My Pet Peeves

Today I want to air my pet peeves. Take a look at this paragraph.

 

“We believe that the creativity and care that goes into educational design and technology combined with the heritage of available publishing talent and progressive document standards can reform all forms of publication. New learning models and new deployments of technical and artistic content are daring us to invent them.”

 

This came directly from a webpage. I did not and could not make this up. What is the intent of the paragraph? What are a “heritage of publishing talent,” and “progressive document standards?” What kind of reform do publications need? I don’t even begin to understand where the last sentence is going.

 

This website is selling a product as a service, which is more techno-speak, but essentially means their product is a service such as a website, instructional design, and so on. Products that live virtually but are not physically tangible. Can you tell from this paragraph, what their product is and what features it has? Were you able to read this paragraph completely with understanding all the way through, or did your mind sort of turn off a few words in?

 

Sadly, I see writing like this all the time. I think people believe that if they use a lot of techno-speak, jargon, and big words, they sound knowledgeable.

 

Pet Peeve 1

Simplify and speak to the reader! 

 

Here is my stab at the first sentence, assuming I understood it correctly.

“You put a lot of care into designing and delivering training. Our seasoned publishing staff combined with access to cutting edge document technology, can take your training to a new level by…”

 

I do not know if that was exactly what they wanted to say, but I have simplified the language, used active voice, shortened the sentences, and made it approachable. They are talking directly to me or you now.

 

Pet Peeve 2

Although, it was not used in this particular example, the use of the word “functionality” makes me grit my teeth. 

 

“What’s wrong with ‘functionality,’” you ask, “After all, everyone uses it.” 

Precisely my point. Everyone uses it because they heard someone else use it, it sounded more important than simple old “function,” so they started using it. Every time you see the word “functionality,” do me a favor and substitute “function.” I have yet to find a place in today’s usage where function did not fit.

 

What is the functionality of this device? 

vs 

What is the function of this device?

The phone has limited functionality. 

vs 

The phone has limited functions.

 

The instrument’s functionality is to record seismic waves. 

vs 

The instrument’s function is to record seismic waves.

 

You get the point. Is “functionality” a legitimate word? According to Grammarphobia  Yes! “…for nearly a century and a half, ‘functionality’ has had another meaning: the quality of being functional – that is, able to perform a function… So ‘functionality’ can be a handy word if you’re emphasizing the usability or workability of something, but there are other handy words, including ‘usability’ and ‘workability,’ and ‘handiness’.”

 

Here are some other words that grate on my ears:

Utilize vs use

Dependent on vs depends on

Inclusivity vs inclusive

 

Pet Peeve 3

“We would like to thank you for attending our concert.” 

There is nothing grammatically wrong with this.

 

“We want to thank you for attending our concert.” 

Again, correct grammatically.

 

“Thank you for attending our concert!” 

 

This is what I would argue for. Why? It is direct, to the point, it sounds like I am personally thanking you, and it is energetic and conveys excitement. Perfect if you want your audience to be charged up for what’s to come.

What is the difference between the three sentences? The first one is passive and slightly ambivalent. Almost like the “we” aren’t absolutely sure that “we” want to thank you. The second sentence is better, but still a bit passive and wishy washy. The last sentence is written actively. The speaker or writer is thanking you directly for being there on behalf of the group performing the concert.

 

Another reason for using active voice is that words cost money. If you are writing for print, such as user guides, installation manuals, programs, and so on; the longer the document, the more expensive it is to print. That is why so many companies use graphical installation manuals when possible, no words, or minimal words keeps the document smaller.

 

You may have also noticed that many of these documents are in multiple languages. Most translation companies charge by the word. Each additional language increases the document size and cost even more.

 

Thank you for indulging my pet peeves. Simpler language and word economy, using only the words you need to convey the message, reduces misunderstandings, and ensures you communicate the message you intended.