front. When I get similar requests, and ask for concrete details for expectations, quite often they simply can’t provide them. It’s a feeling they have.
jraph 4y ago
English is a second language for me. It feels like this list is there to avoid newspeak / bullshit / being unnecessarily abstract. It seems like rephrasing with the replacement of many of these terms can make you think again and check that you aren't bullshitting a bit. "progress" => "Are we indeed actually working on this?" I'll certainly consult this list in the future to check my writing for simplicity.
- Aardwolf 4y ago
  The list also looks useful to "translate" existing corpspeak. But on the other hand, it can be misused as well by reversing the left and right sides...
- PreInternet01 4y ago
  You might also enjoy "Misused English words and expressions in EU publications": https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION.pdf https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOG...
  - Vinnl 4y ago
    Thank you! I saw that years ago and have wanted to reference it on several occasions, but never was able to find it again.
  - jraph 4y ago
    I love this. In particular because I was once very close to someone working in some UE-related organization in Brussels. They routinely complained about the EU having its own English, mentioning the use of "persons" where "people" would be more correct. This use is not mentioned in this publication, maybe "persons" is actually fine-ish. I can see how many of these mistakes could come from the French language. Ah ah. Whoops. Sorry! :-) For instance, "foresee" used to mean "plan" where it really means "predict". I never made the mistake because I never made the connection myself, but in French "prévoir" indeed means both things. I wonder how much French being used in Brussels has influenced this. But I guess many European languages are similar to French for many of these things. Maybe some of these misuses are a testimony of the complexity of English, like the uncountable words, the prepositions or the usage rules of "allow". Maybe English could adopt some of these uses that seem convenient. Like, "transpose" instead of "incorporate into". And yes, I cringe a bit whenever I see "actually" used to mean "currently". It happens all the time. I guess English has its peculiarities in each area where it is spoken, and Europe is not an exception to this… And I mean, a big chunk of the English vocabulary is already French, we might as well continue the trend x)
psychphysic 4y ago
There's also the issue of words that sound offensive. Case in point, niggard [0] has cost people their jobs. Wikipedia maintains a list of controversies[1]. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggard https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggard [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word...
- psychphysic 4y ago
  Or this Chinese example https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-suspended-saying-chinese-word-sounds-english-slur https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...
pydry 4y ago
Most of the "amusing" examples in the linked seem to me to be pretty legitimate attempts at being precise. Yeah, the definition of hot food seems nitpicky but it kind of has to be nitpicky for their purposes of enforcing the rules (dumb rules maybe, but they didn't pick the rules). The advice against using the phrase "combat problems" or even "key stakeholders" instead of just "stakeholders" seems somewhat pointless to me. I don't think these are changes that will significantly improve reader comprehension. Maybe avoiding the use of the word "stakeholder" at all will but they dont seem to want to go that far.
- ohbtvz 4y ago
  Using fewer words introduces less cognitive load and drives your point better. For example, you wrote "The advice [...] seems somewhat pointless to me." Well, are you saying that it is pointless, or not? I don't know you, so I don't know what your scale of pointlessness is. I don't know what "somewhat pointless" corresponds to. Is it a tiny bit pointless, is it a medium amount of pointlessness, something else? I don't know, but I have to think about it because you wrote a meaningless word in your sentence. And even once I have understood the sentence, I am left thinking: "well, if it's only somewhat pointless, maybe it's not pointless after all!" The same thing happens with "key stakeholders": now I have to think about a hierarchy of stakeholders. What scale is being used? Who's key, who's non-key? Does the sentence apply to all stakeholders, only some of them? Multiply this by a hundred occurrences in a long document, and you obtain something that will be more difficult to read. But government documents have to be readable by everyone: people whose native tongue is not English, uneducated people who have trouble reading simple texts, etc. And for what? Sugarcoating your text so that it's less assertive? Showing literary prowess?
  - pydry 4y ago
    >For example, you wrote "The advice [...] seems somewhat pointless to me." Well, are you saying that it is pointless, or not? I am stating something controversial and leaving open the possibility that I might be wrong or partially wrong. What you are inadvertently arguing here is that humility is unnecessary.
quickthrower2 4y ago
I like it. It can be hard to a avoid idioms like tackle as they are used alot. Avoiding acronyms, jargon etc. is a great start for everyone. Especially in IT!
- kybernetyk 4y ago
  >Avoiding acronyms, jargon etc. is a great start for everyone. Especially in IT! There's a reason why we have jargon and acronyms. They condense a lot of information into few words.
- srfvtgb 4y ago
  > Especially in IT Especially in what?
  - quickthrower2 4y ago
    As they say in fencing: touche! In IT (a term most of HN (a term most of Hacker News understands) understands), it is probably OK to agree the really common jargon that everyone probably knows. HTTP, WWW, etc. But be cognizant that eBPF for example isn't something you can assume everyone knows what it is. Use it, but then expand or include a link to where it is defined.
5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
> ...without having to wade through jargon, metaphors and corporate bluster. hmmm
- xdfgh1112 4y ago
  This article is intended for government employees, the style guide applies to the UK population as a whole.
c22 4y ago
The Plain English Campaign's list of examples [0] (linked in TFA) was quite amusing. My favorite: 'the hours of non-hours work worked by a worker in a pay reference period shall be the total of the number of hours spent by him during the pay reference period in carrying out the duties required of him under his contract to do non-hours work.' [0]: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/examples http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/examples
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  I briefly worked in the Swedish public sector that had at that point been pushing for plain language for a while. The problem they encountered is that the government still needs to be able to specify what they mean with precision. So what happened is that common words became overloaded with specific and often non-obvious legal meanings. People at large with no clue how to "speak government" still didn't understand what the government said, but instead of a bunch of known unknowns it turned the language into a minefield of unknown unknowns. (This got at least some attention notice during the covid pandemic, during which there was clear miscommunication between the government which used 'recommendations' to mean a strong non-legal mandate, and parts of the public which took it to mean helpful tips, like a movie recommendation)
  - ohbtvz 4y ago
    Well, what's the difference between a "strong non-legal mandate" and a "helpful tip"? Either it's mandatory or not.
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      Both are non-mandatory, but the first carries the connotation that this is something the government thinks you should be doing, but the latter is more like a suggestion of something cool you may want to do, like visit the Vasa museum next time you're in Stockholm. Yes, they are both voluntary, but the nuance is quite different. That ambiguity in nuance is a problem, given that "recommendation" is the strongest wording for a non-legal mandate the Swedish government will use.
joosters 4y ago
..."We haven't opened a 'one-stop shop' as we're not a supermarket. We've probably launched a website." Have you really launched a website, or just started one? Since the same article rejects the use of 'drive' and 'land', I'd say that 'launch' is fairly comparable.
user3939382 4y ago
Forgive the typical HN metacomment: I click the link and I get a full screen pop up with the sentence in my face “cookies enable core functionality” I’m trying to read some text man. All this tech and we can’t send a frickin link that opens to some text. Cmon.
- dijit 4y ago
