Tagged: Language

December 4, 2012

The functionally illiterate tourist and travel guides

by Jen O Neill

We hear about the growing problem of functional illiteracy. However, for many of us in technical communication, it may not be an issue that we consider when we write for our target audiences. Yet if our work is read by users whose native language is not English, then we well need to consider the needs those readers who have poor English.

What’s it like to be an adult who can’t understand the text in front of them? How much more complicated does it become when you can’t speak the local language but must still find and communicate information?

I visited Moscow and St Petersburg for the first time in October, 2012. I can’t remember why, but I bought a different travel guide for each city. I got the Lonely Planet guide for Moscow (2012 edition) and the DK Eyewitness Travel guide for St Petersburg (2010 edition). Most of my time in Russia was spent in St Petersburg.

Two very different cities when it comes to communication

Over 2.5 million foreigners visit St Petersburg and 4 million visit Moscow annually. St Petersburg is more sympathetic towards its foreign visitors than Moscow. Unlike Moscow where everything is written in Cyrillic only, downtown St Petersburg has “bi-lingual” signage. The signage, such as street and metro names, includes both the Cyrillic script and its transliteration in Roman script.

Information looks very different in Cyrillic, even when referring to familiar things like the MacDonald’s fast food restaurant. Names that are familiar at home become incomprehensible. Cyrillic only shares a few common letters with the Latin script that we use in Western European languages.

I don’t know Russian. I didn’t have time before to learn the Cyrillic script before I left on holiday. So this meant that I was effectively functionally illiterate during my stay in Russia. I also would be unable to talk with people unless they understood my (foreign) language.

But everyone speaks English, right, or at least the younger generation does?

Few Russians speak English. Nearly everyone I stopped to ask for help in both Moscow and St Petersburg had little or no English regardless of their age. This meant that I was dependent on my guide books for much of the information that I needed.

To help their readers, both travel guides had a section with many commonly used words and phrases, such as “Please”, “Thank you”, “Excuse me” and “Hello”. Both show how to pronounce the words and phrases. I found that the DK Eyewitness Travel guide had a more extensive list of words and phrases. However, they were written in smaller type than those in the Lonely Planet guide.

As a functional illiterate who couldn’t speak Russian, I wasn’t keen on trying out sentences but appreciated having the simple everyday words to use. To stop a stranger in the street and try to pronounce a couple of phonetic phrases from a guide book before the person walks away can be challenging, “Gdye Khram Spasa-na-Krovi ? pa·ka·zhih·tye mnye pa·zhal·sta (na kar·tye)” [Where is Church on Spilled Blood? Can you show me (on the map)?]

What was I supposed to do when the answer comes back in Russian, which I don’t understand?

I found it easier to keep to the simple “Please/Thank you” Russian words and point at the Cyrillic text or photo in the guide book or metro map and gesture, “Where is?” or “Am I here?”

This meant that I needed a guide book that let me “speak” with my finger.

I would need to be able to point at some specific information in the guide. The locals would need to be able to quickly understand my problem, although I’d have an answer in a language I wouldn’t understand. So I needed a communication system that was visual.

Let your fingers do the talking

The two travel guides are designed differently. DK Eyewitness Travel has a very visual layout with colour-coded chapters on each city area to visit and many photographs. Lonely Planet has minimal colour (mainly black text with blue headings) and some colour photographs. Both have a local map in each chapter on an area being described as well as a detailed main street maps at the back of the guide. As expected, both also have chapters with practical information on such subjects as transport, language, top tourist itineraries, restaurants and entertainment.

The DK Eyewitness Travel guide was much more encouraging for “talking with your finger”. Its visual layout made it much easier to point at specific information when showing a page to someone. The Lonely Planet layout was not designed to have its information shown to someone.

