Readability/Usability/Quality 1-01 (March 2001) by Ron Blicq The Original Article:RU23: Results of a Study Into Establishing Guidelines

Response to Chris Curwen’s Suggestions

This became apparent almost immediately after the results of the original study were published. The results are also available on the Web, at http://www.intecom.org. The study started in September 1999 and continued until June 2000, during which I surveyed technical communicators at meetings held in Norway, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the USA. A questionnaire was also published in TC-Forum for December 1999 [2], and distributed at the Idea Market held at Forum 2000 in London. The responses showed considerable diversity of opinion regarding preferred usage, yet marked unanimity in two areas:

1. Technical communicators, particularly in countries other than the US and the UK, are seeking advice.
2. Those same technical communicators resist the suggestion that INTECOM should establish standards; they would much prefer that INTECOM offer guidelines.

 

Other Opinions

Chris Curwen is not the only person to have commented on this study. In a letter to the editor of the IEEE/PCS Newsletter (January/February 2001 [3]), Michael Brady of Asker, Norway, states that "...setting standards, or even guidelines, does not contribute to progress in or increased comprehension of a language". He goes on to say:

"Opinion on spelling varies far more than Blicq’s compilations suggest. For instance, the current 10th edition of the Oxford Concise English Dictionary lists "recognize" (with a z) as first choice, and "-ise" as second. But leading UK publications, including The Economist and The Times, ignore that choice and use "-ise" only. An "s" instead of a "z", or the other way around, does not dilute comprehension and arguably slows reading only slightly."

To which I can add that "connection" offers a similar problem: Chambers 21st Century Dictionary [4] lists "connection" first and then immediately adds "or connexion". Yet many leading British newspapers consistently use the "x" spelling.

Robert Brown, who has lived and worked in the UK, the Netherlands, and (currently) the US, is very much aware of the differences that occur. In the Autumn 2000 issue of the ISTC Communicator [5] he describes many of the factors affecting the use of the English language and their affect on technical writers:

"Then there are different words for tools, such as spanner/wrench; adjustable spanner/monkey wrench; Allen wrench/hexagonal wrench. In electrical circuits, you need to either earth or ground a terminal or plug; you also use a socket or outlet. When writing financial documents you learn that using a direct debit is the same as arranging for drafting from your account, and that a current account is a checking account.

He includes a list to show some specific differences, including

 

The Need for Guidelines

While I was conducting the original study it became apparent that technical writers who are native-born English speakers - regardless of whether they were schooled in American or British usage - can rationalize when one style should be used in preference to the other. But technical writers for whom English is a second or sometimes third language experience much more difficulty in deciding which style to use. They are not looking for standards, but they would like some guidelines so they can make informed decisions.

Consequently I am setting up a committee to carry the study a step further (and I’m also looking for volunteers to become part of the committee).

 

Focus for the New Committee

The committee’s first objective will be to identify areas where there are differences. This will encompass identifying

• spelling variants (not just between the UK and the US, but also in other English-speaking countries),
• words that have different meanings in different countries (for example, "presently"),
• colloquialisms, and what universally understood words or expressions can be used in their place,
• punctuation variants, and
• any other differences that come to light.

 

Publishing the Guidelines

Ideally, the guidelines will describe the variants and then suggest which should be used when writing documentation for international use. The entries might be like this:

litre; liter
litre is preferred in Europe and most other countries, and is the spelling established for S.I. documentation; liter is preferred in the US; we suggest litre.

end punctuation following quotation marks in the UK and much of Europe, end punctuation follows the quotation mark: "We plan to buy a replacement computer". In the US, however, end punctuation precedes the quotation mark: "We plan to buy a replacement computer." We recommend the UK method.

presently avoid using this word: in the US, presently is understood to mean "soon" or "shortly"; in the UK, it means "after a while" or "later"; use soon or later, depending on the desired meaning.

(In none of these cases am I trying to make a personal recommendation! The examples are intended only to show how the entries might be presented.)

 

Forming the Study Committee

Several people have already volunteered to serve on the committee (the research will be done by email), but I need to identify more technical communicators who would enjoy the research and discussions that inevitably will follow. I particularly want to find people from a wide range of countries, so that the committee will hear broadly based opinions on which to base its findings.

Most likely we will divide into several sub-committees, each focusing on a different element. And, as Chris Curwen has so cogently pointed out, the committee will need to extend its research to investigate not only the differences between the language in the UK and the US, but also special variants in other English-speaking countries such as Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada.

To join the group, send me an email at rgi_ron@compuserve.com. I would love to hear from you.

References

1. Ron Blicq, "Results of a Study Into Establishing Guidelines for English Language International Technical Documentation", in TC-FORUM. 03/00, September 2000, p 10.
2. Ron Blicq, "Do Technical Communicators Need an International Standard for English-Language Spelling?", in TC-FORUM, 04/99, December 1999, p.6.
3. Michael Brady, "Letter to the Editor", in PCS Newsletter, January/February 2001, p 2.
4. Mairi Robinson and George Davidson, ed, Chambers 21st Century Dictionary (London: Chambers, 1996).
5. Ronald Brown, "A Common Language", in ISTC Communicator, 6/11, Autumn 2000, p 6.

"transline Deutschland - Übersetzungsdienst für technische Übersetzung"