gov.uk is a fine continuation of that tradition.
Most common past 'companies' for GDS employees on LinkedIn are Department for Work and Pensions, Cabinet Office, Ministry of Justice & Home Office[1]. All the people I know of there used to work at the BBC.
The "plain English campaign" often boils down to dumbing down copy and removing all words that a 12 year old might not know.
There are many terms, especially legal terms, which have a precise meaning and which are used for a reason.
Teach vocabulary and good English in schools!
When it's a statute or legal judgement I'm happy to see the necessary precision in terminology. When it's a passport application, or an electric bill I'll take the simplest terminology viable. So I can spent the least time skimming it and still get the right information. Much like writing for the web. :)
I don't regret the death of overly flowery Victorian formal business writing. Notwithstanding your views heretofore. :)
Don't forget, unlike other websites and apps, people do not use Gov.uk of their free will. They are forced to use it, in the sense that it is the official source of information and services from the government.
Just like with math, I get the impression that sometimes the level of jargon/legalese used is an attempt to differentiate oneself from the everyday person. The same information could theoretically be put forward in a way which is understandable to all, not just those with a degree.
From experience, the information provided on gov.uk can be incorrect because it is simplified too much. Very important aspects are lost and it becomes misleading.
As the saying goes, simplify as much as possible, but not more.
Where there is essential complexity, explain the complexity clearly and skillfully.
The book Style: Towards Clarity and Grace is a good instruction manual, especially for those who have read Strunk & White
> prescriptivist
Isn't all advice on how to accomplish a goal going to be prescriptivist?