Here’s an example of an entry in the Lonely Planet guide for Moscow (click to enlarge):

Here’s an example of an entry in the DK Eyewitness Travel guide for St Petersburg (click to enlarge):

Examples of local area maps in the two travel guides (click to enlarge):

The DK Eyewitness Travel method of clearly categorising information on a site to visit became particularly important once I travelled outside of the city centre to the suburbs—when the signage is written in Cyrillic only. But it was still easy to point at the photo or the Cyrillic name of the place I wanted to visit and then point at, say, the bus number listed to “ask” people where on the street the bus stop is located for this destination. Everybody quickly understood what I needed to know and replied in gestures too.

I still haven’t seen the Lonely Planet’s guide for St Petersburg but if the information design of Moscow guide is anything to go by, I can’t image having this “finger dialogue” with strangers using their guide.

It really helped having a picture of the site I wanted to visit when asking for directions by gesture. During my stay I must have stopped dozens of people and ask them for information simply by pointing at items in my travel guide and making gestures such as “Where is?” I was often amazed (and relieved) that although I had no common spoken language with the Russians, we somehow had a common language of gestures, and everybody was always helpful.

Numbers. The universal language

I may not have been able to speak Russian but besides having the travel guide to help me, I had another tool that proved invaluable when I needed to converse with locals—the mobile phone.

I was on a limited budget so ate in lower priced canteens and buffet-style restaurants. When I’d reach the cash desk to pay, the cashiers would realise that I didn’t understand them and they would type the price on their mobile phones and show me the number. The phone was also great when haggling in markets. The vendor and I would simply enter the price on our phones that we were each expecting to pay or charge and show each other the number. No speaking; just shaking or nodding of heads and a phone to display the price. Simple yet effective.

A travel guide on Moscow without a metro map and no station names written in Cyrillic?

The easiest way to get around Moscow is by metro. Moscow has a large metro system with over 180 stations, many of which are architecturally beautiful. However, the metro system only shows the station names in Cyrillic characters.

There are metro maps shown on walls throughout the stations. Unlike Paris, for example, Moscow doesn’t hand out free printed metro maps to users to help them around a complex system. Although you can get a map of the Moscow metro on the web (in Flash) that shows the station names in both Cyrillic and Roman characters, the Roman-character names are in grey and are difficult, if not impossible, to read. Did the Lonely Planet travel guide consider this issue?

Frustratingly the Lonely Planet guide doesn’t include a metro map. To make matters worse, it only gives the Roman-character names of metro stations in its texts. So this can make using the metro system difficult if you don’t know the Cyrillic alphabet.

Up to nine million people use the system daily. So it’s often –very– crowded, which can make it difficult to read a station name on platform walls when you’re in a metro carriage. If you only have the Roman character name to use from your guide book, then it becomes more difficult to quickly figure out where you are on a metro line. You need a map if only to be able to count the number of stations you must travel before getting off or changing lines.

The DK Eyewitness Travel guide of St Petersburg includes a metro map. This city’s metro system is smaller than that of Moscow’s with only 65 stations. All stations have bi-lingual signage (Cyrillic/Roman scripts). Being a smaller system it’s easier to include a metro map in the guide. Although Lonely Planet includes a separate fold-out map of Moscow streets, there’s none for the metro included. This is an extraordinary oversight for such a fundamental tool to help tourists.

The Moscow metro service could also improve their map on their web site to make it more readable.

The problem with signage

As a Western European I’m used to seeing text-free icons in signage to tell me where things are located in buildings or on the street such as toilets, exits, left luggage, or taxis for example. However, Russia uses few, if any, text-free icons in its signage to communicate information. Moscow in particular is very text centric. If you can’t read Cyrillic script then the city isn’t going to help you. This means that you can’t read the signage in a railway station, for example, if you don’t know the language.

Unfortunately the list of words and phrases provided in both guides doesn’t consider this signage issue. They don’t include many common standard signage terms such as “Left luggage” or the words used in a train arrival/departure timetable such as “Platform”.

