Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What makes writing more readable?

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 113 posts

Re: What makes writing more readable?

#51

Post by Gadiguibou »

That was one really good article!

- It conveys its information effectively.

- The controls for the translation are intuitive and aren't distracting.

- Its use of 3 levels of examples is convincing, makes for a rather complete view of the problem and makes the points easy to understand.

- It even links to high-quality resources to learn to write more accessibly in this style! [1][2][3]

I saw a lot of comments here about information being lost in the translation process.

I understand that this may not apply directly to how you write your technical documentation. However, I think you should note that this style of writing isn't meant for everyone everywhere. You probably won't ever see papers written in this style. Its main purpose seems to be in education and communications with broader audiences where accessibility is key.

Even then, its normal to lose some subtleties as you make writing simpler. The important part isn't to keep all the information in your text, it's to make the most important information accessible with as little friction as possible.

Practicing this also helps consider which information is relevant to the message you want to convey. When painting the picture of a complex character in a poetic way, you may want to keep the subtleties of language and use words that make the text flow even if it means increasing complexity. However, if you're writing to communicate crucial information or give instructions, which happens more often in our writing than we would like to admit, it's critical that the text is simple and accessible and contains only the most relevant information.

[1]: https://autisticadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/One-...

[2]: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/

[3]: https://www.easy-read-online.co.uk/media/10609/making-myself...

Re: What makes writing more readable?

#52

Post by shagie »

bumby wrote: post #17
horsawlarway wrote: post #8

Some of these are clear improvements - but many of them are simplifications that lose depth and nuance. The world is filled with detail, tailoring text to meet the needs of people unable to grasp that detail does not remove it - It obfuscates it. Sometimes simple and direct language is good. Sometimes it makes the entire conversation devoid of usefulness or meaning. Work to understand which context is appropriate for…

> but many of them are simplifications that lose depth and nuance. They reminded me of Hemingway's simple, declarative style. I know some people like it, but I always found it somewhat lacking for creating a sense of emotional connection to the characters.

https://hemingwayapp.com

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29052997 (6 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25125302 (248 comments)

Re: What makes writing more readable?

#53

Post by Nadya »

marginalia_nu wrote: post #45

Well you can write very simple English and still be difficult to read. This is from Benjamin Jowett's translation of Plato's Parmenides : > If the one were greater or less than the others, or the others greater or less than the one, they would not be greater or less than each other in virtue of their being the one and the others; but, if in addition to their being what they are they had equality, they would be equal…

That excerpt reads to me much like explaining how a guidance system works on a missile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ

> The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.

Very simple words, with 3 or 4 exceptions, but it short-circuits the brain a bit if you aren't following along carefully enough.

Re: What makes writing more readable?

#54

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

Surprised no one has mentioned Flesch-Kincaid yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flesch%E2%80%93Kincaid_readabi...

There's also social register. More complex writing/speaking assumes knowledge of cultural markers which are intended to exclude those who aren't familiar with them. So writers/readers can use them as caste markers.

Simplification has to be a mix of as-simple-as-possible with as-neutral-as-possible.

I don't think the examples hit that, because they read as if they've been simplified, while successful simplification doesn't.

I like the info pages on the UK NHS site. They're as uncomplicated as they can be, they get the key facts across, but they're also very neutral.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/flu/

Re: What makes writing more readable?

#55

Post by carls »

the_af wrote: post #42
hintymad wrote: post #40

> Kyra is autistic and deaf. She was born early. She was very small when she was born. She has trouble seeing, hearing, eating and sleeping. Her hand shakes so she does not do sign language. Her parents think she knows some signs. This is plain, but is this good writing? Specifically, I find the writing lack of specifics. What is "early"? What is "very small"? What does "has trouble" mean? How bad is the shake? How d…

Agreed. I think it's not good writing. It also doesn't sound natural, it sounds like something written by a robot...

I think a fundamental mistake you (and other commenters on this article) are making is judging the value of the "plain" English version by whether you think it's good writing.

However, the article's intention is to use plain language to be accessible to individuals with intellectual disabilities or other difficulties in language (i.e. recent immigrants).

As a fairly well-read and educated person, I also find the "plain" version dull and uninspiring. However, I accept that the article is trying to make the point that such writing may be more broadly understandable.

For example, I recently had some relatives immigrate from a non-English speaking country. I helped them set up internet and noticed there were multiple points during the company's signup and payment process their lack of English fluency created huge hurdles.

Re: What makes writing more readable?

#56

Post by coldtea »

hintymad wrote: post #40

> Kyra is autistic and deaf. She was born early. She was very small when she was born. She has trouble seeing, hearing, eating and sleeping. Her hand shakes so she does not do sign language. Her parents think she knows some signs. This is plain, but is this good writing? Specifically, I find the writing lack of specifics. What is "early"? What is "very small"? What does "has trouble" mean? How bad is the shake? How d…

>This is plain, but is this good writing? Specifically, I find the writing lack of specifics.

Specifics are only worthy when they are needed - that is, the core message changes without them, or the level of specificity is inefficient to convey it. This is not the case here.