  People like to blame GDPR or the ePrivacy directive but GDPR explicitly states that cookies set for an essential purpose of the site are exempt from consent: > Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies. it further explains: > [Strictly necessary cookies] are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user. Makes me wonder why we have all these cookie consent dialogs, either it's people playing it safe or they really do not set cookies for a true purpose. if the latter: then all that's happened with GDPR is that we've been given visibility to the problem.. and it feels like everyone (including governments apparently) will adopt some measure of dark patterns to ensure they can still track people.
  - Aardwolf 4y ago
    > what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user. Which would require showing this info somewhere even for essential cookies. Is a popup required for this?
    - dijit 4y ago
      No, a popup is not required, it can be part of the privacy policy. https://termly.io/faq/do-i-need-a-cookie-policy-on-my-website/ https://termly.io/faq/do-i-need-a-cookie-policy-on-my-websit...
      - 4y ago
gonzo41 4y ago
I know bureaucrats, this guide will not be read, it will be actively ignored. Programmers like to flex with one liners, and crazy Rube Goldberg style design patterns. Bureaucrats versions of this is documents and wordplay.
agolio 4y ago
I'm always proud of the UK government web services. A lot of work is done to make high quality accessible tools to explain: the law, regulations, health (nhs website), travel guidelines, tax services, etc. Related to this post, the EU guidelines for inclusive language was a nice read for me. https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-europeenne https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-eu... (The tables on page 10, 14, 17, etc, being for me the main point of interest)
- rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
  Sad to see it hosted on one of the most far-right, fake-news spreading French website https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdesouche https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdesouche (today's headline is a terrorist attack that killed 3 persons in Paris this morning… perpetrated by a far-right extremist). The same PDF can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-europeenne https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-eu...
  - agolio 4y ago
    Many thanks for this information, I found the original URL via Google and was unaware of the parent site's reputation. I am updating my link to the one you suggest.
- ohbtvz 4y ago
  Please don't link to that website. Would you link to stormfront to make any kind of point here?
  - agolio 4y ago
    Sorry was unaware of the parent site, have updated my link.
Tade0 4y ago
> Avoid jargon I can get behind that. Some words, like "hub" are, to me, so overused that they've lost all meaning. Also there's a group of people who use jargon without understanding what they're saying, which would have been harmless if not for the positions they often have.
usgroup 4y ago
"Every single week we receive requests to create a 'one-stop shop', a 'hub', a 'single front door' or a 'portal'. We often wonder whether we're expecting colleagues to open the single front door or step through the portal and find themselves in the one-stop shop. In nine out of 10 cases, what people really want is some new pages on our intranet."
O__________O 4y ago
UK Government’s Plain English website: - http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ And related free guides page: - http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html ——————— Wikipedia also has a “simple” version here: - https://simple.wikipedia.org/ https://simple.wikipedia.org/
- daveoc64 4y ago
  > UK Government’s Plain English website: That website has nothing to do with the government.
mschuster91 4y ago
To u/helloooooooo whose comment has been flagged: > Why should the government water down documents and treat people like morons? It’s insulting. Governments have the sometimes formal (e.g. ADA), sometimes informal requirement that its public-facing communication should be accessible to all citizens. Historically, that has been mostly seen in websites that were accessible to people with various disabilities, e.g. proper alt tags on images, subtitles in video / audio, ensuring legibility with high contrast and avoiding various forms of colors that have common color blindnesses associated, but given that over half of the US is barely able to comprehend a 6th grade text [1] and in the UK anything from 12 to almost 27% (depending on the state) has "very poor literacy skills", it makes sense to use simplified language. Additionally, given that low literacy rates are usually closely related to socio-economic disadvantages and/or migration history, it is very important for those people to have information about basic government aid programs available in an even clearer, more simplified subset of English (and, if possible, also in the dominant languages of immigrants). [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-literacy-levels-among-us-adults-could-be-costing-the-economy-22-trillion-a-year/?sh=db073854c904 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-... [2] https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/ https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-lite...
- enkid 4y ago
  You also have the problem that metaphors and euphemisms are less pre use than plain language, leading to misunderstandings.
- pifm_guy 4y ago
  Unfortunately, I think most governments around the world, despite efforts to make government websites easy to use for everyone, still fall short for a good chunk of the population. I suspect there might be a better approach... Eg. A 15 minute phone call or meeting once a year with a 'government expert', whos role is to ask about your life, and then enroll you in any government programs which you would benefit from. For those who would benefit from government assistance and aren't making use of it, meetings could be longer or done with a subject area expert. For example, in the UK, under 50% of people eligible for free monetary benefits from the government claim them.
sjducb 4y ago
I think this ignores the reason jargon exists. -- To demonstrate that the speaker is part of the "in" crowd. If you stop using jargon then people assume you don't know what you're talking about. This affect is real. Your precieved credibility goes way down when you stop speaking in jargon. It's the reason that the speaker used all of the tech jargon (launching a website). If they didn't do that then we would think they didn't know about websites.
- ohbtvz 4y ago
  This is not the reason jargon exists. What made you say that? > It's the reason that the speaker used all of the tech jargon (launching a website). If they didn't do that then we would think they didn't know about websites. To "launch" something is jargon?
  - krona 4y ago
    > This is not the reason jargon exists. What made you say that? Steven Pinker in The Language Instinct.
    - ohbtvz 4y ago
      I don't have the book at hand. Do you have a more precise quote?
  - sjducb 4y ago
    What is the real reason that jargon exists? Ostensibly it's to increase precision and allow experts to communicate quickly with each other. However that explaination can't explain phrases like "Ring-fence", "Let's take this offline", "360 degree feedback". All of those phrases have better simple English translations.
    - ohbtvz 4y ago
      Your examples are not jargon, they're metaphors. Jargon exists because specialists in a subject want to communicate quickly among themselves, instead of paraphrasing all the time. I'm a mathematician, if I had to use plain-English words instead of jargon in my papers, I would go insane. But my papers aren't meant for the general public (although they're welcome to read them), they're meant for a specialist audience. This is not the case of government websites.
lbriner 4y ago
People laugh at jargon but my take is that most people learn things without any critical evaluation. If you do your internship at a big corporate, all you will hear is "kicking the wheels", "criteria-based project team" or "key stakeholders". I think people just assimilate it, don't question why and then re-iterate it. As others have said, it is also an example of "weasel words". Words that are designed to make what you are saying sound more impressive.
billfruit 4y ago
The style guide linked in the document seems to refer to the "6 types of British Nationalities", but fails to list them out. Of the 6, the most quirky seems the "British Subject": "You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, until then, you were either: a British subject without citizenship, which means you were a British subject on 31 December 1948 who did not become a citizen of the UK and Colonies, a Commonwealth country, Pakistan or Ireland a person who had been a citizen of Ireland on 31 December 1948 and had made a claim to remain a British subject. You also became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if you were a woman who registered as a British subject on the basis of your marriage to a man in one of these categories. "
Tomte 4y ago
Sir Humphrey disapproves. What has become of the Civil Service?
MonkeyClub 4y ago