I planned to see St. Basil’s cathedral in the Red Square but first had go to the train station to leave my suitcase where I was to catch the night train to St. Petersburg later that day. I knew you could leave your suitcase at the station but I didn’t know the Russian term for “Left Luggage”. I couldn’t read the signage. Neither guide book listed the term and no one I asked in the station spoke English. They understood the word “Baggage” but I couldn’t understand their answers. I never found the Left Luggage section in the large railway station. I can’t believe that I went all the way to Moscow only to stand outside the cathedral because I didn’t know the word for “Left Luggage”. I couldn’t enter the cathedral with a suitcase. Both travel guides gave lots of terms for reading menus (which I didn’t need as I went to lower cost places where I could point at the food on offer) but little on realities of using buildings such as railway stations.

In 2014 Russia hosts the winter Olympics in Sochi in the Caucasus mountain. There will be a significant increase in the number of foreigners passing through Moscow on their way to the games. Most will be functionally illiterate in Russian like me. Will Moscow improve its signage to make it easier for us “illiterates” to get about in the city? I didn’t see much evidence during my stay. Will travel guides start to consider signage issues?

Why still use a paper travel guide?

The printed map of the Moscow metro that I had downloaded was poor quality and difficult to read. I have a smart phone so why didn’t I just download some apps to my phone to help me get around the metro and streets of the cities? There are some excellent ones available, even for free.

Roaming charges. Unless you’re not bothered about going broke with roaming charges or you’re using a company phone (so you’re not picking up the tab), you can quickly run up a significant bill from roaming charges when travelling overseas. As I wanted to regularly phone a friend in Siberia during my stay in Russia and I was on a limited budget, I bought a Russian pay-as-you-go SIM card at a railway station to control my phone costs. So I had no access to potentially helpful apps or such tools as Google Maps.

Paper maps and guides aren’t going to disappear any day soon. Paper doesn’t need an internet connection and is available 24/7 with no running charges.

Which guide book did I prefer? Lonely Planet or DK Eyewitness Travel?

I was in Russia for less than a week so had lots to see in a short time. I couldn’t read or speak the language and was travelling by myself on a limited budget. I wanted to explore.

Although I haven’t compared the two travel guides for the same cities, their respective designs are the same for all the places they cover. Lonely Planet probably contained information on more sites to see that DK Eyewitness Travel guide but the layout was cramped. It was often almost identical looking pages of dense type with blue headings. The Lonely Planet world is largely monotone and text orientated.

As a functionally illiterate tourist, I really appreciated having information that was communicated visually.

DK Eyewitness Travel won hands down with all its pictures and easy to use colour-coded chapters. I could quickly find my way around the guide. Its maps were much easier to read than those of Lonely Planet. It got me out there, actively exploring, interacting with the locals. Even if we didn’t share a common language, I was able to “dialogue” with them when I needed help.

But it isn’t just the content that matters. The book design does too. The DK Eyewitness Travel guide has a binding that let the pages stay open when you placed the guide on a table (so you could continue to read it while eating, for example). Lonely Planet slams shut; it always has to be held open or placed open facing down on a surface.

The binding of the DK Eyewitness Travel guide lets you open it back on itself without damaging the spine. Very useful as I usually had it stuffed in my bag, folded open on the page showing the metro map for quick access. DK also has useful robust flaps on the front and back covers to be used as bookmarks so you could quickly locate sections important for that day’s exploration. Could just be my eyesight but I found that there was a better contrast between the black text and white page in the DK Eyewitness Travel than the Lonely Planet. I wasn’t always reading in perfect lighting.

The DK Eyewitness Travel guide has been designed to encourage use and interaction, not just passive reading.

What should you look for in a tourist guide when you can’t read or speak the local language?

