Introduction

When asked about the purpose of human language, most people would instinctively reply that its main purpose is communication. Most of us take for granted our ability to communicate easily through language. It would be natural for us, as computer users, to expect the same degree of ease when we interact with systems and user manuals. But even computer professionals and other experienced users are often baffled by the explanations that appear in so-called “help” facilities; perplexed by the meanings of words in menu options, on toolbars, and buttons; and hampered in information retrieval by having to use terms that do not readily express their needs. Words on the computer screen can create a barrier to communication, yet users who turn to help files or documentation are frequently disappointed. Times columnist Lynne Truss speaks for many when, at the end of yet another unrewarding session on her computer, she declared: “I have even stopped looking at those files titled ‘Read This,’ because it’s sad but true; I have never yet opened one whose contents I could understand” (1996). Often, a frustrated cry of “I don’t understand the options on the screen” leads many users to just “try it and see what happens,” with potentially disastrous or time-wasting consequences. “I don’t understand the manuals” is another typical refrain, which provides an excellent reason for not reading them. It has been said so often (e.g., Smith 1992), that alternative ways of informing or teaching users are now being promoted; for instance, video training. This mode of delivery can make information more palatable, but it does not eliminate the problems created by confusing use of language in the user interface. The difficulties experienced by both professional and casual or new users are not inevitable; they are not something to be accepted as a feature of computer systems, manuals, and on-line documentation. Something can be done to improve the way that language is presented and used in these contexts. This book provides the necessary communicative framework as well as practical recommendations to make it possible to significantly improve user interface and documentation design.

The Effect of Medium and Interaction

• Why are electronic texts suspect? • Can you tear out a page on a screen? • How does chopping up sentences make them coherent? • When do actions speak louder than words? • How can we use questions to map out knowledge needs? . . . We begin this chapter by looking at what is to be gained from understanding the relationship between written and spoken language. The consequences of putting words on the screen are explored, in terms of changes in the meaning of terms, pronunciation, and the effect of spatial proximity on meanings. We then move on to consider aspects of verbal interaction, such as politeness and fluency, and conclude with an overview of users’ knowledge needs identified by analyzing their language. Written texts all have to be related somehow, directly or indirectly, to the world of sound, the natural habitat of language, to yield their meanings. The world of sound as “the natural habitat of language.” Historically, and in an individual’s development, speech comes before writing. For a small child, language is all speech. This is obviously not so for older children and adults, and for some, language is nearly all reading and writing. Still, for most people, language is strongly associated with sound, in a concrete way through hearing and producing language as well as through mental association. In a situation where computers are used, spoken and written language are both present in some way (not necessarily at the same time), not least of all because it is most unusual for someone to use an application without ever speaking about its use! In general, indirect reference from written language to sound through a reader’s prior experience of spoken language or through a special notation is acceptable in many different circumstances, such as in books and newspapers. The question is, What, if anything, do we lose when real sound is missing? Physical demands on the reader (user) are now focused on visual processing.

The Effect of Context

• In what way does formatting a table resemble passing a ball? • Is “Press X” a definition of X? • Does it matter whether we know how to talk about maps? • Does learning always affect one’s language? • When should users hide something that does not exist? . . . “Context” is a word that is used freely and has many meanings. This chapter describes some of the different immediate contexts that apply to language. It shows the links between social conventions and meanings and how meaning is inferred. Visual and conceptual metaphors are investigated here, with emphasis on how we talk about metaphors. Context is then further explored in relation to professional preoccupations, situations, and tasks. This leads up to an important final section on verbal context, in which we look at how words form bonds with other words that surround them. . . . What Is Meant by “Context”? . . . The idea of context and its effect on meaning was briefly introduced in chapter 2, where the point was made that, out of context, a word may have a range of possible meanings, but that within a specific setting, one “actualized” meaning emerges. Put another way, context can help to resolve the ambiguity of word meaning. But it does not always resolve ambiguity. This is partly because there are typically a number of contexts to consider simultaneously. One perspective on this, which has been mentioned earlier, is to see context (in the sense of “reality”) as a set of concentric circles, with personal context at the center, surrounded by social, cultural, and intercultural contexts. Our main concern in this chapter is what might be referred to as the immediate context, which can be said to fall into three categories: situational, verbal, and visual. Visual context is treated again in chapter 7. Sometimes, if aspects of the immediate context are ill-defined or missing, ambiguity can persist. Halliday (1978) has written about the “context of situation” in these terms: . . . Language comes to life only when functioning in some environment. . . .

