technodumbo

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
Anyone still with me? OK, well two days after the leaflet went out a*
resident rung me, and she played hell. She said "I don't what what you think*
you're doing bombarding us with mumbo-jumbo like that! How the hell do you*
think ordinary people can understand that twaddle?"

No matter what you do, some people just don't want to know. I've met them.
Probably not as many as you have, because you deal directly with the public,
whereas I've mostly had to deal with non-technos inside the broadcast industry,
but they're a fairly mixed bunch too. It seems that if you deal with any kind
of technology, a very common situation is the one where somebody asks you a
question and then doesn't listen to the answer. It happens so often that I've
even given up being offended by it. Sometimes they will interrupt you in the
middle of your explanation - an explanation they have asked for - to say that
they can't possibly understand because it's much too complicated. I think in
many cases "can't understand" really means "can't be bothered".

She went on like this for quite a while, and she was adamant that the*
leaflet was incomprehensible. After a while she calmed down, and I said that*
it was hard for us to see the thing from the public's point of view, so it*
would be helpful if someone like her would go though a leaflet and point out*
things that weren't clear. She said that she's be prepared to do it, and*
that she had experience in such things. It turned out that she works at a*
university preparing administrative documents. So she's clearly no dummy.

That's probably the best approach. By presenting the problem as *your* failure
to explain something properly rather than *their* failure to try to understand
it, you are acting as a blamesink, which takes the pressure off them. Your
inadequacy may play on their sympathy, or, as in the case you describe, make
them feel valuable in helping you to do better. I wouldn't be surprised if your
irate customer, now that she is motivated to read your leaflet carefully with
an open mind, discovers that she's perfectly capable of understanding it after
all.

But you knew this already, didn't you.

Rod.

On Sep 21, 12:17 am, "Bill Wright"
wrote:
I'm completely at a loss with this. I can't see how I can make the thing
clearer.

What do you think?

It might be an attention span thing. I don't think it can be any
clearer for the layman, but perhaps as she reads it,
she's having to mentally store each major point and this frustrates
her ?

However, I have noticed talking to non technical types, that they do
start to glaze over when you say 'transmitter', you might try
replacing with mast (or perhaps for Emley, tower) and the term 'send'
rather than 'transmit'

The word 'analogue' means nothing to many, you could try 'ordinary' or
'normal' . My wife uses the term 'normal telly/radio' when she's
referring to analogue broadcasting.

In article . com,
wrote:


Those who chose to rib me didn't once offer any kind of help. I guess I
am too sensitive but my question remains If I don't know what I am
talking about,how can I use the correct terms??

The comments I saw weren't initially about you using the "correct terms".
Nor about you using formally correct English.

They were regarding what I'd describe as 'poor habits': e.g. repeatedly not
including a space after punctuation, not using captials where appropriate,
etc. The result being that what you wrote was harder to read.

Occasional mistakes like that would be typos, but you seemed to be doing so
regularly and showing no sign of checking what you were writing, or caring.

I think it made things worse for you when you said you were an English
teacher and had qualifications in the topic, yet had decided you were "too
busy" to write with more care. The point here is one I'd assume an English
teacher would know well, and be drumming into their students. That you have
to write with your *readers* in mind.

I'd also feel that it would be showing courtesy to *them* to write with
more care *if* you want others to read what you've written, understand it
clearly, and respond clearly. Yet it seemed that you were saying that you
knew what you were doing, but decided not to care. This seems to me to be
worse than simple ignorance or error.

The impression you gave to me in your 'explanations' of why you wrote so
poorly was that you felt that a 'tech' group deserved/expected no better.
Not exactly a displayed attititude to a group of *people* you are asking
for help. If you are "too busy" to show consideration to the reader, why
should they not decide they are also "too busy" to spend time reading what
you wrote?

When using a language for communication purposes, you have to show
consideration for the *receiver* - i.e. the reader in this case.

As an English teacher, I would have expected you to be very aware of all
the above, and that it has little to do with formal use of the language.
Everything to do with communicating clearly and ensuring people can easily
read what you have written. Thus I do understand Dave Plowman's reactions.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:25:31 +0100, Mark Carver
wrote:

When I reached 40, I started quoting my age in Hexadecimal. Trouble is I'm 2B now.

2B or not 2B? That is the question...

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:



But everyone should write as clearly as they possibly can, because not
to do so is simple bad manners. It inconveniences the reader
unneccessarily.

Indeed.