It should be visual.
Lots of pictures and maps to show you what’s where and what it looks like.
The “wayfinding” information should be visually separated from the description information.
Information such as place names, metro stations, bus numbers, should be easily distinguishable on the page so easy to point at. It shouldn’t be hidden in a large block of text.
It should be easy and quick to find information on the page.
It should have clear, easy to read maps that are accurate and which can be read inside and outside a building (that is, under different lighting situations).
It shows the names of places written in the local script as well Roman script.
It should also include how to pronounce the name.
It should include a comprehensive list of commonly used words and phrased (and how to pronounce them). It should also include translations of common phrases found on signage.
It should include a metro map (when there is a metro).

Would I visit Russia again? You bet! I found everyone (except perhaps the ladies in the metro station ticket desks) friendly and helpful. I know which travel guide I’ll be bringing with me.

April 22, 2012

Untangling Chinglish

by Jen O Neill

The development and manufacturing of many of the hardware products I document have been outsourced to Chinese companies. They work closely with our in-house engineers and product managers to develop customised products for our global customers. We release dozens of such products a year. The technology of these products is changing so quickly that it would be difficult for us to develop so many products in-house ourselves. Competitors also outsource their development and manufacturing for these products. See our earlier blog post “Working with OEMs”.

The Chinese engineers write generic manuals, which they then send to us to customise for our versions of the products. Their manuals are written in Chinglish. English strongly influenced by Chinese. They can have strange terms, long-winded sentences, missing grammar, simplistic mixed up verb formats, curious word order.

I’m working with an English that’s been contaminated by a language I don’t know: Chinese.

The infamous web photos of China’s Chinglish signage are amusing to read. A 70-page manual of it can be challenging. And fascinating.

So I’ve been reading up on how Chinese is written. Knowing some basic Chinese grammar helps to untangle the Chinglish and makes it easier to rewrite it into English. I’ve become curious about Chinese.

General information about Chinese

Chinese doesn’t have an alphabet. Instead it uses characters, called hanzi. There are around 40,000 characters in the language and as a beginner you need to learn around 2,000 to 3,000 just to be able to read a newspaper, for example.

No articles or prepositions. No plural or singular either

Chinese nouns don’t have articles such as “the” or “a” so they can be often missing in Chinglish. Nor does Chinese have a plural form. It’s implied in the context. As a result there are often mistakes in number in the Chinglish:

Chinglish: Can’t Add More User!
English: You can’t add any more users.

What’s with all the commas?

When you look at a text written in Chinese you’ll notice that there are a lot of commas as shown in this image.

Unlike English, the comma splice is frequently used in Chinese. Clauses are linked by commas where in English we’d use separate sentences. This means that when Chinese is poorly translated, we can often have a long paragraph of just a single sentence. Chinglish can be full of commas:

Chinglish: The enable status of camera already changed, device will reboot automatically, please enter the remote configuration after reboot is complete.
English: The camera reboots automatically when its parameters are modified. When rebooting is complete, configure the remote parameters.

(You’ll also notice that there are no breaks between words in Chinese.)

Another example of Chinglish written as a single sentence:

Chinglish: The whole screen is divided into 22*18 panes, you can use “ ↑ “ “ ↓ “ “ → “ “ ← “ keys to move the yellow pane to your hope position and press “ EDIT “ key, the yellow pane will be turned into red, then you can use “ ↑ “ “ ↓ “ “ → “ “ ← “ keys to extend the red pane.

Often the first thing I’ll do when I receive a text from the engineers is to quickly look through it to see if there are a lot of commas. This gives me a rough idea of the state of the “English” and how much rework may be required.

Past, present or future? It depends on the context

Chinese has no verb tenses. The tense depends on its context. To indicate that something has happened in the future or past, for example, time context words such as “yesterday” or “next year” are often added to the sentence. And unlike English, the time words come before the verb in Chinese.

Verb errors are common in Chinglish:

Chinglish: This action trigger local audible on box.
English: This action will trigger the unit’s buzzer.

Chinglish: The log items are more than 200 pieces, please short query range!
English: There are more than 200 log items. Please specify a smaller query range.

