Building Rapport

If you are homeless in Vancouver and you want to live in public housing, there is a paper wall to keep you out:

• The basic application form is 13 pages long.
• The additional form required of those who have been homeless is 9 pages long.
• And then you must complete a form for each individual housing project that you might live in.
• Supplemental forms like an application for a copy of a birth certificate.

Picture a destitute family about to lose their housing. Someone in the family must be calm and collected and literate enough to fill out 2 of the forms above. The 2nd form must be completed for each of the housing projects they might qualify for.

Picture a destitute person who has been sleeping under a bridge for month or years. She must complete all three sets of forms–while she is anxious, hungry, and weary.

You see the wall there?

Have you heard of situational limited literacy? That’s when the context or the circumstances are so stressful or overwhelming that whatever literacy skills you have had in the past, they are not available to you in the present moment.

Since so few people get over that wall, a local group has formed for the purpose of documenting the homeless in their neighborhood and completing the application forms.

I have not seen these forms so I can’t tell you whether they are in plain language but I would say the odds are against it.

K.D. Hoffman has expertise in applying theoretical communication to real world endeavors. Her blog is Healthy Change Communications. This is a blog about health communications. Hoffman says, “It’s about using behavioral science to deeply understand specific audiences. With deep understanding, health communicators can engage and inspire change, whether in the individual or in society.”

A current series of blog posts addresses the idea of Targeting vs Tailoring communication. The second post is relevant to our discussion and offers some more introductory-level explanation of cognitive fluency.

Part Two: Engagement…or how to make it matter

“We process messages in two ways, via central or peripheral processing… When people have little interest in a message, they tend to process it peripherally. When processing peripherally, they don’t think about the arguments in the message but rather they use cues like attractiveness, reputation or credibility to guide their decision to perform a behavior….

Alternatively, central processing is energy consuming. It is only engaged in when a message is very important and relevant to the person and when the person has the intellectual or technical ability… Processing centrally requires careful listening and evaluation of message content… Central processing is more likely to lead to long-term and stable change.

One of the best ways to engage the central processing route is to make your message relevant to the audience.  Tailoring achieves relevance.”

The full series of posts is available here, and there is more to come:

Part One Part Two PartThree

 
Expertise as Peripheral Processing

Now consider this older, alternate perspective from our new lens of cognitive fluency.  It provides a hint of the transition to be made in our thinking about writing to make thinking easy for readers with different levels of contextual knowledge.
 

From Farnam Street blog, On expertness and intuition, An excerpt fromHerbert Simon:
“We have seen that a major component of expertise is the ability to recognize a very large number of specific relevant cues when they are present in any situation, and then to retrieve from memory information about what to do when those particular cues are noticed.

“Because of this knowledge and recognition capability, experts can respond to new situations very rapidly- and usually with considerable accuracy. Of course, on further thought, the initial reaction may not be the correct one, but it is correct in a substantial number of cases and is rarely irrelevant. We usually use the word “intuition” – sometimes also “judgment” or even “creativity” – to refer to this ability of experts to respond to situations in their domains of expertise almost instantaneously and relatively accurately. [these] skills have the same basis in knowledge and recognition capability.”

From Simon’s book, Models of My Life. For more: Solution by Recognition and Choice Under Uncertainty.

I’d like to invite you to join me in a conversation on how recent discoveries in cognitive psychology and neuroscience affect how we go about producing plain language and how we define or describe it.

Twenty years ago, we were saying to training groups that “recent brain research” was changing what we knew about how people process language. Now we are being told that the research in the past 10 to 15 years has dramatically changed what we know about memory and thinking processes.

The volume of that research has now reached a point that it can be consolidated and applied to practical fields—like plain language writing. Luckily for me, articles are now being written that can be understood by those of us who are not scientists. As these articles begin to popularize these new concepts and their practical applications, we need to reinterpret “plain language”.

I’d like to start that discussion here and now. We can’t wait for papers to be delivered at biennial conferences.

I am not a scientist, so I could only summarize what I have read. I would prefer to exchange ideas and interpretations with my peers before stating anything with a sense of certainty. And I welcome you to invite any cognitive psychologist to join our discussion.