>What is "early"?

Earlier than with a regular pregancy. For the intend it wants to convey (that she is autistic and deaf because of a premature pregnancy) that she was "early" is enough. If he said 6.5 months as opposed to 7 would it matter and change anything? It might even muddy the waters - if he wrote 7.6 months one might argue "hey, that's not too early" and start debating that, when the main thing this passage is intended to convey was that she was indeed born early.

>What is "very small"?

Much smaller than an average child, enough to be a result of early pregnacy and a factor for the aforementioned issues and other health concerns. Again, would exactly kilograms make any difference?

>What does "has trouble" mean?

That she doesn't see/hear/eat/and sleep as an average kid but worse. Would specifics ("she wakes every 1-2 hours" or "she can only hear under 9Khz") make any difference?

>Good writing is plain and simple. Being plain and simple does not mean bland or vague.

This is not supposed to be "good writing" whatever this means. This was intended to be "more readable" by a specific target audience.

Re: What makes writing more readable?

#57

Post by pramodbiligiri »

Nadya wrote: post #53
marginalia_nu wrote: post #45

Well you can write very simple English and still be difficult to read. This is from Benjamin Jowett's translation of Plato's Parmenides : > If the one were greater or less than the others, or the others greater or less than the one, they would not be greater or less than each other in virtue of their being the one and the others; but, if in addition to their being what they are they had equality, they would be equal…

That excerpt reads to me much like explaining how a guidance system works on a missile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ > The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generat…

That sounds like something Humphrey Appleby would say in Yes Minister.

Re: What makes writing more readable?

#58

Post by zestyping »

rogual wrote: post #4

There are some improvements in the "more readable" text, but also some noticeable regressions: "Born premature" is an established turn of phrase. You read it, you know exactly what is meant. "Born early" is not an established phrase. You have to think about it more. It could mean "born early in the morning" or "born before her time" or "born prematurely". You can figure it out, it's not rocket science, but it's a lit…

Most of the changes are fine. But there are two big losses in translation:

[ A strong tremor in her hand makes it impossible for her to use American Sign Language. ] --> [ Her hand shakes so she does not do sign language. ]

No, she _cannot_ do sign language. The difference between "does not" and "cannot" is big. Rebecca gives no explanation for this corruption of the original meaning.

[ Her parents think she recognizes a couple dozen signs. ] --> [ Her parents think she knows some signs. ]

She cannot make signs with her hands, but she can recognize signs. The word "recognizes" is important because it expresses that she can in fact use sign language, but only one way -- to receive communication, not to send it. Changing this to "knows" eliminates this information and makes this sentence contradict with the preceding one. It is now clear that "do sign language" in the preceding sentence also obscures this information; "do" is vague and hard to understand.

How many is "some"? "Some" could mean 3, or 30, or 300. Again Rebecca's explanation is lacking; this is described as "replacement of numbered items" but in fact it is just straight deletion of all numbers.

So, I would write:

[ Her hand shakes so she cannot speak in sign language. Her parents think she understands about 20 signs. ]

This is clear, easy to read, doesn't needlessly destroy information, and in my opinion is easier to read than Rebecca's simplification.

Re: What makes writing more readable?

#59

Post by zestyping »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #11
rogual wrote: post #4

There are some improvements in the "more readable" text, but also some noticeable regressions: "Born premature" is an established turn of phrase. You read it, you know exactly what is meant. "Born early" is not an established phrase. You have to think about it more. It could mean "born early in the morning" or "born before her time" or "born prematurely". You can figure it out, it's not rocket science, but it's a lit…

Premature is a medical term that's a little hard with someone with an intellectual disability to parse unless they're already familiar. If you don't have that knowledge retained it's a much larger leap to figure out what "premature" means. you have to understand the prefix (pre = before) and know what "mature" means in this context (not old, but rather "not ready"). This complicates the fact that premature birth also…

Agreed. "Too early" or "too soon" is much better.

Re: What makes writing more readable?

#60

Post by bregma »

horsawlarway wrote: post #8

Some of these are clear improvements - but many of them are simplifications that lose depth and nuance. The world is filled with detail, tailoring text to meet the needs of people unable to grasp that detail does not remove it - It obfuscates it. Sometimes simple and direct language is good. Sometimes it makes the entire conversation devoid of usefulness or meaning. Work to understand which context is appropriate for…

> Some of these are clear improvements - but many of them are simplifications that lose depth and nuance.

Some of these make writing better. Many of them just leave words out and don't say as much.

> The world is filled with detail, tailoring text to meet the needs of people unable to grasp that detail does not remove it - It obfuscates it.

There is a lot of stuff around us. Using words meant only for people who do not like a lot of stuff does not make the stuff go away. It just hides the stuff.

> Sometimes simple and direct language is good. Sometimes it makes the entire conversation devoid of usefulness or meaning.

Using simple words can be good. Sometimes it is not good enough.

> Work to understand which context is appropriate for what you write.

Use words understood by the people you are writing for.

Post reply on HN