Use Jargon When Appropriate

"Why tech writers use so much jargon, I don't know. Maybe it's self-aggrandizement . . . . Maybe it's laziness . . . . "

--David Pogue

Did you catch the article in today's New York Times by David Pogue ("Tech Terms to Avoid")? His point: that writers like me too often fall into the trap of using a techie word when a good old fashion English word will do nicely and be more easily understood by the intended audience.



My reaction? Well, maybe not.

Here's the list: content, device, dialog, display, D.R.M., enable, email client, functionality, LCD, P.D.A., price point, URL, SMS, support, USB, user, and Wi-Fi.

Here's my take on some of them. I won't go through the entire list, but I think most of these words serve a purpose when used in their techie context.

Like the word enable. Enable has a very useful meaning in a tech environment. Turning something on -- as in throwing a switch -- is different from, say, downloading the client software into my TV's set top box, which enables it.

Functionality -- I avoid using that word as much as possible, but it really is not the same thing as features, which is what David suggests. A lot of functionality doesn't get expressed as an actual feature -- sometimes it just enables a feature.

Price point -- The term serves a useful semantic role. A price and a price point might be the same thing, technically, but a point conveys the added meaning of pricing granularity (another word that might go on the no-no list).

User is also very useful. Customers are often companies populated by users, and sometimes you have to distinguish between them.

Just one more example and then I'll stop -- content. That word means ones and zeros in a form people can consume. Hence, the word covers the territory and is far more efficient than always writing a list (e.g., music, images, text) when you want to be inclusive.

David's point is that you should not use these words in a techie way if you are not talking to a techie audience. But in front of that audience, jagon does serve a useful purpose. (It may also serve a cultural purpose, but that's an issue for another day.) But that's like saying you should only speak French to the French.

It's a matter of what's appropriate. My feeling is that words should be transparent -- the ideas should get into the reader's brain before he/she has time to think about how cute the words are.

By the way, I really liked the piece David wrote a week or so ago about common things people should know when they use a computer or other common digital device (oops!) -- like double clicking on a word to select it.