Re: LONG - A colloquial writing style?
"Cute" may alienate the hard-core techies, and formal may
scare off the greener users. Fortunately, there's lots of
ground between Charles Dickens and Hello Kitty.
Good perspective.
We're all familiar with the tyranny of corporate-speak -- or maybe institutional-speak is a better term. Many times, when an institution needs a carefully crafted, informative, and persuasive message, the energy and talent to make one are not at hand, and it falls back on the circuitous, cookie-cutter language we know so well. It's understandable. Good writing is rare, sometimes expensive and, in any case, probably not on staff.
The same cost-benefit-availability calculations inform the editorial style of tech docs and, by spill-over, user docs. Kinda depends on the institution: some will spend on audience-specific voice; many can't justify the cost. In these cases, they retreat to engineering-speak -- perhaps softened, yes, but language that nevertheless asks the audiences, taken together, to meet it more than half way.
Lori Olcott makes the point, I think, that where economies dictate a less than full range of communication products, erring on the side of plain speaking covers more of the waterfront.
Some consider that institutional-speak is an efficient least common denominator, but as consumers we know that's a convenient rationalization.
The same is true, I think, of our more technical communications. Where there's money and impetus to speak directly to our various audiences, no problem. Where there's not, we skew toward tech-speak -- which itself isn't monolithically understandable, and in certain ways is an exercise in ego and tech macho. In the end and only by degrees, convention and vocational safety tend to trump the wisest use of scarce resources. And one moment after that, writing doesn't quite mean "writing" any more, as I understand the term.
There isn't a natural bifurcation of "creative" or inspired writing and industrial writing, rather there's an economic one. It would be best if writers -- however they're paying the bills right now -- stick together.
LQ
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
New from Quadralay Corporation: WebWorks ePublisher Pro!
Completely XML-based online publishing. Easily create 14 online formats, including 6 Help systems, in a streamlined project-based workflow. Word version ships in June, FrameMaker version ships in July. Sign up for a live, online demo! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
Follow-Ups:
- Re: LONG - A colloquial writing style?, Lou Quillio
References:
Re: LONG - A colloquial writing style?: From: Lori Olcott
Previous by Author:
Re: Flickr Re: Tech Whirler Dinner -- Thanks, Mom!
Next by Author:
Re: LONG - A colloquial writing style?
Previous by Thread:
Re: LONG - A colloquial writing style?
Next by Thread:
Re: LONG - A colloquial writing style?
Search our Technical Writing Archives & Magazine
Visit TechWhirl's Other Sites
Sponsored Ads