First, here are a few definitions:

“..Psychological research on meta-cognition: thoughts about other thoughts. Whether or not something is easy to think about—cognitive fluency—is one important type of meta-cognition, with all sorts of benefits accruing to things that are easily processed…”

http://www.spring.org.uk/2010/03/8-studies-demonstrating-the-power-of-simplicity.php

“Processing fluency is the ease with which information is processed in the mind. The ease with which perceptual stimuli are processed is perceptual fluency; the ease with which information can be retrieved from memory is retrieval fluency.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_fluency

The current notion seems to be that writing that uses familiar words and concepts and presented in familiar formats will be quickly and easily processed by using a default method of thinking.

Julia Baker describes the 2 mental processes:

Psychology – and cognitive theory in particular – recognize two unique systems for information processing. The first system is the “associative system,” which operates by comparing a novel stimulus with known information about the world. This system of analysis is based primarily on probabilities and assessing new stimuli by referencing previously perceived objects. This system is often characterized by quick, automatic reasoning decisions based on inferences.

The second system is referred to as a “rule-based,” product, or analytic system. It allows for a conscious consideration of the stimulus in decision-making situations. By actively considering multiple options, explanations and deviations, this system attempts to describe the world through logical analysis. Decisions made via this system can produce thorough reasoning, rather than mere predictions as offered by the associative system, which relies on known experiences.

Fluency plays a role in determining which mental operation is used for information processing. In familiar situations, individuals are likely to employ System 1 processing. Because an analogy can be formed from past experience, the more detailed analysis of System 2 is not needed. Importantly, the root of the analysis (and system choice) is the formulation of a confidence judgment, based on fluency, about how known or familiar a new stimulus seems. Where the stimulus is novel or “disfluent,” the problem solver will likely opt to use a System 2 analysis and thoroughly.

Julie Baker also describes the tactic of moderating fluency:

Fluent writing inspires feelings of ease, confidence, and trust in readers (while legalese is “disfluent,” engendering feelings of dislike and mistrust).

(I’ll give you Baker’s citation Monday)

So sometimes, when our purpose is to invoke analytical thinking or to be persuasive, we may choose more difficult, less fluent language that will engage the logical system of thought processing. This suggests we can “moderate the fluency” of writing to produce the most effective writing by engaging the anyalytical processing level when we want readers to learn or make important decisions.

I will be giving you links to current articles that might serve as a basis for our conversation. These items starting with the most popular in style. Wikipedia does have some articles on this. Each day, I will introduce you to a new article. And please tell us about the ones that you find.

The must-read article today:

Easy = True

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/31/easy__true/?page=full

This is a question to be voted on in late 2011, subject to any big change in our provincial government.

Will you offer a rewite?

“Are you in favour of extinguishing the HST (Harmonized Sales Tax) and reinstating the PST (Provincial Sales Tax) in conjunction with the GST (Goods and Services Tax)?” Yes/No

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-2013/2010AG0027-001402.htm

I just received an email solicitation from a business that I have allowed to send me these. I read it and thought my mind had wondered in 3 short lines because I was in a fog.
Here is the only full sentence:

Do you need a 1-Day priority support, an early access to betas and forthcoming features, goodies and a VIP status with guaranteed commitment to your organization on any dashboarding project?

The words are not that strange, so what is the problem. The only word that might be considered jargon these days is dashboarding. Beta might be inappropriate for a message to the general public, but I won’t complain about it here. So I ran the sentence through the test at Check Test Readability, just as a first-stage filter.

So what is the problem or problems?

The sentence has 31 words (a few too many even for skilled readers) with an average of 1.77 syllables per word (pretty good by that measure alone). The sentence scores 25.30 out of 100 on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease scale. The text score indicates the is not clear and easy reading–confirming my personal experience.

These are the other results:

Readability Formula U.S Grade Level

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 17.40

Gunning-Fog Score 20.10

Coleman-Liau Index 13.80

SMOG Index 14.10

Automated Readability Index 17.80

Average Grade Level 16.64

Break up the sentence

I quickly broke the sentence apart and made a list. Like this:

Do you need help and a VIP status on any dashboarding project?

You get our guaranteed commitment to your organization with:

• 1-Day priority support,
• early access to betas and forthcoming features, and
• other goodies.

Readability Formula U.S. Grade Level

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 11.50

Gunning-Fog Score 13.90

Coleman-Liau Index 13.50

SMOG Index 10.10

Automated Readability Index 10.70

Average Grade Level 11.94

The tool reported that this text

1. gets a 44 on the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease scale (better, maybe not good enough)
2. contains 2 sentences, with 35 words (17.50 per sentence)
3. no change in syllables per word.

Tackling vocabulary

So I changed it a little more. Google, on an out-of-date link, defines dashboarding: Presentation of data through graphical interfaces modeled ad hoc. Not a quick and easy substitution, so let’s try social media and real-time Web.