All hail the newspeak, protecting us from wrongthink. Seriously, avoid the exact domain-specific terms (“jargon”), don’t use “rich” figurative language (“tackle” is out)? The recommendation is really going for the lowest common linguistic denominator, like it’s inspired from Simple English Wikipedia. Weren’t we all supposed to elevate each other? Now it seems we aim for a common soft mushy muddy bottom. (“Elevate”, “aim”... off with me head!)
- Metacelsus 4y ago
  For a government website it's important that all the citizens can understand it, so it makes sense to use simpler vocabulary. Remember that ~50% of the population has IQ less than 100.
  - MonkeyClub 4y ago
    It’s also the government’s job to educate its citizens (or in this case subjects). Has the UK government thrown in the towel wrt education, and now just goes for bare minimum? What’s next, stopping the teaching of grammar in schools? :)
    - detaro 4y ago
      You really don't understand the difference between "throwing in the towel wrt education" and "acknowledging that not everyone meets those standards" (for a variety of reasons)?
  - m0rissette 4y ago
    I just woke up so don’t feel like fact checking this. Is the population really that mentally challenged? Can you provide a reference to your statistic? Changed “general population” to “population” See, it already had an effect on my writing.
    - stkdump 4y ago
      It's in the definition of the IQ (assuming a bell curve distribution)
m0rissette 4y ago
I enjoy the comments obviously using jargon without knowing it like “drop me a email”
incone123 4y ago
I liked this: "We don't 'drive' anything forward unless we're in a car, and we haven't opened a 'one-stop shop' as we're not a supermarket. We've probably launched a website." But there is a place for esoteric terms. I just try to write with my audience in mind. Sometimes that's with technical terms other times with everyday metaphors.
mrweasel 4y ago
Well, to avoid in general. One thing I've notice in switching between working for companies and organizations from various regions is how management speak. For instance: Danish company: "We're doing great, here's how much we made last quarter". Or: "You fucked up, don't do that." Norwegian company: "We be looking to aligning our pricing strategy using market benchmarks." "We'll be needing to conduct a behavioral correction session in the near future to ensure that you better understand your role in our organizational structure". US company: .... I can't... you get a three page email with long words, no obvious structure to the text, only to make a single point. You're not really sure what that point was, even if you spend 45 minutes trying to parse the content. Generally speaking, use fewer words, try not to communicate just because you think you must.
acaloiar 4y ago
US based companies would be well served by applying this list to their communication as well. These are real life words from a real life human, recently observed: "The value drivers reducing company spend" Spend is a verb and value is not street-legal here in the states.
- mft_ 4y ago
  Similarly, "learnings". Better known as "lessons", or "things we've learned".
  - acaloiar 4y ago
    Don't forget to share out your learnings :)
lambic 4y ago
I hate seeing 'utilise' where 'use' would be perfectly fine.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Whenever I see "utilize" on wikipedia, I fix it. "Utilize" is a word, but I don't think it means the same as "use". I think it means "to take something that is useless, and make it useful", or "to turn something into a tool". So you could utilize a written-off car as a source of parts, perhaps. If you utilize "utilize" to mean "use", you're indulging in grand language to look more authoritative. And nobody utilizes "utilize" in spoken English.
  - ask_b123 4y ago
    Wait, that definition is too constraining. And imho Wikipedia articles don't need that "fix", unless the articles are in the Simple English Wikipedia: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page But a disclaimer: in my native language "utilize" is relatively common.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
superjan 4y ago
This is an area where machine learning could make a positive impact to society. Have something like GPT rewrite/review all public facing text. Preferably a required rewrite, which is published unless it is factually incorrect.
kimburgess 4y ago
The Australian Government has quite a good, related guide: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/writing-and-designing-content/clear-language-and-writing-style/plain-language-and-word-choice https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/writing-and-designing-content...
nickdothutton 4y ago
I am compelled to plug "Politics and the English Language" (1946) by George Orwell. It's a short essay. You can find PDF copies for free via your favourite search engine.
- marcusverus 4y ago
  Yes! In our post-truth era, this essay is an absolute must-read.
sopooneo 4y ago
This is well written, but frustrated me because the "guide", which is referenced early in the article, is only linked at the end. And even then, they link to a larger page, with instructions on how to search for the actual list of words. Here a direct link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style#words-to-avoid https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty...
scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago
What is fascinating to me is that it isn’t just about jargon - this is also about the complex spatial metaphors that english native speakers use to sound „better”. Reminds me of „Metaphors we Live By” https://george-lakoff.com/books/metaphors-we-live-by/ https://george-lakoff.com/books/metaphors-we-live-by/
black_puppydog 4y ago
This is pretty much the polar opposite ofhow VCffunded companies communicate. And given that this guide is about making things crystal clear for any reader, I'd say that's not coincidental. For most VC backed companies, stating their mission, approach, and progress in plain English would mean an immediate end to their funding...
linhns 4y ago
> We don't 'tackle' anything unless we're playing rugby What about football (soccer)?
- lebski88 4y ago
  Not in the civil service old bean!
lifeisstillgood 4y ago
These words are not for providing direction to people after the decisions have been taken - they are used by people in the process of discussing problems and finding consensus across different (stakeholders?!) - when words that have ambiguity are useful in avoiding unnecessary conflict and saving the conflict for later when the lines are drawn
teawrecks 4y ago
> Avoid using metaphors - they do not say what you actually mean and lead to slower comprehension of your content. Then what is the point of a metaphor?
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  ...addendum, words to avoid: Point, unless talking about a sharp object ;)
- Veen 4y ago
  There are many reasons to use metaphors [0], but not if you're aiming for maximal comprehension by people who may not have advanced reading comprehension or English language skills. This advice is intended for writing in a very specific context. [0]: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200710-the-words-that-stretch-how-we-think https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200710-the-words-that-... (Plus, you used a metaphor in your question: "point")
teawrecks 4y ago
Do not use "excellent", use very good. Do not use "amazing", use very good. Do not use "extraordinary", use very good. Do not use "incredible", use very good. Do not use "terrific", use very good. Do not use "abominable", use very bad. Do not use "awful", use very bad. Do not use "horrible", use very bad. Do not use "terrible", use very bad.
lowbloodsugar 4y ago
>We don't 'drive' anything forward unless we're in a car, and we haven't opened a 'one-stop shop' as we're not a supermarket. But the very next sentence: >We've probably launched a website Surely we don’t launch anything unless it’s a boat or a rocket? I mostly agree with the author, but they nicely demonstrated how hard it is to avoid jargon.
cloudedcordial 4y ago
New Zealand government hopes to establish a plain language law when communicating with the public: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/new-zealand-hopes-to-banish-jargon-with-plain-language-law https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/new-zealand-ho... Even if there's such a law, people will find a way around it.
combatentropy 4y ago
> This last example is a particularly hot topic for us on the intranet team. Every single week we receive requests to create a 'one-stop shop', a 'hub', a 'single front door' or a 'portal'. I too was on an intranet team, and I too often received requests for a "portal". It took me a long time to grasp why they were so fond of that word. Was a "portal" subtly different from a "page" or "site"? After many years, I concluded that a "portal" is a page with a bunch of links on it --- a hypertextual table of contents, if you will, for the requester's department or project. I did not work in government, just for a large company. This article is useful because highfalutin language is commonplace in any bureaucracy.
known 4y ago
[dead]