Foundation Concepts

• Why is communication a risky undertaking? • When do computer users find themselves at a loss for words? • Why does it matter that words go together in pairs? • Are there words that are never spoken? • Can someone know a great deal about a word without understanding it? . . . This chapter begins to shed some light on fundamental issues connected to language. It explores the above questions and introduces some conceptual distinctions that will help in understanding the more specific, applied notions considered in parts II and III. The core concepts are communication, function, and meaning, and these are explained along with other important related terms. Grammar is discussed in a communicative perspective, and language is set in the context of other modes of communication and in relation to reality (a philosophical issue, tackled here strictly from an applied language angle). Most of us know that the language we speak, English, for example, is not really one language but many—due to regional variations, for instance. Most people are also aware of qualitative differences: “good” and “bad” English. This value judgment is the basis of what can be described as a prescriptive attitude to language. “Correct” spelling, punctuation, and grammar immediately spring to mind. The prescriptive view has it that there are certain standards and conventions to be maintained, in order to protect or preserve the language or for the sake of good communication. Accuracy, consistency, and avoidance of jargon are often quoted as qualities of English that enhance communication. Advice on how to achieve these qualities can be found in “guides to style and usage,” such as Gowers (1954). Cameron (1996) is a recent academic work that discusses the issue of “correct” language in a balanced way. Although advocating “correct” usage, some of the style guides stress the fact that they are against pedantry or language dictatorship. This more liberal approach to language correctness is a relatively recent development. Simon Jenkins notes that: “Guidance that might once have been mandatory is often now permissive”.

Making It Work

This chapter summarizes the main points of the communicative approach to user interface and documentation design. The term “designer” is used here to refer to anyone who designs and develops a user interface or writes user documentation. As stated at the beginning, the main ambition of this book is to further our understanding of the nature of the problems observed and to establish the language concepts (rather than guidelines) that will help designers when thinking about solutions to problems. Of course, the practical side is very important and must be further developed by those whose job it is to create design methodologies, standards, and guidelines. The present chapter highlights elements of practical advice given in earlier chapters and states the implications of what has been said. Accordingly, the style of presentation is different: everything is contained in bullet lists. It is assumed that previous chapters have been read, or will be read, as the supporting arguments are not developed here. The view expressed by Smith (1990) seems fitting: . . . Guidelines cannot replace task analysis. Indeed many guidelines, when considered along with their associated commentary, imply the need for careful task analysis to determine design requirements. Guidelines will not necessarily save work in user interface design, but in fact may entail extra work, at least in the initial stage of establishing design rules. If that initial work is well done, however, then subsequent software design should be more efficient and, of course, should produce a better user interface. . . . What needs to be added is that the initial stage that comprises audience and task analysis [e.g., as described by Bradford (1988) and Brockmann (1986)] must include language requirements analysis if successful communication with users is envisaged in the interface. • The concept of computer literacy creates a barrier to effective communication— people literacy and language literacy are much better concepts to work with. • Communication is language in action: Both spoken and written language must be seen in this light. • Communication involves people, which means that its cultural, social, and psychological contexts must be considered.

Language Change

• Are computer applications changing our language? • Why do some people reject technology? • Are adults willing to change their language? • Do other cultures want to borrow English computing terms? • Is our knowledge of word meanings out of date? . . . In this chapter on language change, we address these questions first by examining the reasons for change and looking at the various types of change that can occur. We then focus on developments in the language of adults (life-long language learning) and on how language is organized in the minds of speakers. We consider people’s expectations with regard to meanings as well as the process of acquiring new words and meanings. The final part of the chapter deals with the issue of borrowing words from other languages. No one really knows why languages change over time, though a number of possible explanations have been put forward concerning specific instances of change. Historical events can sometimes provide explanations, when new contact or loss of contact between groups of people is eventually reflected in the word stock or sounds of a language. It is interesting to speculate whether electronic contact (e.g., through the Internet) might have the same degree of power to change languages over time. Certainly, in that environment, as in the “real world,” social forces can be observed: Borrowing words from another language and integrating them into one’s own can be part of a process of wanting to imitate another culture—especially one that is seen to be more fashionable or more technologically advanced. If new objects, ideas, and processes have to be named, new words will appear; similarly, old ones will fall out of use. Technological advancements contribute to these needs. They also create new human communication environments, which require new forms of text or speech, which in turn have an effect on the language to be used.

Labeling and Abbreviation

So many user interfaces have the appearance of a collection of labels, stuck onto invisible boxes whose contents remain a mystery to users until they have made the effort of opening up each box in turn and sifting through its contents. In order to explore what might be called “the language of labeling,” we must first make some observations about the relationship between terms and concepts. Terms are words with special subject meanings; a term may consist of one or more “units” (e.g., user interface). As has been pointed out by Sager (1990), concepts are notoriously difficult to define; it is, however, possible to group them into four basic types: • class concepts or entities, generally corresponding to nouns • property concepts or qualities, for the most part corresponding to adjectives • relation concepts realized though various parts of speech, such as prepositions • function concepts or activities, corresponding to nouns and verbs Looking at the relationship between terms and concepts will help us to think about whether terms can be used to label various types of knowledge and also whether they can properly represent users’ knowledge needs. The present book is structured around linguistic “concepts” in the broad sense, whereas in this chapter, when we refer to concepts, it is in the narrower terminological sense indicated above. “We can use any names we wish as labels for concepts so long as we use them consistently. The only other criterion is convenience” In special subject areas, these same criteria apply, except that communication of specialized knowledge obliges us to take account of how concepts have been labeled by others and how the concepts we are handling fit into a wider scheme. We can draw up systems of concepts and try to specify relationships between them, uncovering along the way the knowledge structures that bind them together. However, we cannot do the same with terms. Terms are existential in nature, that is to say, they signal the existence of an entity, a relationship, an activity, or a quality.

