Mar 22 2005
Words…
The following documents of the most current issue available form a part of this specification to the extent specified herein.
Why do people write stuff like this? Does it make sense? Yeah, probably. But I had to read the sentence a second time to find out if it actually did make sense. Once I determined that the sentence probably was syntatically correct, I had to read it a third time to start the process of deciphering what the meaning actually was. There are two basic reasons that my reading flow gets interupted by authors… Either the author is on some level above me, or the author is a dumbass who thinks that they are on a level above me. The quote above is obviously the latter.
While I do not believe that business and technical writing should dip down to the lowest common denominator in order to reach the largest possible audience, I do believe that there should be some middle ground. A universal standard should be adopted. I think that I should be that standard… The David standard. I estimate myself to be somewhere in the middle of the sweet spot of technical communications - not the smartest gander in the gaggle, but pretty well able to keep my goose uncooked. Maybe I could set up a computer program that would search for phrases like “specifications specified herein”, and provide red flags to the offending authors… They would have to rework all the crap that wastes my time if they wanted the coveted ‘David Standard’ seal to be emblazened on the cover of their document. One mandate would be that any disclaimers of responsibility by a manufacturer or company for the bloody mutilation, death or dismemberment of their customers (such as found on the backs of ski lift tickets, amusement park tickets, or packaged with power tools) would have to contain a certain amount of bloody, gorey descriptive terminology in order to hold up in court. Let the customers know just what they are getting themselves into - and give them a good read at the same time. Bonus points will be awarded for any such document containing one of the various forms of “inviscerate”.
And I’m not a total egotist… I can see the functionality of alternate levels of stadardization… The “Bradley Prescott III Standard” could be adopted for the Ivy league crowd and their pre-nuptual agreements and whatnot, and how about the “Cleetus Wifebeater Standard” for things like warrants and traffic tickets.