Your original post was probably the worst kind of all, because you used
a sub-literate style as an affectation. It was as if you'd addressed an
audience in a strange foreign accent that was hard to understand, when
in fact you were capable of normal speech. You can't tell me that it
was because you were in a hurry because a literate person can write
decent English virtually as fast as sloppy English.

Well he did "tell" us that was the reason. Just that you/I don't accept it
as a plausible one. :-)

The are a lot of middle-aged and elderly people in this group, and one
of their preoccupations is 'the declining standard of literacy in the
country' -- real or imagined. So you were in their sights straight away
and you got both barrels! Some people have a strange affection for the
English language and get quite angry when people abuse it.

For me, the concerns are with clarity and showing consideration for the
readers - as you say above.

I am sadly used to many physical science undergrads who have real problems
with writing clearly. The root of the problem doesn't seem to me to be a
lack of formal knowledge of 'English Language' as required for an exam.
More a failure to check what they've just written and consider what a
reader might make of it. In effect, a symptom of a lack of thought, and not
having any awareness of the reader.

FWIW I have always struggled with English. Perhaps that is why I've spent
so much time reading what I write, trying to ensure the meaning is clear to
the poor reader. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:

The explanation I've given you will annoy some members of this group,
who will feel that I have simplied to the point of inaccuracy, but I
too was once a teacher and I know that knowledge has to come in
bite-sized chunks!

Actually, I would have said that the [snipped] explanation simplified the
answer to the point of accuracy. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
The explanation I've given you will annoy some members of this group,
who
will feel that I have simplied to the point of inaccuracy, but I too was
once a teacher and I know that knowledge has to come in bite-sized
chunks!

Not at all. Even with 38 years experience in broadcast engineering, I
always
prefer explanations in Plain English whenever possible, and yours makes
better
sense to me than some I have seen in books.

Thank you. Now I'll tell you what happened last week.

When we install a new TV system in a block of flats we always prepare a
leaflet for the residents. The leaflet is tailored to each job, but the
basic material is re-used and has been gone over many times to make sure
it is as clear as possible. The target audience is, of course, the
ordinary public, with an above-average number of elderly people.

Last week a leaflet went out to all the flats in a block. Here it is,
between two rows of stars:

****************

***************



Anyone still with me? OK, well two days after the leaflet went out a
resident rung me, and she played hell. She said "I don't what what you
think you're doing bombarding us with mumbo-jumbo like that! How the hell
do you think ordinary people can understand that twaddle?"

She went on like this for quite a while, and she was adamant that the
leaflet was incomprehensible. After a while she calmed down, and I said
that it was hard for us to see the thing from the public's point of view,
so it would be helpful if someone like her would go though a leaflet and
point out things that weren't clear. She said that she's be prepared to do
it, and that she had experience in such things. It turned out that she
works at a university preparing administrative documents. So she's clearly
no dummy.

I'm completely at a loss with this. I can't see how I can make the thing
clearer.

26 weekly instalments?

It is *very* long, and goes into a lot of detail about transmitters and
transmission paths.

Perhaps a more 'interactive' approach, where you ask them questions and
deduce what kind of system they need from their replies. I think you would
have to do this on the doorstep or over the phone.

--
Max Demian

In article . com,
wrote:

Dear all,Firstly may you all accept my sincere apologies relating to the
grammatical content of my first post.I ignorantly spoke to you all like
i would on an instant messenger service. However since learning a few
important facts about this site I will in future (if I dare return)use
the correct grammar and content to the best of my ability regarding any
technical queries. News is as follows:- I have installed my new aerial
and coax etc etc,and re-scanned my television. The result being as
follows:-Clearer picture,and 86 channels to date. Thanks all for your
advice,much appreciated.

sigh Still punctuation with no following spaces, and missing captials,
despite the assertions made in the message. :-)

....nor is this a "site".

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

In article , Mark Carver
wrote:
wrote:

Are you serious?

He is.

Surely I have upset enough of you?? To be perfectly honest with you,I
presumed you were all aged around your thirties?

I think the average age in here is probably 35-40.

Good. That means I am 'well above average' - at last. :-)

I'd say there's probably a fair distribution from 20 to 75 ?

I'm going bald, not fair. ;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html

I'm completely at a loss with this. I can't see how I can make the
thing clearer.



What do you think?



Bill

You said she was prepared to go through the leaflet and point out the bits
that weren't clear. Hopefully if she does that, that will help you to
simplify (or maybe just re-word) some of the bits she can't understand...?




--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)