By tech-speak, I mean the weirdly impenetrable terminology used by technical writers. It’s not a true clinical condition like dysgraphia, but it is nearly as dysfunctional. Technical writers know their machines inside out. They know what they’re talking about. They intend to explain clearly, but they usually don’t. They fail at translation. They fail at turning tech-speak into easily understood common language. They aren’t aware of their failure.
It’s a very old problem.
Users have been baffled by tech-speak instructions from the beginning of the industrial revolution right through to the latest digital “help” app. Confounded users wonder, “Why can’t these guys explain this stuff in plain English”?
There are several reasons why they can’t.
1. They assume you know what you don’t know. They are used to talking to each other. They’re not conscious of the the insularity of their acronyms, and jargon. Doesn’t everybody already know about widgets and thingamajigs? There’s no point in explaining those.
2. They know certain things must be done in a certain order. A, to B, to C, and so on. These steps are sometimes usefully numbered. Less usefully, step 5-a is sometimes missing. That’s because step 5-a was considered too obvious to mention. Insularity fogs clarity.
3. Technicians write in the stilted peculiarity of bureaucrats and public officials. They can’t quite write, ”first you do this, then you do that”. Instead, they write, “Section XZ-12 must be aligned perpendicular to part T-14 prior to final assembly. (see diagram 13 on page 7. This will apply only to models 1420 and 1420-a)”.
4. Technology is about mechanics. Writing is about communication. It’s possible for one person to be skilled in both. It’s not likely. Explanation is best done by people who are good at explaining. Technicians should talk to writers ignorant of the technology. These now informed writers should translate the technicians tech-speak into simple clear language that anyone can understand.
Is that a radical idea?
Why is something so obvious not done?
There are three main reasons.
The first is canonical notions about technical writing instilled in college. Future tech writers are taught their most important job is to write precisely. Writing to be understood by average readers is less emphasized. Get the details right. The end-user will eventually figure out what you said. That’s their job, not yours.
That’s not quite fair to the many teachers, students, and writers who really do try to communicate. I have exaggerated only to emphasize the point.
The second reason is that people who have invested their time in special knowledge like to keep it closely held. Think of voodoo priests, lawyers, and pharmacists. They’re happy enough to dole out a little information here-and-there. They’re less likely to explain what, why, and when, in plain English. If you really understood what they’ve been mixing-up, you might be able
to do it yourself.
Where would that leave them? No more special than thou.
The third reason is hide-bound ideas about corporate budget allocations.
Dollars for tech writing are traditionally allocated to production or sales departments. The dollars allocated are never many. Dollars allocated to marketing departments are many. Moreover, the main job of marketing is to make company & product as attractive and accessible as possible. They’re very good at talking to people, rather than at people. They’re trained to the everyday language of customers.
The efficient use of plain words to clear purpose is their area of expertise.
Why not assign all Tech-to-User writing to the marketing department?
I thought this was a good idea.
I thought I could generate some new business for myself by promoting such a good idea. I talked to several nearby companies. I did not persuade any of them. “No, no, we’ve never done that”. “It’d be too much trouble to change now”. “It’s not my department, you’d should talk to Brad over in Sales”. “Our marketing guys already have more than they can handle. . . “ And so on, and on.
I soon realized I was trying to convince people who would gain nothing by improving technical communications. They were all at various levels of mid-management. Whether the company they worked for did better, or not, wasn’t as important as keeping their heads down and staying out of trouble.
I should have been talking to CEO’s, or owners.
Stakeholders would have been quick to understand how conversational writing would give them marketing advantage – “Our technical manuals are easy to read”. That single positioning point would attract enormous numbers of buyers frustrated by long years of inscrutable technical gobbledygook.
I should have been talking to the big guys.
Instead, I got tired, and gave up.
It wasn’t a complete waste of time. I did pick up a project designing a sales brochure for one of the companies I talked to.
Maybe someday, somebody . . .
Maybe not.
Codicil: I know one person who is crackerjack at explaining tech-speak – my friend, Christina. She has spent many years teaching the mysteries of the cyberworld. Now she concentrates on digital prepress work. Occasionally she will graciously interpret some clumsy bit of tech-speak for me. Her interpretations are uniformly simple, clear, and direct.
It can be done..