TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re. more on jargon From:Geoff Hart <geoff-h -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA> Date:Thu, 31 Aug 1995 13:14:31 LCL
Paul Cheverie notes, correctly, that I used bad
jargon by not defining what I meant by jargon.
<grin> There are two broadly accepted meanings:
1. Terminology broadly understood within a field
or context, by members of a profession etc.
2. Words intended to confuse or sound
sophisticated, and not generally well understood
even within a field (let alone outside the field).
Jargon of type 1 is great: it's explicit, concise
and unlikely to offend anyone if your audience
comprises members of the profession. This is a
simple case of using the right word for the right
job. Jargon of type 2 is pedantic and confusing.
Avoid! So to summarize, I proposed that type 1
jargon is acceptable and perhaps even helpful.
--Geoff Hart @8^{)}
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
Disclaimer: If I didn't commit it in print in one of
our reports, it don't represent FERIC's opinion.
