Embarrassed to say I've never thought of this before. I will be reviewing the docs for my OSS projects because of this article. Thank you.
You've never thought of it because it's silly. Devs have better things to do than worry about "condescending language".
It's literally the foundation of what we do: create things for users. If you create libraries & tools that have documentation... that documentation is also something we create for the users.
And much like we try to be aware of tuning our creations to the accessibility, aesthetics, demographics, & skill levels of our users... a few simple adjustments to consider the confidence level of our users & not degrade them unintentionally is as valuable as any other usability feature.
Happy users = successful development, no matter how you ensure that happiness.
Honestly, I never considered words like "easy", etc. as "condescending," neither as writer nor as reader. It sounds like a variation on "mental fun on language"
Being respectful of differing viewpoints and experiences is one of the values at DEV. Even if something is "silly" to you, that doesn't mean it is for someone else. Comments like that also don't contribute anything to the conversation but close down conversation instead. It's better to follow the old adage, if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all.
"Silly" is far more condescending than any of the language mentioned in this article. Please think about the language you use and try to empathise.
Thanks for the excellent post, Carolyn.
Please don't attack me. Let me be me. If you don't like it - tough. Ok, Gupta.
Sigh... The argument made here is familiar from the concept of micro-agressions. These things don't bother anyone (I've heard "where do you come from" hundreds of times, both in and outside my country and it never made me angry), but as soon as people get taught that it is a micro-agression and believe in it, it works as such. The same applies with "simple". I'm frustrated when I can't get something done, not because these words are used. (Besides, most people don't read the documentation anyway) But now that I've read that it is condescending, the word gets a new meaning, despite that the author never intended to be condescending, i.e. people who believe in the concept of micro-agressions might actually feel "unconfortable" or "unsafe" when seeing these words, starting from the minute they read this article.
It sounds like you think microaggressions are invented by people who have nothing better to do than feel victimized. If I'm reading that wrong, I apologize, but I assure you that it's not the case. I found this blog on the subject very helpful: microaggressions.com
It's a mistake to project yourself onto everyone else, and assume they should feel as you do. If a question offends someone, try to put yourself in their shoes. Don't tell them what they feel is wrong or doesn't matter.
Also, lots and lots of people read the docs. The only reason not to is if they're not good or not there. Docs are great!
Indeed, there is a growing culture about feeling victimized (instead of getting more resilient), and yes, the original twitter author (who projects that concept on everyone else) assumes people should feel that way, i.e. should feel "stupid" just because something doesn't work when it is "easy". Over 50% of IT is stuff not working, so frustration is always there - for a short time. And in many cases, people didn't bother to read the docs.
My favorite source on microagressions is this analysis. Watch it till the end or I will feel uncomfortable!
But yeah, I'll probably remove some of these words from our documentation when I have the time, per my other argument (no adjectives in journalism) and to protect the project.
Perhaps "condescending" is not the best word to describe such expressions, but I can relate to the sentiment. It has annoyed me many times when documentation claims it's "easy", but there was an "unclear" assumption that didn't make things easy in practice. In general, one should strive to convey only reproducible facts in documentation without subjective/unnecessary expressions. If you claim something is "simple and easy" in the documentation, show me the evidence. I've seen tutorials and docs with phrases like "just type xxx". Do you really need that extra word "just" there? How does that improve readability or change meaning? Doc is not an essay or pitch.
The Symfony documentation use the term "belittling". Maybe it fit you best: "Avoid belittling words", github.com/symfony/symfony-docs/bl...
This is a great article, and I appreciate your efforts to push open source projects to be more inclusive in their documentation.
I'm curious about situations where you've encountered resistance from maintainers / other contributors, and how you've managed to convince them (or not) of the benefits of these changes?
I love this and thank you for writing about your approach - it's really useful!
It's so easy to accidentally add this kind of language to docs and tutorials and I really like the idea of adding a linter for it to help catch it all 👍
I would omit adjectives because they are superfluous to technical documentation.
I never thought about how they affected tonality.
Before Grammarly reported tonality I had no idea what tone my writing came across since I write in draconian style treating every textbox as documentation.
Avoid using adjectives is an argument I'd accept somewhat. I hate when it is done in journalism, because this mixes content and comment.
I had a journalism class in college over a decade ago for copywriting and they taught you to avoid adjectives. So this certainly where it started for me.
This is fabulously written
This is great and so important! Thank you so much for your work! Nothing is worse that someone telling you how simple something is and getting stuck on it.
"everyone knows": Everybody knows this phrase is clearly false. See what I did there? :P But seriously, I can't think of a single good reason to use this phrase in documentation. Removing it is a-okay in my book.
"just", "obviously", "of course", and "clearly": They do have slight negative connotations. But whether they could actually be construed as condescending or not highly depends on their usage. I'm not entirely opposed to switching these out but I'm somewhat skeptical.
"simply", "easy", "basically": These are very common words and are not inherently condescending. Replacing all uses of these is going too far. Effort in helping newcomers and marginalized groups would be better spent elsewhere.
This is a really interesting idea, thanks for that. It had never occurred to me before.
I do worry that some dry humour will be lost, as in this classic from perldoc:
[substr()] return value is based at 0 (or whatever you've set the $[ variable to--but don't do that).
[substr()] return value is based at 0 (or whatever you've set the $[ variable to--but don't do that).
