Re: Dumbing Down (Was: Using Contractions in Software Manuals)

[Shelley <shelley -at- RAEX -dot- COM>]

Scott wrote (in reply to Shelley):

Shelley wrote:

> I have a rather difficult time with contractions for publication. To me,
it
> is dumbing down - bringing language to the lowest common denominator.
<snip>
> By lowering our standards to include contractions in manuals and the like,
> we are not only permitting but promoting the "dumbing of America".

Ummm, I thought that was part of our job: writing to the lowest common
denominator OF THE AUDIENCE.

Isn't that part of knowing your audience and writing to them?

I can write a manual about C++ programming libraries and speak on a much
higher technical level to that audience (programmers) than I could if I
were writing a manual about how to play Windows Solitaire. Sure, some
programmers would be playing solitaire, but also some people who don't do
much of anything else with their computers. I would have to evaluate the
average users in that audience and write to the lowest common denominator,
or "dumb it down".

I'm not speaking for or against contractions, I'm just saying that
bringing language down to a level our audience can understand is what we
are supposed to be doing.>>

Yes, it is a part of knowing your audience and writing to them. But does
that mean we should write *down* to them?

The content can be scaled back, the phrasing can be simpler, etc. for those
who are not quite as "knowledgeable". But, in my opinion, the *language*
itself shouldn't be brought down just because "they will understand it
better".

By not making people reach *up*, and talking to them at or below a level
they are 10000% with (such as using contractions like can't instead of
cannot), you are participating in that.

The content isn't changed, nor is the meaning of what you are saying. It is
just *how* you are saying it, which makes a difference.

Shelley


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=