The Comma that Opened Airspace?

An interesting March blog about the consequences of a poorly placed comma came to my attention recently and I thought I’d share it. The post, which was by Tony Tharakan, editor of Reuters’ India Online, tells about India’s approval of a controversial proposal by a Malaysian airline (AirAsia) for a new airline to operate in India. The proposed airline will be a joint venture (JV) between AirAsia and India’s Tata group and other Indian investors.

The controversy arose when some wondered whether the proposal complied with a September 2012 government press note outlining the rules for foreign direct investment in aviation in India.  Here’s a portion of the sentence in the September press note with the whose interpretation was open to debate:

“The government of India has reviewed the position in this regard and decided to permit foreign airlines also to invest, in the capital of Indian companies, operating scheduled and non-scheduled air transport services, up to the limit of 49% of their paid-up capital…”

AirAsia will only own 49% of the JV, so the issue wasn’t about the amount of foreign investment. Instead, officials from the aviation authority argued that the policy referred to in the press note allowed foreign airlines to invest in existing carriers, not start new ones up. But, India’s Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) interpreted the sentence to mean that foreign airlines were allowed to take up to a 49% stake in existing Indian carriers and new airlines being set up.

Tharakan commented that the problematic comma in the quoted sentence was the one after the word “companies”. He said: “Had there been no comma after “companies”, things would have been clear. It would have meant foreign airlines could only invest in existing carriers….”

Personally, I think the confusion is attributable to the comma after “invest’ and the comma after “companies”. In any event, I think much of the confusion could have been avoided by application of the plain language principle of using short, clear sentences rather than long, comma-filled passages. What do you think?

One set of eyes just isn't enough!

Talk about life's lessons...

I sent out an announcement to clients this morning about some seminars I'm launching and -- wouldn't you know it -- the announcement had a typo. Instead of Plain Language, I typed: Plan Language. Of course the spell checker didn't flag that because "plan" is a perfectly fine word, as far as the spell check program is concerned!

Well, nothing I can do about it now other than use this as a "teachable moment" and a chance to remind everyone that if it's something important you're putting out -- it's always best to ask someone else to proofread it before you send it. I know, finding someone to proof something isn't always easy, especially if you fly solo, like I do. But, live and learn... (and try to find someone next time!)

Supreme Court of Canada Rules on Hyperlinks and Defamation

If you’ve ever blogged or created content and inserted a hyperlink to information on the Web, a recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) case should help you sleep better, knowing it’s unlikely you’ll be liable for defamation. In Crookes v. Newton the SCC considered whether a hyperlink to allegedly defamatory material amounted to “publishing” the defamatory material.

In Canada, for someone to succeed in bringing a defamation action they must prove that the defamatory words were “published”. To be published the words must be communicated to at least one person other than the person claiming defamation.

The SCC concluded that hyperlinking is not, in and of itself, publication of the content to which the link refers.

The Facts of the Case
Crookes brought a series of law suits against people he claimed were responsible for allegedly defamatory articles published on various websites. Newton, who owns and operates a website containing commentary on various issues, posted an article on his web site that had hyperlinks to other web sites, which in turn contained information about Crookes.

Crookes sued Newton on the basis that two hyperlinks Newton inserted linked to defamatory material and that by using those hyperlinks, Newton was publishing the defamatory information. One of the hyperlink was a “shallow” hyperlink, which means it simply took the reader to web page where the articles were posted. The other was a “deep” hyperlink, which took readers directly to a specific article. In essence, Crookes argued that a person who includes a hyperlink on a webpage publishes any defamatory remarks found on the linked page because the person inserting the link has done something that has the effect of transferring the defamatory information to anyone who clicks on the link.

The Majority’s Decision
Justice Abella, writing for the six-justice majority, concluded that hyperlinks are like references and a reference to other content is fundamentally different from other acts involved in publication. According to Abella, it is the actual creator or poster of the defamatory words in the linked material who is publishing the libel when a person follows a hyperlink to that content

Abella concluded, “Making reference to the existence and/or location of content by hyperlink or otherwise, without more, is not publication of that content. Only when a hyperlinker presents content from the hyperlinked material in a way that actually repeats the defamatory content, would that content be considered to be “published” by the hyperlinker.” [Paragraph 42 of the judgement]

The Concurring Opinions
In a concurring opinion, Justices McLachlin and Fish were not willing to absolve all hyperlinkers from possible liability for defamation. Instead, McLachlin and Fish concluded that there could be some cases where the combined text and the hyperlink may amount to publication of defamatory material contained in the hyperlinked text. “If the text communicates agreement with the content linked to, then the hyperlinker should be liable for the defamatory content.” [Paragraph 48]

In a lengthy separate opinion, Justice Deschamps disagreed with the approach taken by the other justices. Instead, Deschamps favoured a “more nuanced approach” under which a reference to defamatory content could satisfy the first component of publication if it makes defamatory information readily available to a third party, if the act was deliberate. [Paragraphs 106 and 107] And, if the first component is met, the court should then turn to the second component, which is whether a third party received and understood the defamatory information. Deschamps then set out some of the factors a court could consider in determining whether to infer that a third party clicked on the hyperlink and read and understood the linked information. [Paragraph 110] Applying her approach to the facts of the case, however, Deschamps concluded that Crookes did not establish facts supporting the second component and so she too found in favour of Newton.

