<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Banning Jargon</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.delib.net/dblog/banning-jargon/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/banning-jargon/</link>
	<description>Digital democracy, news, thinking, tips &#38; tricks and tech stuff from Delib</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:59:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/banning-jargon/comment-page-1/#comment-751</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:16:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/banning-jargon/#comment-751</guid>
		<description>Nice post Gez.  It&#039;s incumbent on us to have a sensitivity to jargon, and to avoid it where possible.  

Of course, where there is genuine innovation, sometimes new terms are needed to precisely express the meaning of something, but this is relatively rare.  Too often jargon clouds the intended meaning, where plain speaking would better express what is meant.

We should also write a post on being cautious with acronyms: acronyms are prone to being ambiguous, and often demand more cognitive effort to read than the equivalent long form - when we read we recognise the shapes of words rather than reading each letter.  Acronyms prevent this, and we have to reconstruct or recall the meaning each time we encounter the acronym.  Related to this, full-caps text is harder to reader because the word shapes are not distinctive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice post Gez.  It&#8217;s incumbent on us to have a sensitivity to jargon, and to avoid it where possible.  </p>
<p>Of course, where there is genuine innovation, sometimes new terms are needed to precisely express the meaning of something, but this is relatively rare.  Too often jargon clouds the intended meaning, where plain speaking would better express what is meant.</p>
<p>We should also write a post on being cautious with acronyms: acronyms are prone to being ambiguous, and often demand more cognitive effort to read than the equivalent long form &#8211; when we read we recognise the shapes of words rather than reading each letter.  Acronyms prevent this, and we have to reconstruct or recall the meaning each time we encounter the acronym.  Related to this, full-caps text is harder to reader because the word shapes are not distinctive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mind Your Jargon at Intellitics</title>
		<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/banning-jargon/comment-page-1/#comment-750</link>
		<dc:creator>Mind Your Jargon at Intellitics</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:24:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/banning-jargon/#comment-750</guid>
		<description>[...] Delib Blog: Banning Jargon [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Delib Blog: Banning Jargon [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ella</title>
		<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/banning-jargon/comment-page-1/#comment-745</link>
		<dc:creator>Ella</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/banning-jargon/#comment-745</guid>
		<description>Hi,
Last autumn we organised a workshop to find out what was happening with eParticipation in Scotland to find - obviously in retrospect -that people doing the most eParticipation either hadn&#039;t heard of the word or hadn&#039;t thought it applied to them.

After inviting a few people, I added a definition to the invites and then to the program.

However, I&#039;m disappointed that the LGA are banning the word “stakeholders”. It reminds me of both Buffy the vampire slayer and someone building a fence in a windy field.

-Ella</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,<br />
Last autumn we organised a workshop to find out what was happening with eParticipation in Scotland to find &#8211; obviously in retrospect -that people doing the most eParticipation either hadn&#8217;t heard of the word or hadn&#8217;t thought it applied to them.</p>
<p>After inviting a few people, I added a definition to the invites and then to the program.</p>
<p>However, I&#8217;m disappointed that the LGA are banning the word “stakeholders”. It reminds me of both Buffy the vampire slayer and someone building a fence in a windy field.</p>
<p>-Ella</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