Language Correspondences

• Is a crossword puzzle clue a definition of a word? • Can you enter to exit? • Are unrecoverable errors recoverable? • How can a word like “caution” mean “guarantee”? • What is it that happens unless you do something else? . . . This chapter is about the ways in which elements of language are at times able to correspond to each other in usage and in meaning. It explains equivalence, the baseline for distinctions between words, and clarifies widespread misconceptions about synonyms. It shows that words have values that are sometimes obvious and sometimes concealed. These concepts are relevant to all word choices in language, and they must be considered with due attention with translation of a user interface or documentation into another language. Ambiguity and culture are the two big issues that will inevitably come to the fore at such a time. It will also become clear that there are gaps to be filled in languages, and that interference and confusion are bound to get in the way. Multiple language environments create their own special demands with respect to all of these concepts. In a typical crossword puzzle, we are asked to think of words that correspond to descriptions or suggestions of their meaning. Because a crossword is a kind of game, the clues may well be phrased so as to make the word discovery difficult. By contrast, in dictionaries, descriptions of meaning are meant to correspond much more directly to designated words. A direct link is made between a particular language element—a word or phrase—and the language used to express its meaning, which stands in or substitutes for that element in a variety of ways. Definition is one way, within one language; translation is another way, between languages. Equivalence, in the sense of a perfect match on the level of meaning, may be achieved through definition, which draws on a rich range of language resources, but equivalence is much more problematic in translation. In translation into a target language, a word with exactly the same meaning may not exist.

Explanation and Assistance

It is easy to say that an explanation should be simple and that it should be written in familiar language. Advice of this sort is offered in many a technical writing handbook, often with limited elaboration. The concepts of familiarity and simplicity are not as straightforward as they appear to be, however. Users’ familiarity with particular terms can never really be predetermined because of the different ways we can “know” a word (as described in chapter 2). And what exactly is “simple” language? Hartley (1985), in his book on designing instructional text, makes several references to a writer’s conscious selection of words for a target text. Word length is mentioned (short, familiar words are easier to understand, although some long words, because of their frequent use, are quite familiar, e.g., “communication”), word type (concrete words and phrases are clearer than abstract ones), and ambiguity resulting from excessive use of abbreviations and acronyms. He also writes about the option of using readability formulas to check the suitability of a text for a given reader age group. Emden (1990) devotes a section to vocabulary choice in her handbook on writing for engineers and offers this advice: “Use words which the reader will understand”. She rightly points out the insidious danger in the use of technical language: “The reader may assume that he understands and the writer may assume that he is understood. Both may be understanding different meanings”. Sides (1984), cautioning about the use of jargon in papers and reports on computer technology, says this: “The issue of jargon is audience-dependent. Always use what the audience will understand”. This is sound advice, yet on reflection, it is so cursory that it is doubtful whether it can genuinely be fol lowed. The writer can strive to get to know the audience, and even think about providing definitions of terms, but there is still the matter of knowing how to select words or adapt one’s “jargon.” Use “fewer and simpler words,” advises Sides, referring to S. T. Coleridge as an authority on the matter.

Language Varieties

• Is jargon meaningless? • Is a “requirement” the same as a “need”? • Why might we never know that we failed to put across a message? • Are user manuals ever “too chatty”? • Do all speakers of English think alike? . . . This chapter addresses these questions and others. It is the first in a series of chapters that present various language concepts and show the ways they are applicable to user interface and documentation design. This part of the book is oriented toward developing a deeper understanding of language and a better appreciation of the needs of users as language learners, as explained in chapter 1. Here we explore the concept of variety in language and look at the reasons or motivations behind variety. Distinctions are drawn between colloquial and formal and between general and professional language. Special consideration is given to scientific and technical language and to jargon and slang. The requirements of international communication are discussed with reference to English, and finally, we look at how variety is related to writing style. “Creatures of habit” is a label that seems to apply to a great majority of human beings. Language habits, acquired through everyday practice in speaking, ensure that in adulthood most people reach a level of fluency in their native language that allows them to use the language to get things done, without needing to reflect on the tool itself. Occasionally, we may become aware of our individual habits—our spelling difficulties, for instance, or the fact that we tend to use certain turns of phrase, which others may laugh at or fail to understand. Collective habits, patterns of speech attributable to a community, serve a particular purpose in that they help to define a group’s identity; the protection of a language is then a means of safeguarding that identity. This can be seen to operate on a national and regional basis, in national languages and regional dialects, but it can also be observed on a smaller scale, in professional circles, and when friends or partners communicate in a way that only they can understand.