But it's a small price to pay.
I don't know if "just" is in the same league as the other words.
The word "simply" definitely is condescending, and "just" can be used that way, but "just" can be used in many natural ways.
With that said, it usually isn't necessary.
In my opinion, just is often used in an opposite way to condescension. "Just do x" is often used to assume you would do a more difficult task in the easier task's place. So, for instance, if you were to use an automation tool, I'd likely describe the last instruction on how to automate it as something like, "Just click the button and everything is running!"
"Simply", however, usually isn't used this way.
This article inspired me to write a "Word/Phrase Hit List ☠️" for editing my upcoming tech book. I'm scrubbing out as many instances of the following as possible and reasonable:
There are rare exceptions, but in general, these words die. ;)
Nice article! I totally agree with everything. I think too that this kind of language should not be used while speaking either, for the same reasons.
I wrote a similar article in that sense some years ago, if somebody is interested: thevaluable.dev/development-easy-j...
I suspect those that use this type of language are seeking an alternative to dry technical descriptions and are seeking to make it more conversational and less alarming to a new user.
That argument may have held last decade, but most people have had enough exposure to technology that they just want the facts without all the verboseness.
Since Open Source is the context you are raising it in here, many such software tries to emulate more professional commercial offerings with the perhaps false premise new users haven't gone through their learning curves. That means the documentation writer ( whether the coder or UI designer or team lead ) assumes no prior knowledge of that industry sector in which it is used. So they have a choice, make it terse and clinical ( Documentation is a Legal Instrument after all ), or try to make it friendly in some way.
The problem is the "some way" the they choose. Carolyn has raised a valuable viewpoint of one such "some" way. I've never liked using used those terms, but not for the reasons the OP has raised. I've never seen them as condescending, but then I'm an arrogant old such-and such and a bit of a little Hitler when it comes to getting people to do what I want.
I can speak a few languages and am learning a few more from Arabic to various Asian ones, and many of those don't include incidental and decorative words that the romance languages do. ( French German English Italian Spanish etc. ) Quite often these words have come about to make phrases "roll off the tongue a lot easier, and give the speakers brain time to engage in what to say next, or from the listeners point of view time to assimilate what they've heard.
And that's where the problem arises. People try to put on paper what belongs to speech. It very rarely works. It's like trying to cross pollinate a hybrid tree from the Conifer group with a Hardwood. If its not condescending its plain awkward. Leave it out.
Then there's a separate minefield when these have to be translated, either in word-for-word or thought-for-thought.
I tried once to make a humorous interplay between the unsaid instructor that is the manual and the learner as Preying Mantiss Mastah and Humble Glasshoppah. I decided that humour is too dangerous, even before going cross cultural with it.
What worked in various places was to be a bit verbose and explain the reason for the prominence of the UI being as it was with other controls hidden behind a tab, and implied therein was the "just simply" without being said.
It's a skill, and I think there are better people than me with some of the docs I've read.
Thanks again for raising it.
Thanks for this. It's something I've tried to be mindful of more recently, but is personally difficult to really keep on top of. The linting approach is going to be really helpful.
Great to know. I might have used this kind of words for some docs. Not that I did on purpose but now I'm aware of their implications 😃
You can also use npmjs.com/package/cspell and define invalid words, plus it will spell check your code
This is a great initiative and I'm so glad that our industry is embracing it!
This is a fantastic initiative.
Hopefully it will also be a start towards software development practitioners reflecting on all their jerk-like behaviours.
This is the dumbest thing I've seen in a while. Condescending language? Really? How easily are your feelings hurt that you are trying to make people change the way they express themselves? You are completely missing the point of documentation which is not to pat you on the back but to guide you and provide information. Sometimes I feel like people are looking for excuses to just post an article but this one made me completely livid.
We're trying to be a friendly, helpful community, and in that light, your comment is not constructive.
I think this is a very useful post. People, myself included, genuinely feel put off when we try to follow documentation that suggests we should be able to do something, and that it's our fault when we fail. It might be our fault, but it might also be down to missing or outdated documentation, and I'm sure you've felt some measure of frustration with scrappy documentation in the past?
Nobody likes to feel like an impostor (to crowbar that word in), but that's sometimes the result of telling people a task is "easy" when it's not.
Here is something constructive, man up.
Could you take a step back and consider why this makes you 'completely livid'? You are perfectly entitled to consider this suggestion beneath you, and other people are perfectly entitled to not agree with you.
I suggest you try to calm down and look at this more maturely. I don't know how this such a significant issue to make you 'completely livid' - you don't have to follow the suggestion if you don't want to, and if other people start considering how they write documentation differently, what is it to you?
a significant issue
a significant issue
Is it really, though?
I cannot fathom the people who take issue with others looking for ways to be nice.
Don't want to apply this to your docs? Then don't.
But being angry that some of us like this idea, is a waste of your time taken to type your comment.
What's so funny about this viewpoint is that it demands that it be pandered to by expressing anger. "No one should try to be nice in this way because it makes me mad!" That's not going to help anything.
Also, your goals are exactly the same as the ones you're angry about. These editors are also trying to use docs to guide you and provide information. They advance the argument that a neutral, non-condescending tone is a better way to do that. Is that worth getting livid over? Why such anger?
I strongly agree with you
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.