[dead]

UK Government Style Guide > Words to avoid: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style#words-to-avoid https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty... The link to this style guide is provided at the end of the article. However the article does not link to the exact section "Words to avoid" which is almost at the bottom of the style guide. The above link is a direct link to that section in the style guide.

ivory54321 4y ago
This one got me 'drive out (unless it’s cattle)'
- sshine 4y ago
  I like the gotchas because they’re simultaneously funny and real: of course, the branches of government that deal with cattle and/or aircrafts aren’t speaking metaphorically.
torben-friis 4y ago
It might be a consequence of not being a native speaker, but many of those are completely arbitrary choice of synonyms to me. Can you guys shed some light? Why is discussion better than dialogue? Work with better than collaborate? Concentrate on better than focus on?
- pifm_guy 4y ago
  Avoid words with multiple meanings, particularly where you intend to use the non-primary meaning. For example, 'dialogue' to many people means a dialogue box on a computer screen. So that word is ambiguous. But a discussion has a primary meaning that is what the writer desires to use. Particularly for non-native speakers, using secondary meanings of words can be confusing.
  - noctune 4y ago
    You are thinking of a 'dialog box'.
    - TotempaaltJ 4y ago
      From Wikipedia: > The dialog box (also called dialogue box (non-U.S. English), ... This is a British government website, so "dialogue box" might not be uncommon.
      - tom_ 4y ago
        I don't think I've ever seen anybody call it a "dialogue box". Feels like at this point, along with "disk", "dialog" is a separate word with a separate (but not unrelated) meaning.
      - KineticLensman 4y ago
        As a Brit, I would never use 'dialogue box' (and don't recall ever seeing it) Some of us distinguish between program (software) and programme (a collection of projects)
    - aliswe 4y ago
      Or Dialog for short
      - stevesimmons 4y ago
        Where in the world are you? I am in the UK and I have never heard 'dialog' refer to a dialogue box.
- IshKebab 4y ago
  They are mostly suggesting simpler, more common words, or words that have direct meaning rather than meaning by analogy. E.g. "focus on" is used to mean "look at in detail" by analogy with the focusing mechanism of eyes and cameras. Some of them are definitely debatable but that's the general trend.
  - torben-friis 4y ago
    But isn't that how most words are formed anyway? Sure, focus comes from optics, but concentrate is also an analogy (to bring something to a center). What is the line between analogies and etymology? Not really arguing with the specific choice, but considering words formed by analysis as harder to understand is a concept I've never seen before.
    - IshKebab 4y ago
      Yes I agree, it does show a slight misunderstanding of linguistics. But I think on the whole choosing simpler less flowery words and phrases makes sense in this context. "Simpler and less flowery" is obviously not very well defined but it's also definitely a real spectrum. One of those things that needs taste and judgement.
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  Partly it’s using simpler, more common words, eg dialogue is quite uncommon outside of office-speak (or acting I guess). Partly it’s about avoiding (often very stale) metaphors which make the meaning less clear to people with poorer literacy or who aren’t native speakers. I think it also encourages more direct and concise writing which is a lot better for people who read slowly.
- version_five 4y ago
  Having worked in consulting and government, I think it's just that many of those words have a slight connotation of pretension, like the writer is choosing words to sound smart. It's very subtle and in many cases probably not worth banning, but prohibition has the side effect of forcing people to think about what they're trying to write rather than just regurgitate pre-made phrases. Another subtlety in English is that words with Germanic roots feel more direct and simple while those with Latin roots feel flowery and pretentious so the former are often preferred. E.g. ask/inquire, answer/response. It's not always true, and some words may still be out of date. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germanic_and_Latinate_equivalents_in_English https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Germanic_and_Latinat...
  - rikroots 4y ago
    I worked in the UK Civil service for a long while. The language barrier back in the late 1980s was a real thing[1]. While I had good English skills, I had never made it to university - unlike most of my colleagues. Oxbridge alumni were (still are?) over-represented, and the language I heard/had to learn felt very academic at times. Heck, when I started some of the Senior SC were still adding comments to minutes in Latin! The Plain English campaign - whose work has been excellent over the decades - and diversity in CS hiring, have hopefully broken the worst parts of the language barrier. [1] - silly example: while most of the office-working world would write a "memo", in CS Jargonese it was a "minute". To this day I have no idea why the distinction was important.
    - macintux 4y ago
      Thank you for sharing that, it’s a fascinating insight.
  - torben-friis 4y ago
    > Another subtlety in English is that words with Germanic roots feel more direct and simple while those with Latin roots feel flowery and pretentious so the former are often preferred. Ooh, That might explain why it was hard for me to understand! I'm a Spaniard, so latin-derived words are usually familiar. That's what's keeping me from perceiving them as literary, since their Spanish counterpart is in my 'common speech register', so to speak.
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  As a well-read native speaker, I agree with all these decisions, and yet it's pretty subtle. "Focus" is a metaphor. "Work with" is at a considerably simpler level of English education than "collaborate". A "dialog" was originally a literary work with people responding to each other, so it's a bit more pretentious. Also, a dialog has a slightly more argumentative feel than a discussion - there is more of a sense of opposition. "We had a quick discussion to make sure we were on the same page and then had lunch." Dialog would be weird here. "We are trying to start a dialog between one side and the other."
  - torben-friis 4y ago
    Same question as the other answerer: When does metaphor become etymology for a new meaning? concentrate is bringing something to a center, which seems metaphorical when used as keeping a goal in mind, and I'd guess a majority of words are originally formed that way - should they not talk about cranes (in the sense of construction) because they are name after a bird?
  - ask_b123 4y ago
    Strangely I find the word discussion to sound more argumentative than dialogue. Though I guess that used in an international context (say, between countries) discussion would sound stranger than dialogue, and there is usually some degree of opposition between countries.
- blululu 4y ago
  It’s a preference for choosing simpler more common words and expressions. This makes writing easier to understand for more people, but perhaps more importantly it prevents the writer from using some bizarre circumlocution in an attempt to sound sophisticated.
rgblambda 4y ago
>drive out (unless it’s cattle), use ‘stop’, ‘avoid’ or ‘prevent’ Would a better substitute not be 'remove'? To drive out something is to get rid of it.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  St. Patrick avoided all the snakes in Ireland.
diydsp 4y ago
> collaborate, use ‘work with Sorry... collaborate means to share focus, while work with is ambiguous. It may simply mean work at the same time.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
This made me smile: > facilitate, say something specific about how you’re helping - for example, use ‘run’ if talking about a workshop “Facilitate” is one of those words of which useless people doing useless work in an organization are very fond. I think that when asked to describe what specific work they are doing, they will just implode.
- hrnnnnnn 4y ago
  "Facilitate" can have a very useful and precise meaning when used to describe someone who is running a meeting of some sort and their role is to keep it on track, making sure it progresses in a timely manner and sticks to the agenda. That said, "run" also works for that meaning, it's just a little less precise. When it's used in a vaguer way then that I tend to agree with you.
  - WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
    Isn’t the meeting role called a „moderator”, or even „chair”?
    - hrnnnnnn 4y ago
      Both of those work too. Chair suggests the person called the meeting and cares about the outcome, where "facilitator" or "moderator" sounds more neutral.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  > “Facilitate” is one of those words of which useless people doing useless work in an organization are very fond. It also names those activities of some essential people without whom no work ever manages to get done.