My third attempt was:

Do you need help on any social media or real-time Web project?

You get VIP service and our guaranteed commitment to your organization with:

- one-day priority support
- early access to new features or versions
- other goodies.

These changes offer a little improvement. The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score is now 51.70 and the average words per sentence is 19.

Readability Formula U.S. Grade Level
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level  10.80
Gunning-Fog Score  12.90
Coleman-Liau Index  11.60
SMOG Index   9.20
Automated Readability Index (Wikipedia) 10.00
Average Grade Level 10.90

We could go further and even try this version out on a few readers, but for now I am satisfied with about a 50% reduction in confusion.

That prescription-drug info from the pharmacy can fall short

The LA Times has reported that the legally required type of medical information given out by pharmacies is not doing the job of communciating risk.

Researchers at the University of Florida found shortcomings in the written information for on “directions for use” and “comprehensibility/legibility”.

They wrote: “Many leaflets failed to meet the minimum requirements, such as provision of a complete list of absolute contraindications, and more than half lacked specific directions that would allow patients to manage problems. Because CMI [consumer medical information] was the sole written information dispensed, some patients had no information about the risk of lactic acidosis associated with metformin or related warning signs or action steps. The high reading level required to comprehend the presented information and the inadequate formatting suggest additional shortcomings.”

Drugstores are for ‘One-Document Solution’ for patient information

The National Association of Chain Drug Stores says pharmacy and consumer groups should collaborate with the government to develop a “one-document solution” for information provided to patients regarding prescription drugs.

NACDS submitted its letter in response to an August 9, 2010, article in the newspaper that was critical of such information. NACDS President and Chief Executive Officer Steven C. Anderson says:

“Pharmacy is working with the government to help provide enhanced user-friendly information to patients about their prescription drugs. The National Association of Chain Drug Stores submitted a Citizen Petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2008. Seven additional organizations, including other pharmacy and consumer groups, joined in the petition.

“The petition requests FDA guidance describing the parameters for a voluntary, FDA-approved, concise, plain-language document for patients. Such a format could consolidate and replace the multiple written communications pharmacies must now distribute to patients.

“This ‘one-document solution’ could harmonize multiple documents that arise from different FDA-imposed legal requirements or information interpretations, and from different offices and constituencies within FDA.

The Los Angeles Times article is available by clicking here http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-prescription-information-20100809,0,3840303,print.story

The last defence of the nervous lawyer is “the judge won’t like it.” Guess what she will like plain language.

Joe Kimble and others conducted studies in Michigan, Florida, and Louisiana more than twenty years ago. Robert W. Benson and Joan B. Kessler conducted another study in Los Angeles, California. The results indicate that the participants found the Legalese passage to be less persuasive than the Plain English version. The respondents also believed the Plain English author was more believable, well-educated, and worked for a prestigious law firm. All of these studies compared only sentences or paragraphs and included both lawyers and judges.

A new study compared actual pleading documents, surveyed only judges, and asked directly and only about persuasiveness. Of 800 judges mailed the survey, 292 responded. This survey was conducted by Sean Flammer, a trial attorney at a Texas litigation firm. He had previously clerked for a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The study has been reported in the Journal of the Legal Writing Institute and has become available online:

PERSUADING JUDGES: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF WRITING STYLE, PERSUASION, AND THE USE OF PLAIN ENGLISH
Sean Flammer
The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute [Vol. 16] 212
also: http://www.journallegalwritinginstitute.org/archives/2010/183.pdf

Flammer survey shows:

The results are clear: judges prefer Plain English to Legalese. Whether a judge is an appellate or trial judge or a federal or state judge plays no role in whether the judge prefers Plain English. Nor does the judge‘s gender, age, years of judicial experience, or years of experience in the legal profession. Whether a judge‘s district is rural or urban plays no role, either. Judges—by a two-thirds margin—find Plain English more persuasive than Legalese. Thus, it is in the litigator‘s interest to submit pleadings in Plain English.

Flammer worked with 3 samples drawn from an actual court pleading:

1. a 3-page excerpt from the original pleading
2. a plain language revision, following the advise of experts in legal writing
3. an “informal” version taking plain language plainer, using contractions and colloquialisms

Each judge saw either #1 and #2 or #1 and #3. A majority of judges preferred 2 or 3 over the legalese of #1.