Chinglish: ESC button represents “Cancel”.
English: Press ESC to Cancel.

How did “Rule” become “Handle”?

The Wikipedia web page on Chinglish cites several possible causes for texts being written in Chinglish such as errors in Chinese dictionaries, no native English speakers checking the text, and the use of translation software.

None of our Chinese engineers are fluent in English. Their English is often a literal translation of the Chinese. They’re clearly thinking in Chinese when writing English, which produces Chinglish. Although I’ve never asked, I assume that they use translation software when writing their text as they often use the wrong synonym of a term or simply use a term that apparently has no logic for the context.

Chinglish: Modem drop off.
English: The modem is disconnected.

Chinglish: The image sticks.
English: The image freezes.

Each Chinese character represents a word or concept and often serves multiple purposes. Their meaning depends on context. So translating each character individually can easily produce an inaccurate or confusing result in English.

This excellent article by Mark Liberman discusses literal translation and explains the process of how “Disposable coffee cup” on a sign became translated as “A time sex thing” using translation software.

The biggest problem I have understanding Chinglish is with such mistranslated terms. One example is “handle” being used instead of “rule” in the manuals (such as when you configure the rules for how a system should respond to an alarm situation). One example:

Chinglish: View Tampering Handle.
English: View tampering rules.

I couldn’t see the link between “rule” and “handle” until I read Mark’s article. I entered the Chinese term for “rule” (taken from a software string) into Google Translate and it proposed the English term, “Deal with”, and several synonyms (processing, handling, handle, process). No “Rule” but a probable explanation as to why “Handle” appears in the manuals.

So I’m now wondering if the Chinese translation software tool used by the engineers lists “Handle” at or near the top of the English term options provided, making it an easy selection. If you don’t really know the target language well, you tend to select the first word the translation tool proposes.

I’ve tried this test with other peculiar English terms in the manuals when I have the corresponding Chinese term. I now have a better understanding of why some strange English terms have probably been used. Google Translate and the other translation software tools available on the web are useful tools and are continually improving. But they aren’t infallible.

In the meantime, my interest in Chinese grows.

For more information on Chinese grammar, see Wikipedia’s entry on Chinese grammar, grammar information from chinesenotes.com and a learner FAQ from the Chinese Grammar Wiki.

And what’s my elevator speech?

I enable English, natively.

August 25, 2010

When the manual speaks in many tongues: The multilingual manual

by Jen O Neill

Buy many products in Europe and inside the box you’ll probably find a printed multilingual manual. The manual could contain over a dozen languages. They can often elicit a groan from readers as they can initially be overwhelmed by all the languages in front of them.

This type of document is widely used in Europe, particularly for lower-cost hardware products. Its advantage is that the product can be packaged without knowing the eventual country to which it will be shipped, simplifying shipping and reducing costs.

These manuals are usually printed as a large folded sheet or as a small booklet. Due to space demands, page and font sizes tend be on the small side. They are often thrown out after use. As a result the cost of production can be an important issue.

In spite of their widespread use, we don’t often hear much about how they’re produced. Unlike the larger monolingual user manuals we all work on, these manuals are often more exposed to the cold realities of cost and size restrictions. So when planning a multilingual manual you should consider the following points:

Purpose

Will it be the only printed manual shipped with the product or is it intended as a quick installation guide with the full user guide to be include, for example, on a CD?

This will help you decide the type and extent of information required in the multilingual manual.

Space

How much space is available in the box for the printed manual when packed with the product and any other accompanying accessories and documents (such as WEEE and/or Battery Directive information sheets and CDs)?

This will determine the size and thickness of the printed manual with all required languages included, which in turn will impact how information can be presented.

Graphics

Do you have access to high quality graphics?