Manfred 4y ago

Whenever someone uses the word ‘portal’, I always glance at the calendar nervously to make sure it's not still 2006. Luckily it almost always becomes apparent that they meant to say ‘website’ and have no clue what a ‘portal’ is.

XCabbage 4y ago
Wait, what is a portal, then, and where are you getting that definition from? I have been a web dev for a decade and I also understand a "portal" to be a broadly applicable term meaning basically any webapp that grants access to some data. Did it once have some narrower meaning, in times long past before I was a dev?
- icepat 4y ago
  I've always taken it to be a portion of a website that takes you onward to different areas of the website. Like, at least in Wikipedia, a portal is generally a list of links to areas related to a topic. In sales software, a sales portal generally leads you to areas in the website like sales flows, or something else.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Around Y2K, a portal was a web-page that linked to assorted on- and off-site resources; the Yahoo! front page was a portal. It was a kind of aggregator, and commonly the off-site content would display within the portal site (don't let them navigate away from our site!)
cuteboy19 4y ago
In India we refer to most government websites as portals, even the very recent ones. I have no idea why because "website" is used for private websites regularly
DonHopkins 4y ago
The term "Portal" was hijacked by the video game in 2007! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_(video_game)

helloooooooo 4y ago

[flagged]

kfrzcode 4y ago

Related: Vale is a plain-language or "prose" linter. Built a version of this for use with the US DVA https://vale.sh/ https://vale.sh/

aatd86 4y ago
So besides being a programming language you mean? https://vale.dev/ https://vale.dev/ Just kidding... A bit off topic perhaps.
- kfrzcode 4y ago
  Oh, cool collision! Looks like I have a weekend project to toy with, never seen Vale before. Thanks!

Waterluvian 4y ago

There’s a tinge of irony that the first few paragraphs talk about avoiding the audience needing to be “in-the-know” and then expects you to be when referring to House language or the old website. I’m not really the audience… at least I don’t remember becoming a British civil servant, but I’d still love to know some examples. Separately: “ We often wonder whether we're expecting colleagues to open the single front door or step through the portal and find themselves in the one-stop shop. In nine out of 10 cases, what people really want is some new pages on our intranet.” I would bet that in nine out of ten cases the people don’t know what they really want up front. When I get similar requests, and ask for concrete details for expectations, quite often they simply can’t provide them. It’s a feeling they have.

jraph 4y ago

English is a second language for me. It feels like this list is there to avoid newspeak / bullshit / being unnecessarily abstract. It seems like rephrasing with the replacement of many of these terms can make you think again and check that you aren't bullshitting a bit. "progress" => "Are we indeed actually working on this?" I'll certainly consult this list in the future to check my writing for simplicity.

Aardwolf 4y ago
The list also looks useful to "translate" existing corpspeak. But on the other hand, it can be misused as well by reversing the left and right sides...
PreInternet01 4y ago
You might also enjoy "Misused English words and expressions in EU publications": https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION.pdf https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOG...
- Vinnl 4y ago
  Thank you! I saw that years ago and have wanted to reference it on several occasions, but never was able to find it again.
- jraph 4y ago
  I love this. In particular because I was once very close to someone working in some UE-related organization in Brussels. They routinely complained about the EU having its own English, mentioning the use of "persons" where "people" would be more correct. This use is not mentioned in this publication, maybe "persons" is actually fine-ish. I can see how many of these mistakes could come from the French language. Ah ah. Whoops. Sorry! :-) For instance, "foresee" used to mean "plan" where it really means "predict". I never made the mistake because I never made the connection myself, but in French "prévoir" indeed means both things. I wonder how much French being used in Brussels has influenced this. But I guess many European languages are similar to French for many of these things. Maybe some of these misuses are a testimony of the complexity of English, like the uncountable words, the prepositions or the usage rules of "allow". Maybe English could adopt some of these uses that seem convenient. Like, "transpose" instead of "incorporate into". And yes, I cringe a bit whenever I see "actually" used to mean "currently". It happens all the time. I guess English has its peculiarities in each area where it is spoken, and Europe is not an exception to this… And I mean, a big chunk of the English vocabulary is already French, we might as well continue the trend x)

psychphysic 4y ago

There's also the issue of words that sound offensive. Case in point, niggard [0] has cost people their jobs. Wikipedia maintains a list of controversies[1]. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggard https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niggard [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word...