Flammer reports:
The judge‘s age, number of years spent in the judiciary, number of years spent in the legal profession, and gender had no correlation with whether the judge preferred Plain English or Legalese. Further, whether the trial judge was from a rural or urban district did not matter.

Some judges elaborated on their preference with these remarks about the the Plain English sample:

• more persuasive because of the succinctness of the argument.
• easier to understand, more clear and straightforward, and therefore, more persuasive.
• simpler, more direct prose. Getting to the point trumps pontificating any day.
• easy reading. It goes directly to the point.

Judges appreciated:

• brevity
• use of lists
• deletion of the opening paragraph‘s gobbledygook language

These judges found the Plain English sample to be ―cleaner, leaner, and more effective and understandable.

The bad news for legalese writers is that they won’t be read carefully:

The convoluted style led me to skimming for its essence. This was not the only judge who stated that the writing style in the Legalese sample inspired him to pay little attention to the document‘s logical intricacies. These comments make clear that an indirect and convoluted writing style is likely to make the document go unread. An unread document cannot be persuasive.

The minority of judges who preferred legalese, liked that it was
―more polished
―formal
―easier to read

What about the “cranky” judges (my soulmates)? They said that the two plain language versions did not go far enough. Those writings were

• too wordy
• poor writing
• too verbose and filled with formal legalese
• not punchy enough
• capable of being made more succinct

The data show that judges—as a group—would much rather have an attorney err on the side of informality than err on the side of being too stilted and formal. One judge made a fair criticism of this Plain English sample in that it was not plain enough and was too wordy. Another said, “Short and direct is almost always more persuasive.”

More evidence is in, judges are sold on plain language, so why not be brave and use it.

Read my books, Plain Language Legal Writing and Plain Language in Plain English, both available with free U.S. shipping this summer at Plain Language Wizardry.

I’ve just posted over at the PlainLanguageInPlainEnglish group blog. Go see: Magically simple process, but not quick and easy

Today we have a guest post from Dominique Joseph.

Is it possible or even useful to legislate ‘plain language’?

This question has been asked, at least, since “The Decline and fall of gobbledygook: Report on plain language document”, produced by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Bankers’ Association joint committee in 1990.

There is more complete and recent info, but it still raises good points. I will start with the committee’s point of view, and then provide the definitions for the subjective and objective approaches (since those two terms appear in the point of view).

THE JOINT COMMITTEE’S POINT OF VIEW:

“The Joint Committee does not believe that plain language documentation is a suitable matter to be dealt with in legislation. The problem with plain language legislation is that it ignores the fact that plain language drafting is a process rather than the application of a fixed set of rules.

Thus, in the case of the “objective approach, one could apply the rules set out in the Connecticut statute and still have a document that is unintelligible. In the case of the “subjective” approach, a problem arises because there is no commonly accepted standard of what is readable. A person compelled to draft a “readable” document by statute is unlikely to strive for the highest standard of readability.

Legislation can be effective when its object is to prohibit persons from engaging in specified types of undesirable conduct. Legislation is not effective when it tries to require individuals to undertake some positive action that requires time, skill, effort, and commitment.”

SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE APPROACHES:

“The legislative approaches to date have taken two forms. The first approach, adopted by New York and the Alberta legislation, has been called the “subjective” approach because of the general requirement that agreements and contracts be written in a “clear manner using words with common everyday meanings.” Beyond this general guideline, the subjective approach does not define plain language nor does this approach establish specific criteria for a plain language document.

[...] The second approach to plain language legislation, adopted by Connecticut, has been called the “objective” approach because of specific requirements defining what constitutes a plain language document. Typically, this approach stipulates the average length of sentences, the size, and style of typeface used, the length of lines and the size of margins. In addition, this approach may require the document to score in a particular range on a readability test, such as the Flesch test.”

A very interesting puzzle, indeed!

I recently complained on Twitter about this headline originating from a company that consults on plain language projects:

“Driving a positive customer experience across touch points”

Matthew Stibbes is now holding a contest for best and worst headlines.

He also provides us with a brief list of qualities of good headlines:

BBC News’ headlines are the best in the world according to web-usability guru Jakob Nielsen. Nielsen’s guidelines state that web headlines must be:

1.Short
2.Rich in information scent, clearly summarising the target article
3.Front-loaded with the most important keywords
4.Understandable out of context (because headlines often appear without articles, as in search engine results);
5.Predictable, so users know whether they’ll like the full article before they click

Personally, I find headlines and subheads very challenging to write but I appreciate them as a reader.