Usually these manuals communicate information in a very visual manner to reduce the amount of text needed. So the graphics need to be well drawn, descriptive and clear. They will often be describing hardware. If you can’t draw the graphics yourself, you’ll need the services of someone who can. To facilitate translation, graphics should only include text that doesn’t need to be translated such as measurements.

One way to save space is to present all the graphics in the front pages of the manual and then refer to them in the text of each language that follow after the graphics. Not always best in terms of usability but a compromise that at least ensures the information is provide in all the required languages in a limited space.

This type of documentation can reveal some of the cultural issues involved with producing international documentation. Europeans are more familiar than Americans with working from pictures. Europe is not (yet) as litigious a market as America so there may not always be the same legal demands for information to be explained in text format rather than split between graphics and text.

Budget

Are there budget limitations for producing and printing this manual?

Know what the printing budget will be since this document type is often used for lower cost products. As a result you may not be able to print in colour or use higher quality paper. Multilingual manuals tend to be printed in large print runs (perhaps several thousand at a time) so mistakes can be expensive to correct if they produce a lot of scrap documents. Don’t start writing this manual without knowing your production and cost restrictions.
How many languages will be included in a multilingual manual?

If you need to ship many languages with the product, the languages could be included in a single manual or split between two or more manuals. Including only a few languages in a manual makes it less intimidating and easier to use. However, printing two or more multilingual manuals to be shipped with a product will increase production costs, for which the budget may not always be available. There can sometimes be pressure to keep the number of items on the bill of materials for a product to a minimum.

Use the internationally recognised ISO language or country codes to identify the languages in a multilingual manual. Language codes are preferable to country codes as many countries share the same language. For the same reason, don’t use national flags to identify languages.

Love or hate them multilingual manuals will not be disappearing anytime soon. There’s a business need for them. So it’s important that we understand what makes them tick. I’ve done dozens over the years and enjoy the challenge each presents.

And you?

What’s been your experience of writing them? As a reader, which ones did you particularly like or dislike?

June 2, 2010

A recent survey on terminology management

by Jen O Neill

Even if you only produce documentation in a single language and don’t deal with an international audience, using consistent terminology matters.

SDL recently released the results of a terminology survey that they conducted earlier this year. The study is an interesting review on the trends and opinions on the subject of terminology management.

They asked two groups about terminology management: a business audience and translators.

When asked what they considered to be the most important impact of inconsistent terminology, the business audience replied the quality of the content, internal communication and customer satisfaction. Inconsistent terminology also impacts the cost of translation and branding.

Three departments are largely responsible for owning the terminology in a company: Technical Publications, Translation/Localisation, and Marketing. They’re responsible for the management, maintenance and approval of terminology.

The most common internal process they used for managing terminology were style guides and spreadsheets to store terms. Over 35% of the business respondents said that they keep their terminology in a style guide. However, only 50% shared their terminology lists with other departments in the company.

This lack of sharing with other departments obviously increases the risk that departments could be using different terms for the same meaning. And yet, as so many departments in a company use common terminology—not just technical publications and marketing—it’s a lost opportunity not to collaborate in sharing terminology to ensure consistency.

All parties taking part in the survey agreed that the problems related to inconsistent terminology start with the source documentation. Indeed 40% of translators said that they frequently encountered inconsistent terminology.
The translators said that the main impact of inconsistent terminology is on translation quality, style and consistency, client satisfaction and their productivity. These are the parameters often used to measure a translator’s success and performance. We can conclude from this that consistent terminology makes the translator’s work much easier as well as improving quality.

An interesting point shown in the survey is how few companies take responsibility for their terminology in the localization stage. The translators said that only 15% of clients drove terminology management. Terminology management just isn’t part of the localization strategy of many companies (they do have a localisation content strategy, right?). Indeed it’s more likely that the translator takes ownership of terminology than the company that created the source documentation being translated. We put all that effort in creating a document and then practically abandon control over it when it moves to another language.