psychphysic 4y ago
Or this Chinese example https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-suspended-saying-chinese-word-sounds-english-slur https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...

pydry 4y ago

Most of the "amusing" examples in the linked seem to me to be pretty legitimate attempts at being precise. Yeah, the definition of hot food seems nitpicky but it kind of has to be nitpicky for their purposes of enforcing the rules (dumb rules maybe, but they didn't pick the rules). The advice against using the phrase "combat problems" or even "key stakeholders" instead of just "stakeholders" seems somewhat pointless to me. I don't think these are changes that will significantly improve reader comprehension. Maybe avoiding the use of the word "stakeholder" at all will but they dont seem to want to go that far.

ohbtvz 4y ago
Using fewer words introduces less cognitive load and drives your point better. For example, you wrote "The advice [...] seems somewhat pointless to me." Well, are you saying that it is pointless, or not? I don't know you, so I don't know what your scale of pointlessness is. I don't know what "somewhat pointless" corresponds to. Is it a tiny bit pointless, is it a medium amount of pointlessness, something else? I don't know, but I have to think about it because you wrote a meaningless word in your sentence. And even once I have understood the sentence, I am left thinking: "well, if it's only somewhat pointless, maybe it's not pointless after all!" The same thing happens with "key stakeholders": now I have to think about a hierarchy of stakeholders. What scale is being used? Who's key, who's non-key? Does the sentence apply to all stakeholders, only some of them? Multiply this by a hundred occurrences in a long document, and you obtain something that will be more difficult to read. But government documents have to be readable by everyone: people whose native tongue is not English, uneducated people who have trouble reading simple texts, etc. And for what? Sugarcoating your text so that it's less assertive? Showing literary prowess?
- pydry 4y ago
  >For example, you wrote "The advice [...] seems somewhat pointless to me." Well, are you saying that it is pointless, or not? I am stating something controversial and leaving open the possibility that I might be wrong or partially wrong. What you are inadvertently arguing here is that humility is unnecessary.

quickthrower2 4y ago

I like it. It can be hard to a avoid idioms like tackle as they are used alot. Avoiding acronyms, jargon etc. is a great start for everyone. Especially in IT!

kybernetyk 4y ago
>Avoiding acronyms, jargon etc. is a great start for everyone. Especially in IT! There's a reason why we have jargon and acronyms. They condense a lot of information into few words.
srfvtgb 4y ago
> Especially in IT Especially in what?
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  As they say in fencing: touche! In IT (a term most of HN (a term most of Hacker News understands) understands), it is probably OK to agree the really common jargon that everyone probably knows. HTTP, WWW, etc. But be cognizant that eBPF for example isn't something you can assume everyone knows what it is. Use it, but then expand or include a link to where it is defined.

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago

> ...without having to wade through jargon, metaphors and corporate bluster. hmmm

xdfgh1112 4y ago
This article is intended for government employees, the style guide applies to the UK population as a whole.

c22 4y ago

The Plain English Campaign's list of examples [0] (linked in TFA) was quite amusing. My favorite: 'the hours of non-hours work worked by a worker in a pay reference period shall be the total of the number of hours spent by him during the pay reference period in carrying out the duties required of him under his contract to do non-hours work.' [0]: http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/examples http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/campaigning/examples

marginalia_nu 4y ago
I briefly worked in the Swedish public sector that had at that point been pushing for plain language for a while. The problem they encountered is that the government still needs to be able to specify what they mean with precision. So what happened is that common words became overloaded with specific and often non-obvious legal meanings. People at large with no clue how to "speak government" still didn't understand what the government said, but instead of a bunch of known unknowns it turned the language into a minefield of unknown unknowns. (This got at least some attention notice during the covid pandemic, during which there was clear miscommunication between the government which used 'recommendations' to mean a strong non-legal mandate, and parts of the public which took it to mean helpful tips, like a movie recommendation)
- ohbtvz 4y ago
  Well, what's the difference between a "strong non-legal mandate" and a "helpful tip"? Either it's mandatory or not.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    Both are non-mandatory, but the first carries the connotation that this is something the government thinks you should be doing, but the latter is more like a suggestion of something cool you may want to do, like visit the Vasa museum next time you're in Stockholm. Yes, they are both voluntary, but the nuance is quite different. That ambiguity in nuance is a problem, given that "recommendation" is the strongest wording for a non-legal mandate the Swedish government will use.

joosters 4y ago

..."We haven't opened a 'one-stop shop' as we're not a supermarket. We've probably launched a website." Have you really launched a website, or just started one? Since the same article rejects the use of 'drive' and 'land', I'd say that 'launch' is fairly comparable.

user3939382 4y ago

Forgive the typical HN metacomment: I click the link and I get a full screen pop up with the sentence in my face “cookies enable core functionality” I’m trying to read some text man. All this tech and we can’t send a frickin link that opens to some text. Cmon.

dijit 4y ago
People like to blame GDPR or the ePrivacy directive but GDPR explicitly states that cookies set for an essential purpose of the site are exempt from consent: > Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies. it further explains: > [Strictly necessary cookies] are essential for you to browse the website and use its features, such as accessing secure areas of the site. Cookies that allow web shops to hold your items in your cart while you are shopping online are an example of strictly necessary cookies. These cookies will generally be first-party session cookies. While it is not required to obtain consent for these cookies, what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user. Makes me wonder why we have all these cookie consent dialogs, either it's people playing it safe or they really do not set cookies for a true purpose. if the latter: then all that's happened with GDPR is that we've been given visibility to the problem.. and it feels like everyone (including governments apparently) will adopt some measure of dark patterns to ensure they can still track people.
- Aardwolf 4y ago
  > what they do and why they are necessary should be explained to the user. Which would require showing this info somewhere even for essential cookies. Is a popup required for this?
  - dijit 4y ago
    No, a popup is not required, it can be part of the privacy policy. https://termly.io/faq/do-i-need-a-cookie-policy-on-my-website/ https://termly.io/faq/do-i-need-a-cookie-policy-on-my-websit...
    - 4y ago

gonzo41 4y ago

I know bureaucrats, this guide will not be read, it will be actively ignored. Programmers like to flex with one liners, and crazy Rube Goldberg style design patterns. Bureaucrats versions of this is documents and wordplay.

agolio 4y ago

I'm always proud of the UK government web services. A lot of work is done to make high quality accessible tools to explain: the law, regulations, health (nhs website), travel guidelines, tax services, etc. Related to this post, the EU guidelines for inclusive language was a nice read for me. https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-europeenne https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-eu... (The tables on page 10, 14, 17, etc, being for me the main point of interest)

rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
Sad to see it hosted on one of the most far-right, fake-news spreading French website https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdesouche https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdesouche (today's headline is a terrorist attack that killed 3 persons in Paris this morning… perpetrated by a far-right extremist). The same PDF can be found here: https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-europeenne https://www.scribd.com/document/543481333/Woke-commission-eu...
- agolio 4y ago
  Many thanks for this information, I found the original URL via Google and was unaware of the parent site's reputation. I am updating my link to the one you suggest.
ohbtvz 4y ago
Please don't link to that website. Would you link to stormfront to make any kind of point here?
- agolio 4y ago
  Sorry was unaware of the parent site, have updated my link.

