Checklist for Plain Language | Hacker News Reader

Checklist for Plain Language

plainlanguage.gov

89 pointsgits122519 comments

The reason that government writing (and institutional writing in general) is often so bad isn’t because the people writing it don’t know how to write plainly, but because they don’t want to.

When you’re reading something from an institution that seems unnecessarily obscure or indirect or passive, there is usually a reason, and that reason is usually that if they had stated the plain truth, it would make them look bad.

There was a great geeky essay about the language of the video game portal that went into this:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/114904/Analysis_Portal_a...

And of course the classic Orwell essay:

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit...

Ah economical with the actualité about pensions becoming Nugatory

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made

Non-mobile link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made

The height of government writing would be Rachel Carson. She's best known for Silent Spring but her Sea books are just as good. Much of her writing was published by the GPO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Carson#List_of_works

But as for writing advice, the CIA isn't so bad.

Thinking and Writing: Cognitive Science and Intelligence Analysis

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intellig...

Also, the earlier Bestiary of Intelligence Writing.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000619161....

See also the Accessible Information standard from the English NHS.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/accessibleinfo/

(I have a few problems with the NHS England accessible info stuff, most of which are around how inaccessible it all is.)

Also UK Government Digital Service guidance on writing:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-u...

Don't try to replace a good dictionary. In other words, don't fill your writing with definitions.

Most words have multiple definitions, hence legal definitions.

I'm not telling definition should totally be avoided but when you write (technical documentation for instance), you often want to define some specific words. It uselessly extends the document and might confuse your reader.

Legalese tend to define things even if that seems absurdly excessive and obvious. IANAL but I've read recently that it's like that because of contra proferentem principle[1]. It's basically a defense against a chance someone may invent some interpretation (different from what's intended) that would look plausible enough.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem

yes there is one big case in the uk concerning pensions the outcome depended on what seemed to a layperson trivial wording differences in the scheme of arrangement

Interesting. Can you please share a link to this story, if you have one?

Its in connection with BT Section B and later DB pesnions

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/09/25/bt-goes-to-cou...

This switch to CPI was bared a few years before for British coal - the two schemes of arrangement differ in a very minor way - that a lay person would say where identical

A lovely case on this matter was over the leaseholder for the World Trade Center in New York against his insurance company: when two planes hit two buildings was it one event or two? The insurance policy rider specified a per event payout.

http://www.economist.com/node/1139548

If anyone is interested, here's Strunk, William, Jr. 1918, The Elements of Style:

http://www.bartleby.com/141/

However, remember not to take a 99-year-old book literally as a style guide.

Strunk & White contains some timeless advice. Most (but not all) of the habits it identifies as bad writing are still considered bad. But for positive examples of how to write well, you can't follow the example of a book from 1918. Its language is inherently dated and it predates linguistics as a science. You need a newer style guide.

Defines any word as the speaker intends, not as the word is normally defined. ;)

Also, doesn't omit anything in the name of "simplicity" or "plain-liness".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com