Introduction
Before embarking on this issue of the Red Pony Express, I’d like to share some exciting news with our stalwart readership. Red Pony founder and Principal Consultant Peter Riches and his wife Michelle welcomed the arrival of a baby girl, Ella Catherine, born on Wednesday September 28. All are well and we wish Ella’s parents every happiness.
But nothing halts the progress of the Red Pony Express, and our discussion in this issue turns to the seemingly obvious risks in not having a clear, unambiguous user manual for important stuff like torpedoes and major pieces of infrastructure. We also consider the utility—or otherwise—of the em dash, and the importance of adopting the right tone for your audience.
Enjoy,
Andrew
Don't let the manual be an afterthought
Peter Riches
I’ve come across a couple of events in the media recently that have served to highlight the importance of good documentation, and the significant risks of not having a clear and credible user manual.
The first concerns anti-submarine torpedoes purchased by the Australian Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) from a European manufacturer. Unfortunately the highly classified instructions for the weapons are written in Italian and French, but not English. DMO is now tendering for translation services.
The second, less comical example, related to the controversy over the release of water from the Wivenhoe Dam at the peak of the Brisbane flood in January 2011. The Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry found that the procedure manual flood engineers relied upon to make decisions about releases of water was ambiguous, and that ‘a fundamental review of the Wivenhoe manual is required’ (QFCI Interim Report, August 2011 (PDF)).
In both instances it is clear that the documentation provided was not fit for purpose. More concerning is how crucial documentation seems to have been treated as a matter of secondary importance, only to result in significant loss of reputation when the deficiencies were revealed so publicly.
In the case of the Wivenhoe Dam, the Commission of Inquiry concluded that the interpretation of the manual was dependent on the understanding of the engineers on duty at the time, noting ‘the current flood engineers may agree on what to others carries a different meaning, will be useless in the event of accident or illness which incapacitates one or more of them’ (QFCI Interim Report).
The Queensland Government is now considering the recommendations of the inquiry into the floods which left 22 people dead, caused an estimated $10 billion damage (PDF) and resulted in three quarters of the state being declared a disaster zone.
The DMO has allowed up to $110,100 for translation of the anti-submarine torpedoes technical documentation, plus flights and accommodation.
Ask the punctuation doctor
Andrew Eather
For some of us, our knowledge and use of the armoury of horizontal punctuation marks available to the literate English speaker stops at the stumpy little hyphen. But beyond that short horizon lies the land of the dash—the em and the en.
The modern computer keyboard is an agent in the conspiracy to eliminate the dash from common usage, as it is no straightforward matter to locate them, requiring as it does the depression of two (sometimes three) keys simultaneously. But maybe that’s no bad thing—at least it considerably attenuates their misuse.
We’ve discussed correct use of the dash previously, but this time I want to consider the dash as a symptom rather than a remedy.
While the correct use of en or em dashes can bring clarity to a sentence that contains a number of complicated, interconnected ideas, in a lot of cases it can be better to break such a long sentence down into shorter ones. As an exercise, this is worth trying. It can help you pare an idea down to its essentials and force the subsidiary material to justify its presence. Maybe you don’t need those parenthetical statements after all?
Start by identifying the main verb, subject and object of the sentence. Then examine the phrases or clauses in between the dashes and see if they can be turned into short sentences of their own. Or even eliminated altogether. Writing that takes things step by step is a big help to the reader. It’s always a better strategy than trying to get it all said at once—with all the exceptions and finer qualifications jammed in together.
Who am I writing for?
Andrew Eather
It can be a fraught matter, trying to ‘set the tone’ of a piece of writing. And when you’re trying to sell or promote something, your ear needs to be well calibrated to what your audience likes to hear.
So it was interesting to read some feedback from a member of the target audience for promotional materials issued by Cricket Australia a couple of months back. CA sent out some media releases promoting the launch of its summer domestic Big Bash competition, presumably in an effort to get sections of the sporting media to talk up the event and generate some free publicity.
Given that cricket writers are a rather staid and conservative bunch, you would think a complementarily reserved tone might be in order. Not so Cricket Australia. See Greg Baum’s splenetic article for all the cringeworthy detail. Suffice to say the media releases were written (poorly) more for an audience of skateboarders with their pants on backwards than the tweedy types who typically take an interest in the domestic rivalries of the Sheffield Shield.
Granted, Cricket Australia is trying to attract more of the former and less of the latter to the games, but the teenagers aren’t the audience for a media release. The media are. And they don’t like it. They think (perfectly correctly) that the Big Bash competition stands in relation to proper cricket as the Big Mac stands in relation to prime Angus eye fillet.
So to hector one’s audience with nonsense about ‘pumping urban beats’ (no, I do not know what these are, and nor do I care to) or assertions concerning ‘super-cool, all-out-attacking attitudes’ will rather queer one’s pitch if the goal is to persuade, or at least to mollify.
But perhaps the goal of Cricket Australia’s copywriters was to start a fight? At least they got some coverage, even if it was overwhelmingly negative. This summer we’ll find out who Cricket Australia’s true audience is.
|
News