Tade0 4y ago

> Avoid jargon I can get behind that. Some words, like "hub" are, to me, so overused that they've lost all meaning. Also there's a group of people who use jargon without understanding what they're saying, which would have been harmless if not for the positions they often have.

usgroup 4y ago

"Every single week we receive requests to create a 'one-stop shop', a 'hub', a 'single front door' or a 'portal'. We often wonder whether we're expecting colleagues to open the single front door or step through the portal and find themselves in the one-stop shop. In nine out of 10 cases, what people really want is some new pages on our intranet."

O__________O 4y ago

UK Government’s Plain English website: - http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/ And related free guides page: - http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/free-guides.html ——————— Wikipedia also has a “simple” version here: - https://simple.wikipedia.org/ https://simple.wikipedia.org/

daveoc64 4y ago
> UK Government’s Plain English website: That website has nothing to do with the government.

mschuster91 4y ago

To u/helloooooooo whose comment has been flagged: > Why should the government water down documents and treat people like morons? It’s insulting. Governments have the sometimes formal (e.g. ADA), sometimes informal requirement that its public-facing communication should be accessible to all citizens. Historically, that has been mostly seen in websites that were accessible to people with various disabilities, e.g. proper alt tags on images, subtitles in video / audio, ensuring legibility with high contrast and avoiding various forms of colors that have common color blindnesses associated, but given that over half of the US is barely able to comprehend a 6th grade text [1] and in the UK anything from 12 to almost 27% (depending on the state) has "very poor literacy skills", it makes sense to use simplified language. Additionally, given that low literacy rates are usually closely related to socio-economic disadvantages and/or migration history, it is very important for those people to have information about basic government aid programs available in an even clearer, more simplified subset of English (and, if possible, also in the dominant languages of immigrants). [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-literacy-levels-among-us-adults-could-be-costing-the-economy-22-trillion-a-year/?sh=db073854c904 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/09/09/low-... [2] https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/ https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-lite...

enkid 4y ago
You also have the problem that metaphors and euphemisms are less pre use than plain language, leading to misunderstandings.
pifm_guy 4y ago
Unfortunately, I think most governments around the world, despite efforts to make government websites easy to use for everyone, still fall short for a good chunk of the population. I suspect there might be a better approach... Eg. A 15 minute phone call or meeting once a year with a 'government expert', whos role is to ask about your life, and then enroll you in any government programs which you would benefit from. For those who would benefit from government assistance and aren't making use of it, meetings could be longer or done with a subject area expert. For example, in the UK, under 50% of people eligible for free monetary benefits from the government claim them.

sjducb 4y ago

I think this ignores the reason jargon exists. -- To demonstrate that the speaker is part of the "in" crowd. If you stop using jargon then people assume you don't know what you're talking about. This affect is real. Your precieved credibility goes way down when you stop speaking in jargon. It's the reason that the speaker used all of the tech jargon (launching a website). If they didn't do that then we would think they didn't know about websites.

ohbtvz 4y ago
This is not the reason jargon exists. What made you say that? > It's the reason that the speaker used all of the tech jargon (launching a website). If they didn't do that then we would think they didn't know about websites. To "launch" something is jargon?
- krona 4y ago
  > This is not the reason jargon exists. What made you say that? Steven Pinker in The Language Instinct.
  - ohbtvz 4y ago
    I don't have the book at hand. Do you have a more precise quote?
- sjducb 4y ago
  What is the real reason that jargon exists? Ostensibly it's to increase precision and allow experts to communicate quickly with each other. However that explaination can't explain phrases like "Ring-fence", "Let's take this offline", "360 degree feedback". All of those phrases have better simple English translations.
  - ohbtvz 4y ago
    Your examples are not jargon, they're metaphors. Jargon exists because specialists in a subject want to communicate quickly among themselves, instead of paraphrasing all the time. I'm a mathematician, if I had to use plain-English words instead of jargon in my papers, I would go insane. But my papers aren't meant for the general public (although they're welcome to read them), they're meant for a specialist audience. This is not the case of government websites.

lbriner 4y ago

People laugh at jargon but my take is that most people learn things without any critical evaluation. If you do your internship at a big corporate, all you will hear is "kicking the wheels", "criteria-based project team" or "key stakeholders". I think people just assimilate it, don't question why and then re-iterate it. As others have said, it is also an example of "weasel words". Words that are designed to make what you are saying sound more impressive.

billfruit 4y ago

The style guide linked in the document seems to refer to the "6 types of British Nationalities", but fails to list them out. Of the 6, the most quirky seems the "British Subject": "You became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if, until then, you were either: a British subject without citizenship, which means you were a British subject on 31 December 1948 who did not become a citizen of the UK and Colonies, a Commonwealth country, Pakistan or Ireland a person who had been a citizen of Ireland on 31 December 1948 and had made a claim to remain a British subject. You also became a British subject on 1 January 1983 if you were a woman who registered as a British subject on the basis of your marriage to a man in one of these categories. "

Tomte 4y ago

Sir Humphrey disapproves. What has become of the Civil Service?

MonkeyClub 4y ago

All hail the newspeak, protecting us from wrongthink. Seriously, avoid the exact domain-specific terms (“jargon”), don’t use “rich” figurative language (“tackle” is out)? The recommendation is really going for the lowest common linguistic denominator, like it’s inspired from Simple English Wikipedia. Weren’t we all supposed to elevate each other? Now it seems we aim for a common soft mushy muddy bottom. (“Elevate”, “aim”... off with me head!)

