“Technology” is a broad term. It encompasses innumerable specialized niches, and within each of those are further sub-niches, and so on, for several levels.
And, like any specialty, each of these niches has specific language that it uses. And it’s easy to get lost in this jargon. As long as communication happens between group members, then, for the most part, everyone understands.
But jargon has two purposes. The benign role is to encapsulate and encode complex concepts into agreed upon terms; it can make communication efficient. The more insidious role is to establish an in-group language: it’s tribal. Which can even create communications problems within the group: if understanding a particular lingo demonstrates your competence, then you’re not likely to speak up and say that you didn’t understand something – you might look foolish in front of your peers. So you knowingly nod your head and hope to have some other way to figure it out.
For technical papers and data sheets and other very specific formats where highly specialized information intended for domain specialists must be efficiently articulated, such jargon is appropriate. But when you are trying to reach more broadly, either within the group, or, even more importantly, between groups, then it becomes questionable.
This doesn’t just apply to bizarre, inscrutable terms; it can involve what would seem to be simple words as well as three-letter acronyms (TLAs). I recall when I was working for a chip company and was visiting a system house to discuss some reliability issues. There was some clear miscommunication happening until I realized and explained that we were using the same words to mean different things. For example, to us, an FAE was a Field Applications Engineer; to them it was a Failure Analysis Engineer. To us, a “component” was a chip that went on a board; to them it was a board that went into a system.
Whenever possible, these kinds of problems can be avoided by resorting to good-old plain English. And articles are a perfect place to do that. But many people get concerned that this amounts to “dumbing down” the article. How can you demonstrate competence without having to prove that you know the inner secret language?
To me, “dumbing down” means simplifying complex concepts (sometimes too much) so that a less knowledgeable audience can grasp them. Plain English simply means describing those complex concepts – in their full complexity – in more standard language that is less likely to be misunderstood by a variety of readers. It can also mean using two or three sentences instead of just one compact, terse sentence: that first sentence might be followed by a couple more that elaborate on the first one in order to ensure comprehension.
Apparently I’m not the only one crying for more plain English; a recent article in the San Jose Mercury News pleaded for it as well. I attempt to use plain English as much as possible in my writing, along with establishing a broader context than a narrow specialist might be satisfied with.
Of course, there’s no one right answer. It’s a balancing act, but that balance is all too often tilted towards dense, opaque language. My goal is to open it up a bit more to let some sunshine in.