An example: Same meaning, different terms

Over the years my company has been through various acquisitions and mergers. Being a global company, content is also created across the globe by different groups. The content is often then reused in different documents. All this has provided many opportunities for inconsistency in our terminology. For example, the following six terms have all appeared in our product datasheets.

Operating temperature
Temperature range
Temperature
Working temperature
Operating temperature range
Ambient temperature range

Unfortunately these terms all describe the same feature: the operating temperature of a product.

The datasheets were subsequently translated into multiple languages. The inconsistency in the English source terminology has bred inconsistency across the other languages—a domino effect. We’ve found that, for example, we have four different ways to say “operating temperature” in French and three different ways in Spanish (I gave up counting for the other languages). This inconsistency with just one term illustrates the widespread impact that poor terminology management can have across multiple documents and languages.

SDL’s survey clearly showed that terminology needs to be managed during the whole content life cycle, from the moment we decide a source document is needed through to the localisation of the content.

March 30, 2010

Happening times

by Jennifer O Neill

I work in the manufacturing sector and many of our products are outsourced to suppliers for development and manufacture, to be sold under our company’s brand name. The English terms I come across in the software and manuals that I check can often be amusing in their originality. A Chinese supplier with whom we work called the term “Event” in a product’s firmware “Happening Time”. I don’t know why but the term “Happening time” tickles me. I still changed it to “Event”.

I’ve no idea how “Rule” became “Handle”.

I may find amusement in such mistakes but on the down side….

Over the years I’ve worked with over two dozen suppliers from around the world, most in Asia. Only two of these suppliers have used technical writers to do their manuals. One was in Canada and the other in Israel.

It was a few years back and at the time neither writing group in these two companies gave sufficient thought to the impact of localisation on their manuals (such as text expansion and embedded text in graphics) as they didn’t translate their work. Yet their companies were selling the products to other companies for resale under other brand names, and these companies often operate in multilingual markets. Such as my own company. I may have had to redo the layouts and graphics of their manuals for localisation, but the English was correct.

I hope that these two writing groups are now doing manuals that are easy to localise, even if they’re still not doing any translation themselves. Such a step would increase the value of their services to their respective companies, who are keen to expand internationally.

However, most of the “English” source documents I receive to customise for my company are written by engineers in non-English speaking countries. The level of English varies from “Nearly there” to “????”.

The standard localisation issues with text expansion, embedded text in graphics, and inconsistent terminology are obviously also present. The Tech Comm world may be a buzz with XML and DITA but Microsoft Word is doing great in the world of many companies. So is Normal style. These issues are easy, if perhaps time consuming, to fix.

What does shock me is how many companies release manuals and software with poor, at times incomprehensible, English. If you then plan to then translate the documents and software, poor English will then often mean even worse translations. And translating isn’t cheap.

Training technical writers isn’t the problem. It’s training companies to have higher expectations on the quality documentation and software they provide to customers. Customers matter. Being able to use a product easily matters. Crap English impacts your bottom line.

Companies also need to realise that being able to speak English sort of OK isn’t the same as being able to write it correctly. Users – and translators – can tell the difference.

I know that English-mother tongue or fluent writers aren’t easy to find in many of the new growing industrial areas of the world. One of our Chinese suppliers is now getting a Chinese engineer who lived in the US for several years to do their manuals. The English is better (from a low base line). It’s still foreign-flavoured English, but it is at least easier to understand and is a step in the right direction for the resources they have at hand. Realistically, the chances of them hiring a mother-tongue writer in their city are minimal. We still rewrite their documentation for our customers.

Last year, I attended the STC France annual conference. During the last session when the speakers were discussing how they thought our profession would evolve in the future, one speaker said that we would be spending more time rewriting other people’s work. I agree.

English is now the linga franca of international business. As a result, the quality of English is often suffering. The challenge we face is finding ways to improve written English in documentation, and to persuade companies it’s worth the investment. Let’s reduce the incidence of all those awful happening times.