December 17, 2011

Day 17 - Speaking the Same Language

This was written by Jordan Sissel (

Language is important.

You've probably had disagreements or confusions that, during or after, you realized were caused by miscommunication or misinterpretation. Something got lost in translation, right?

Language is important, so do you resolve these issues? Lawyers do it by dedicating great lengths of text to defining terms to eliminate confusion. What was the last legal document you read? Perhaps the constantly-changing iTunes EULA? Did you read it? Did you skip reading it because it was 70 pages long? Was it readable? Was it plain english?

What was the last legal document you saw that seemed approachable? Can you even read this document at the default font size?

Legal documents are long for many reasons, but the main reason I believe is to reduce loopholes or confusion by defining and using a common language and vocabulary. Vocabulary is important. Most of these documents have embedded definitions of just about every major term used. Look at your current employment contract - how much of it is simply defining words?

Centrally defining all words allows two parties who speak different languages to speak on a common ground. Look at the GPL3 and Apache 2 licenses compared to the MIT license. Both the GPL3 and Apache 2 licenses specify more requirements or allowances than the MIT one, but my point is that much of the raw text in both GPL3 and Apache 2 are definitions. Compare this to the MIT license which has practically no definitions embedded.

Verbal Communication

In your average day, it is unlikely you have the time or energy to spend defining terms in the middle of every conversation. Most of the time you might assume the other person (or people) know what you mean when you say it.

I propose that the likelihood of one person understanding your words is in inversely related to their distance from your context, job role, and other factors you could have (or have not) in common.

Explaining something job-related to a fellow sysadmin will require a different set of terminology, a different language, than doing the same to your manager, someone outside your engineering group, someone in marketing, etc. The knee-jerk reaction is often to assume the other person is stupid. They aren't understanding you! It sucks. It increases tension and distrust.

Like I said, you probably don't have time to work with each person (or group) to design a common terminology. You have stuff to do. What other options do you have?

My best recommendation here is to study everyone. Watch what they say, how they say it, and what you think they mean when they say something. Study their reactions when you say things. If they appear confused, ask and clarify. Don't treat them like they're an idiot. Speaking loudly and slowly doesn't help anyone; ask for what is confusing, and ask what needs clarification and definition.

Know your audience.

Avoid analogies. Analogies are you translating your words into other words you hope the audience will understand. Bad analogies are very easy to make, and you can accidentally increase confusion and distrust like the famous "the internet is not a truck" failure. If you have bidirectional communication with a person, instead of making an analogy, why not ask for clarification and definition?

Visual Communication

Pictures can help, too. Bought anything from Ikea recently? If not, check them out, or just look at this table assembly manual. All the Ikea furniture assembly manuals I've seen are pretty effective with only pictures. No words.

Study your audience.

If you study and interact with a given set of folks frequently enough, you should learn to more easily speak a language they understand. Marketing and PR folks probably don't care about disks being full, but they care about the external impact of that problem. Try to understand what a person knows and what they care about and frame your words accordingly.

Software Similarity and Language Problems

Language problems affect even groups with small distances between them. Look at logging tools: You'll see terms like facility, severity, log level, debug level, source, and more all referring to pretty much the same things. What about monitoring? Nagios calls it a 'service'; Zabbix calls it an 'item' and sometimes a 'check'; Xymon calls it a 'service'; Sensu calls it a 'plugin'.

All of monitoring term examples above mean pretty much the same thing, and before you disagree, consider that I say they mean the same thing because they look like the same thing from a distance. Knowing Nagios and learning a new monitoring tool requires learning new term definitions as well as new software, and overloaded terms (like 'service') can have different meanings in different projects. It trips up the brain!

Look at features provided by similar tools, and each feature is likely to have a different name for the same thing. Intentional or otherwise, this is a language-equivalent of vendor lock-in, and it sucks.

Puppet calls it a module and manifest; Chef calls it a cookbook and recipe. Ruby and Python use the word "yield" to mean different things, and this causes much confusion for people trying to learn both languages. You can reduce learning curves if you use a common language in your systems and projects.

When to Define Terms

It is worth defining terms if you need to have a long-lived common ground. You want defined common terms and features of a project that stay defined through out the project's life cycle.

As an example, there's a small group of folks who say, "Monitoring sucks," myself included. We got together to discuss ways to solve crappy monitoring problems, and one of the tasks was to define a common set of terms - we went the route lawyers go because having a common terminology ground would strengthen the #monitoringsucks movement. Agree or disagree with the definitions we came up with, the point was to lay a path for discussion that could avoid religious wars over confused terminology. The common terms were also chosen to help steer any new projects to use the same terms and reduce the learning curve as a result.

Parting Thoughts

Much of technical writing education focuses on knowing the audience. While 'technical writing' leans towards one-way communication (writer communicating with readers), the ideas are important in general communication.

Who are you talking to? What are their interests? What are the boundaries of their knowledge?

Further Reading

  • This page gives a reasonable overview of audience analysis.


Unknown said...

I completely disagree about analogies. I happen to be pretty good with them, and it's the absolute ONLY way to speak with most of my non technical colleagues. Analogies work absolutely excellently as long as you can put the situation into words your target audience understands. Both analogies and examples are the core to bridging the language barrier between completely different types of people.

Take, for example, describing how analytics works. The best analogy I heard was one that started with the person I was explaining it to.

They asked about what an "event" was. They started by asking "is it like tracking how many cars pass on a freeway in an hour? Is that one event?"

My response: "no. Events would be the individual car passing. So you would be watching the freeway, an you choose to record each car passing as one event. You record attributes abou that event: the car passing. This could include the time, the make, model, how fast it was going,where it passed, etc. then you have this massive log of events and you can calculate certain measurements in that event, such as how many cars pass by in an hour, or how many Chevy cars passed by, etc."

For people with a completely different vocabulary, the only way to define terms like I did here, event, attribute, and measure, is to relate the language into words they understand.

You forget that while the truck analogy is widely criticized by the tech community, for those that dont understand the Internet, it actually works. It was a great analogy for its target audience.

Jordan Sissel said...

I'll agree and disagree with you here about the tubes analogy. I've heard many network admins refer to bandwidth links as "pipes" so the plumbing reference isn't likely far off.

It's possible the intent was conveyed properly - there are tubes for streaming things after all - but look at the technical reaction?

Instead of understanding his analogy as an to either personally understand the problem or help others understand the problem, people focus on the words and make fun.

The message is diminished due to energies by receivers in breaking down the analogy, and that sucks.