Readability/Usability/Quality 3-00 (September 2000) by Ron Blicq

for English-Language International Technical Documentation

 

Abstract

At Forum 2000 I was the activator for an Idea Market session in which I asked conference delegates whether they felt INTECOM should establish standards for English-language international technical documentation. I have combined the delegates’ responses with those from technical communicators attending other conferences and meetings around the world. The results show that

• over three-quarters of technical communicators recommend that INTECOM does so,
• most would prefer that INTECOM establishes guidelines or recommendations, rather than sets standards, and
• there is considerable uncertainty among technical communicators whether INTECOM should recommend adopting British or American spelling and word choice practices.

 

Background

For many years technical communicators whose native language is not English have had difficulty deciding whether they should use British or American standards when spelling words such as analyse/analyze, centre/center and colour/color. As Anneli Haini wrote from Finland, when she heard about INTECOM’s proposed study:

I have been struggling at my office to get someone to understand the importance of a decision to use either British or American spelling, and sticking to that decision.

The response I hear most often is simply: "If the product or software is being sold in America, then use an American dictionary; if it’s being sold in the UK, use a British dictionary."

That’s valid if the product is being sold only in one of those two countries. But if it will be sold worldwide, what dictionary should technical communicators in countries such as Finland, Sweden, France, Spain and Italy choose? (The problem also applies in predominantly English-language countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where culturally they are influenced by British standards but - especially in Canada - are affected by their proximity to or working relationship with the United States.) The delegates attending INTECOM’s 1998 annual general meeting discussed whether INTECOM should establish a "language research project," which would be carried out in two stages:

1. Stage 1 would involve conducting initial research to determine whether there is a need to set standards.
2. If the initial research showed there is a need, then Stage 2 would involve conducting a follow-on study to identify which spelling and word choices INTECOM should recommend to its member societies.

 

Research Approach

The research started in September 1999. To obtain as broad a response as possible, I planned a three-prong approach, which involved

1. publishing a short article and questionnaire in TC-Forum,
2. presenting short information sessions to conferences and meetings of technical communication societies in Norway, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, USA, and Canada, each time eliciting members’ views, and
3. presenting an Idea Market session at the Forum 2000 conference in London, and eliciting responses from delegates.

At each meeting I discussed the difficulties technical communicators were facing, and presented those present with a short questionnaire containing three main questions:

1. Should INTECOM be researching spelling and word choice, and then establishing standards?
2. If so, should the standards be based on British or American practices?
3. Which way should the following words be spelled:
   • Grey or gray?
   • Sulphur or sulfur?
   • Spelled or spelt?
   • Caulk or calk?
   • Recognise or recognize?

 

The Responses

I received 198 completed questionnaires from technical communicators working in six different countries or areas:

• Europe
• USA
• Canada
• New Zealand
• Australia
• UK

Question 1:
Should INTECOM conduct a study and make recommendations to establish standards for English-language international technical documentation?

Overall, 79% of technical communicators said "Yes." However, many commented that, although they would welcome INTECOM establishing guidelines and making recommendations, they would be unhappy if INTECOM were to try to set standards.

The response from Europeans for whom English is not their native language was even more positive: 91% said "Yes."

I also decided to identify the responses from technical communicators in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, who, although their natural language is English, also have to decide which dictionary and practices to follow. In this report I will refer to them as the "Commonwealth" group; 87% of them also said "Yes."

Question 2:
Should such guidelines be based on British practices or American practices?

The responses to this question are much more scattered. Although US technical communicators, who made up almost 25% of the total respondents, stated they predominantly preferred American practices, the combined response from all delegates still showed that 34% preferred the British dictionary and 26% the American dictionary. However, a significant 40% still said they were undecided, thus underscoring technical communicators’ worldwide difficulty in dealing with this question.

Within the "Commonwealth" group the results were surprisingly diverse. New Zealand technical communicators, particularly, favoured British spelling practices (74%), while Australian technical communicators were less sure (50% for British, 10% for American, and 40% undecided). The Canadians had a division of opinion within their own community, with 38% of practicing technical communicators - but only 10% of technical communication teachers - preferring British spelling; yet 82% of the teachers stated they were undecided rather than say they preferred American spelling practices.

Because there were only 5 responses from the UK, plus 1 from Eire, their responses formed too small a group to be considered representative of the views of technical communicators in that area. One can, however, predict reasonably confidently that technical communicators in the UK would favour British rather than American spelling practices.

Question 3:
Which Way Should the Following Five Words Be Spelled?

Here is a summary of the responses for the five words, plus some comments on anomalies that became evident.

Grey/Gray. The European and Australia/New Zealand respondents clearly preferred grey (79% and 77% respectively). Predictably, most American respondents preferred gray, but at 57% this was not the great majority I had expected; surprisingly, 29% of the Americans selected grey and 14% were undecided. The Canadian respondents, affected by their cultural heritage with Great Britain but influenced by their close geographical proximity to the US, were middle road: 50% chose grey and 35% chose gray.

Sulphur/Sulfur. Here, Europeans, Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders all preferred sulphur. Again, surprisingly, 41% of American respondents also chose sulphur, against 55% preferring sulfur.

Spelt/Spelled. This was the most predictable word: all groups preferred spelled.

Caulk/Calk. With one exception, respondents from all countries clearly preferred the British-based caulk; the exception was the Europeans, 39% of whom reported they preferred calk (compared to 9% of Americans).

Recognise/Recognize. The European vote was split almost evenly. There was also a clear difference between the Americans and Canadians, who preferred recognize, and the Australians and New Zealanders, who preferred recognise. These variations show there are more differences than one would expect. They also support the answer to Question 1 (that nearly everyone would like INTECOM to conduct a study and make recommendations), and the answer to Question 2 (that everyone feels unsure about which dictionary to rely on).

 

The Next Step

The information gathered so far leads me to recommend that INTECOM continues with stage 2 of this project. I suggest that INTECOM sets up a working group to research language practices and prepare guidelines (rather than standards) for technical communicators worldwide who have to prepare international English-language technical documentation.

 

Conclusions

I have welcomed carrying out this study, for it has brought me into contact - sometimes in person and sometimes by email - with technical communicators in numerous countries, from whom I have learned a lot about the different cultural and work conditions that affect them. Taking part in the Idea Market at Forum 2000 was like ”finding icing on one’s cake,” for it drew a stream of conference delegates to my session, from whom I received many personal comments that echoed the delegates’ frustration when having to decide how to spell and choose particular words that differ between British and American usage.  

"transline Deutschland - Übersetzungsdienst für technische Übersetzung"