Metacelsus 4y ago
For a government website it's important that all the citizens can understand it, so it makes sense to use simpler vocabulary. Remember that ~50% of the population has IQ less than 100.
- MonkeyClub 4y ago
  It’s also the government’s job to educate its citizens (or in this case subjects). Has the UK government thrown in the towel wrt education, and now just goes for bare minimum? What’s next, stopping the teaching of grammar in schools? :)
  - detaro 4y ago
    You really don't understand the difference between "throwing in the towel wrt education" and "acknowledging that not everyone meets those standards" (for a variety of reasons)?
- m0rissette 4y ago
  I just woke up so don’t feel like fact checking this. Is the population really that mentally challenged? Can you provide a reference to your statistic? Changed “general population” to “population” See, it already had an effect on my writing.
  - stkdump 4y ago
    It's in the definition of the IQ (assuming a bell curve distribution)

m0rissette 4y ago

I enjoy the comments obviously using jargon without knowing it like “drop me a email”

incone123 4y ago

I liked this: "We don't 'drive' anything forward unless we're in a car, and we haven't opened a 'one-stop shop' as we're not a supermarket. We've probably launched a website." But there is a place for esoteric terms. I just try to write with my audience in mind. Sometimes that's with technical terms other times with everyday metaphors.

mrweasel 4y ago

Well, to avoid in general. One thing I've notice in switching between working for companies and organizations from various regions is how management speak. For instance: Danish company: "We're doing great, here's how much we made last quarter". Or: "You fucked up, don't do that." Norwegian company: "We be looking to aligning our pricing strategy using market benchmarks." "We'll be needing to conduct a behavioral correction session in the near future to ensure that you better understand your role in our organizational structure". US company: .... I can't... you get a three page email with long words, no obvious structure to the text, only to make a single point. You're not really sure what that point was, even if you spend 45 minutes trying to parse the content. Generally speaking, use fewer words, try not to communicate just because you think you must.

acaloiar 4y ago

US based companies would be well served by applying this list to their communication as well. These are real life words from a real life human, recently observed: "The value drivers reducing company spend" Spend is a verb and value is not street-legal here in the states.

mft_ 4y ago
Similarly, "learnings". Better known as "lessons", or "things we've learned".
- acaloiar 4y ago
  Don't forget to share out your learnings :)

lambic 4y ago

I hate seeing 'utilise' where 'use' would be perfectly fine.

denton-scratch 4y ago
Whenever I see "utilize" on wikipedia, I fix it. "Utilize" is a word, but I don't think it means the same as "use". I think it means "to take something that is useless, and make it useful", or "to turn something into a tool". So you could utilize a written-off car as a source of parts, perhaps. If you utilize "utilize" to mean "use", you're indulging in grand language to look more authoritative. And nobody utilizes "utilize" in spoken English.
- ask_b123 4y ago
  Wait, that definition is too constraining. And imho Wikipedia articles don't need that "fix", unless the articles are in the Simple English Wikipedia: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page But a disclaimer: in my native language "utilize" is relatively common.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

superjan 4y ago

This is an area where machine learning could make a positive impact to society. Have something like GPT rewrite/review all public facing text. Preferably a required rewrite, which is published unless it is factually incorrect.

kimburgess 4y ago

The Australian Government has quite a good, related guide: https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/writing-and-designing-content/clear-language-and-writing-style/plain-language-and-word-choice https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/writing-and-designing-content...

nickdothutton 4y ago

I am compelled to plug "Politics and the English Language" (1946) by George Orwell. It's a short essay. You can find PDF copies for free via your favourite search engine.

marcusverus 4y ago
Yes! In our post-truth era, this essay is an absolute must-read.

sopooneo 4y ago

This is well written, but frustrated me because the "guide", which is referenced early in the article, is only linked at the end. And even then, they link to a larger page, with instructions on how to search for the actual list of words. Here a direct link: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-style#words-to-avoid https://www.gov.uk/guidance/style-guide/a-to-z-of-gov-uk-sty...

scyzoryk_xyz 4y ago

What is fascinating to me is that it isn’t just about jargon - this is also about the complex spatial metaphors that english native speakers use to sound „better”. Reminds me of „Metaphors we Live By” https://george-lakoff.com/books/metaphors-we-live-by/ https://george-lakoff.com/books/metaphors-we-live-by/

black_puppydog 4y ago

This is pretty much the polar opposite ofhow VCffunded companies communicate. And given that this guide is about making things crystal clear for any reader, I'd say that's not coincidental. For most VC backed companies, stating their mission, approach, and progress in plain English would mean an immediate end to their funding...

linhns 4y ago

> We don't 'tackle' anything unless we're playing rugby What about football (soccer)?

lebski88 4y ago
Not in the civil service old bean!

lifeisstillgood 4y ago

These words are not for providing direction to people after the decisions have been taken - they are used by people in the process of discussing problems and finding consensus across different (stakeholders?!) - when words that have ambiguity are useful in avoiding unnecessary conflict and saving the conflict for later when the lines are drawn

teawrecks 4y ago

> Avoid using metaphors - they do not say what you actually mean and lead to slower comprehension of your content. Then what is the point of a metaphor?

TechBro8615 4y ago
...addendum, words to avoid: Point, unless talking about a sharp object ;)
Veen 4y ago
There are many reasons to use metaphors [0], but not if you're aiming for maximal comprehension by people who may not have advanced reading comprehension or English language skills. This advice is intended for writing in a very specific context. [0]: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200710-the-words-that-stretch-how-we-think https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200710-the-words-that-... (Plus, you used a metaphor in your question: "point")

teawrecks 4y ago

Do not use "excellent", use very good. Do not use "amazing", use very good. Do not use "extraordinary", use very good. Do not use "incredible", use very good. Do not use "terrific", use very good. Do not use "abominable", use very bad. Do not use "awful", use very bad. Do not use "horrible", use very bad. Do not use "terrible", use very bad.

lowbloodsugar 4y ago

>We don't 'drive' anything forward unless we're in a car, and we haven't opened a 'one-stop shop' as we're not a supermarket. But the very next sentence: >We've probably launched a website Surely we don’t launch anything unless it’s a boat or a rocket? I mostly agree with the author, but they nicely demonstrated how hard it is to avoid jargon.

cloudedcordial 4y ago

New Zealand government hopes to establish a plain language law when communicating with the public: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/new-zealand-hopes-to-banish-jargon-with-plain-language-law https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/new-zealand-ho... Even if there's such a law, people will find a way around it.

combatentropy 4y ago

> This last example is a particularly hot topic for us on the intranet team. Every single week we receive requests to create a 'one-stop shop', a 'hub', a 'single front door' or a 'portal'. I too was on an intranet team, and I too often received requests for a "portal". It took me a long time to grasp why they were so fond of that word. Was a "portal" subtly different from a "page" or "site"? After many years, I concluded that a "portal" is a page with a bunch of links on it --- a hypertextual table of contents, if you will, for the requester's department or project. I did not work in government, just for a large company. This article is useful because highfalutin language is commonplace in any bureaucracy.

known 4y ago

[dead]