A plain language presentation at the NIH National Cancer Institute

1. Creating the conversation
Kath Straub, PhD

2. 2

3. Where we are going ...
• Know your biases
• Learn about your audience (and their limits)
• Remember that they don’t know as much as you do
• Test to validate that they heard what you said/

4. The evolution of Content Design
Used car
salesmen
and desk
clerks
Websites
Usable
websites
Technology
mediated
(personalized)
conversations
1980
We are
about here
Help me
get things
done (on
any device)
Help me
do things

5. FACTOID:
PEOPLE DON’T READ
ON THE WEB

6. FACTOID:
PEOPLE DON’T READ
ON THE WEB
FACT:
PEOPLE DON’T READ
ON THE WEB WHAT WE
WRITE DOES NOT FIT
THEIR NEEDS.

7. Where we are going with this...?
Good content anticipates the dialogue
• Talk about things I will care about
• Know what I already know (and don’t tell me that, again)
• Guide me, don’t lecture me
• Don’t speak in tongues.
• Help me get there....(And, If I get through the basics, …
show me some tricks)

9. Step 1: Recognize your bias
You know too much.
(...or at least more than
I need/want to know in
order to use your data.)

10. Step 2: (Really) Know your audience
• Who are you speaking to?
• What do they need to know?
• How much domain knowledge do they have?
• How can you help them get where
(you know) they need to go.
• Have you validated that?

11. Step 3: Craft the conversation
Do things Get things done

13. • READSMART

14. My mental model
for getting a
toothbrush
includes a guide

15. Two big changes
1. We have more data to drive decisions
2. We make them alone…. or with
a firehose of flat content as our guide.

16. Researchers are
the ultimate DIY
community. But
DIY is not always
the most efficient
way to make
progress.

17. Act
on it
Understand
what I found
Find
what I need
The old “good”
The old good: Content is good if people can find what they need,
understand what they found and act on it effectively.
But, this assumes that I know what I’m looking for and what to do
once I get there.

18. Act
on it
Understand
what I found
Find
what I need
New “good design”
Figure out
what I want
The new good: Good content also helps people
figure out what you have that they want or need, how to
find the relevant information, understand what they
found and act on it
effectively.

19. Act
on it
Understand
what I found
Find
what I need
New “good design” needs to supports self-diagnosis
Figure out
what I need/want
1. Diagnose
2. Guide
3. Facilitate
The new good:
The content
supports
incremental
(correct)
decisions

20. WHAT DOES THIS
LOOK LIKE?

21. • READSMART
This is the “old good.” I
can see my options here
... And how my options
differ.

22. • READSMART
Actually, it’s better than
it looks. There is a
decision matrix on this
site … which is the
beginning of a
conversation. But its
HIDDEN.

23. • READSMART
OK, this is better… but it’s
more like a lecture than a
conversation. They gave me
the information I need, but I
need to wade through it and
decide. And the categories
are still in toothbrush-speak

24. • READSMART
I tell you something and you
tell me something back.
This is the start of a dialogue.

25. Think
GRICE
rules to live by

26. Gricean rules of implicature: Quality
Maxim of Quality.
Make your contribution true;
so do not convey what you
believe false or unjustified.
(Say the truth.)
26
I’m hoping you don’t
need an example for
this.

27. Gricean rules of implicature: Quantity
Maxim of Quantity.
Be as informative
as required. (Say
enough (but,
implicitly, … not too
much.)
27
If you get arrested in LA
and you can’t afford a
lawyer, we will help.

28. Quantity: Say enough (but not too much.)
28

29. Gricean rules of implicature: Relation
Maxim of Relation.
Be relevant. (Say
what matters.)
29
Gated-guided Paths

30. Gricean rules of implicature: Relation
Maxim of Relation.
Be relevant.
(Say what matters.)
30
Connect the dots.

31. The Gricean rules of implicature: Manner
Maxim of Manner. Be
perspicuous; so avoid
obscurity and ambiguity,
and strive for brevity and
order.
(Say it right.)
31
Jargon is only bad when it escapes.

32. The Gricean rules of implicature: Manner
32
This is jargon. It has escaped.

33. 33
Even Lawyers want to
understand
Plain language increases
lawyers’ credibility
to both lawyers and
laypeople
Straub, Clement, Cheek, Mahaffey (2014)
BUT ….

34. The Gricean rules of implicature: Manner
34
Stimulus: Petition
Petition for rehearing - Legalese
Needless to say, we disagree with much
that is set forth in the Court of Appeal's
Opinion herein. Nevertheless, this Petition
for Rehearing is restricted to but a single
aspect of the said Opinion. This single
aspect is the one which pertains to that
ratification of an act of his agent which is
submitted to flow from the facts as
represented by Mr. Jones to the Superior
Court (Opinion: page 4, line 2 to page 5, line
2, page 11, line 7 to page 12, line 19).
Specifically, we respectfully submit that the
Court of Appeal's views relative to the
assumed non-existence of such ratification,
are predicated upon a factual assumption
which is disclosed by the record to be
incorrect. This being so, we submit that the
actual facts, revealed by the record, are
such as clearly to entitle us to prevail in
respect of the ratification theory
Petition for rehearing - Plain
Although we disagree with much of the
Court of Appeal's opinion, we limit this
Petition to a single aspect--whether Mr.
Jones ratified the act of his agent. The
Court found that he did not (Opinion, pp. 4-
5, 11012). We respectfully submit that this
finding was based on a misreading of the
facts. The Court assumed facts that the trial
record shows to be incorrect and that point
to ratification. We are, therefore, entitled to
a rehearing.
Participants
38 Lawyers
93 People (Turkers)

35. Will clients understand this lawyer?
Lawyers Non-lawyers
Very Easy
Easy
Hard
Very Hard
Marginally different (p<.09)Significantly different
Everyone agrees that
legal language is hard
to understand.

36. Will other lawyers understand this lawyer?
Lawyers Non-lawyers
Very Easy
Easy
Hard
Very Hard
Significantly different
Lawyers agree that
legalese is hard
for lawyers
to understand.
Significantly different

37. Are the passages specific and concise?
Lawyers Non-lawyers
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Significant differenceSignificant difference
Surprise?
Disagree for legalese.

38. Are the passages logical?
Lawyers Non-lawyers
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Significant difference No difference

39. Is the writer convincing?
Lawyers Non-lawyers
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Significant difference No difference
This is the first sign
of a troubling problem.

40. What level has the writer reached in the firm?
Lawyers
Managing Partner
Partner
Associate
Staff Attorney
Paralegal
Significant difference
We hypothesize that
this finding generalizes
to other professional
groups.

41. Step 4: Ask them if they got it

42. 42

43. Step 4: Ask them if they got it

44. Take-aways
• Know your biases
• Learn about your audience (and their limits)
• Remember that they don’t know as much as you do
• Test to validate that they heard what you said.

45. However guilty defendants, upon due
inquiry, might prove to have been,
they were, until convicted, presumed
to be innocent.
Powell v Alabama 287 U.S. 45

46. However guilty defendants, upon due
inquiry, might prove to have been,
they were, until convicted, presumed
to be innocent.
Powell v Alabama 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
Let us help ….
However guilty defendants might
prove to have been upon due inquiry,
they were presumed to be innocent
until convicted.