Convoluted Jargon . . . (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Accessibility



Message

Nicole -> Convoluted Jargon . . . (1/21/2007 5:21:49)

I haven't looked anywhere yet for answers to the question I'm about to ask, but this Government Department I'm quoting a redesign for seems quite typical of other Government Departments in that they use very convoluted titles for documents for no apparent reason.

I can't think of any examples off the top of my head although I could make one up quite easily:

Local Area Action Program Plan

They are worse than that, but I just made that one up for something that really should be titled "Local Area Plan".

I'm sure for SEO purposes a shortened version of these convoluted titles would make far more sense, if only for the silly URL's that convoluted document titles produce, but I'm wondering whether for confusion's sake, possibly those with learning disabilities, concentration issues or even those where English isn't a first language whether convoluted jargon has ever been documented anywhere in accessibility terms?

Anyone know?

My other question is, has anyone ever designed a site for a Government Department and been successful in converting department officials to using normal language for usability's sake?

Nicole



caz -> RE: Convoluted Jargon . . . (1/21/2007 6:59:10)

Looked at another way Nicole your made up example would make sense within the organisation.

1. They have a number of areas of responsibility of which "Local Area Action" is one and could relate to any number of local areas.
2. They also have a number of "Program plans" of varying time scales and methodologies.

So putting the two concepts together gives you what is better described as "Local Area Action: Program Plan" and could be one of a number of headings "Local Area Action: Geographical boundaries", "Local Area Action: Community responsibilities", Local Area Action: Council responsibilities."

It maybe that better use of punctuation would produce clearer descriptors which would aid comprehension. Remember too that a lot of the documents will have been produced for internal use and will make perfect sense to those users, if not to the general public. So you tread a fine line here, you have to be sure about the intended audience before you criticise too strongly, but a general comment on the need for plain English for improving communication, hence usability for all - including search engines. Is there an internal search engine?

The documents in the site will have any number of original authors too, so inevitably the style will vary unless there is a very strict house style imposed on them and given that the site at present is so bad it doesn't look as if that is the case. Authors can be very protective about their output too, so this could be a very high level decision for the authority.



womble -> RE: Convoluted Jargon . . . (1/21/2007 7:19:22)

As a sometime local government employee, I have to agree with Caz. Govt/local govt spawns so many plans, strategies, plans, action plans and such like that often the only way you can distinguish them (at least internally) is to use a full title, which to the outside world does seem long and convoluted.

That said, the WAI guidelines do say "Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content." (checkpoint 14.1, Priority 1) - as you said, the use of technical terminology can affect those with learning disabilities, English as a second language etc., so from an accessibility point of view that is going to be important. I don't think though at this stage (i.e. writing the quote) it's something you need to make a big deal of, except for perhaps mentioning in passing that accessibility guidelines advise using clear and simple language.



jaybee -> RE: Convoluted Jargon . . . (1/21/2007 7:33:05)

Having worked in Govt for 12 years I can assure you that unless you take it up to National Govt level you won't get plain English implemented any time soon. Your client is just following National Guidelines and you're stuck with it.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875