Conclusion: Hyperlinks are Crucial to the Flow of Information Over the Web
The SCC’s decision is obviously comforting to bloggers and others who use hyperlinks. It should also be welcome by all who use the Internet as it reflects the reality that hyperlinks are crucial to the flow of information. As Justice Abella put it, “The Internet cannot, in short, provide access to information without hyperlinks. Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and, as a result, freedom of expression.” [Paragraph 36]

October 13, 2011 is International Plain Language Day!

Plain Language in a Multi-Cultural Context

October 13, 2011 is International Plain Language Day. The date coincides with the anniversary of U.S. President Obama’s signing of the Plain Language Act. That law requires U.S. government agencies to use plain language in documents relating to federal benefits and services, to filing taxes, and to complying with federal requirements. A U.S. law may not seem like something we should celebrate here in Canada, but it is.

The law signals wide-spread acceptance of the belief that people have a right to understand information that has consequences to their lives. Such laws recognize that to lead healthy, productive lives, people must be able to make sense of information about money, health, and safety, not to mention rules and regulations they must abide by as members of society.

Our right to all sorts of information from governments and businesses is well recognized. For example, because of disclosure and transparency requirements we are entitled to information about privacy policies, credit card rates and terms, possible adverse reactions from medications, etc. But such information is often incomprehensible because of jargon and legalese. When that is the case, though information may be available, people are still unable to make informed decisions, which is the rationale for providing such information.

Regardless of whether plain language is mandated, businesses and organizations should be encouraged to adopt it because doing so makes business sense. There’s evidence that companies and organizations that embrace plain language spend less time answering questions and explaining things. They also benefit from being seen as being customer-centred. Government agencies that provide information in plain language often report having to spend less on enforcement and notice better overall compliance.

Plain language writing is especially critical for citizens whose mother tongue is different from the language the information is in and for those who must rely on translations. Because plain language writing limits the use of jargon and legalese, it is easier to translate and there is less chance of mistranslation. Obviously, in a bi-lingual country, not to mention in a city like Toronto, where banks, social service agencies, and other businesses often provide information in multiple languages, anything that makes translation easier should be welcomed.

The basic principles of plain language are straightforward: use short sentences and paragraphs; use common words rather than jargon; use terms consistently; organize information in a way that makes sense to readers; and use descriptive headings so that readers can find relevant information easily. Plain language writing is not rocket science, it simply requires care and commitment to helping readers understand information.

Some give the excuse that certain information, especially medical, financial, and legal information, is complicated and cannot be simplified. Such claims are based on the incorrect underlying assumption that plain language is “dumbing down” information.

Plain language is not about oversimplifying or about simply shortening things. It is about providing information in a way that people who are not specialists in the particular area can understand. Indeed, occasionally something written in plain language ends up a bit longer than the jargon-filled version, but that is usually only the case if additional background information or definitions are needed to make it understandable. The bottom line is people would rather read a longer document once and understand it than have to re-read a shorter document or get additional information or clarification.

Many people believe, as I do, that when someone uses jargon or legalese they are either too lazy to bother making it understandable and they do not care about the consumer of the information; they are not knowledgeable enough about the topic to make it understandable; or they have something to hide. As a result, I do all I can to avoid doing business with people who do not use plain language.

Individuals, society and, ultimately, democracy suffer when information is not written in language that is plain and understandable. International Plain Language Day is about putting plain language on the agenda in legislatures and boardrooms. The time has come for Canadians to embrace plain language and demand it of organizations in both the public and private sector.

Today is International Literacy Day!

Today (September 8th) is International Literacy Day -- this is the 45th year it is being celebrated. UNESCO came up with the idea back in the 1960s to draw attention to the fact that many people in the world to not have the gift of education and literacy.

Think of all the things you do every day that required you to read -- everything from reading the morning paper, to reading road signs on your way to work, to reading e-mails, to ordering from a menu, to reading your child a bedtime story -- and lots more in between these activities.

So today -- and every day -- celebrate your good fortune at being able to read, and try to find ways of sharing the gift of literacy.

Obama signs Plain Writing Act of 2010

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (the Act) was signed by President Barack Obama on October 13, 2010.

The purpose of the Act is

"to improve the effectiveness and accountability of Federal agencies to the public by promoting clear Government communication that the public can understand and use."

The Act applies to “covered documents”, which are defined as including:
• documents necessary for getting any Federal benefit or service, or for filing taxes,
• any document that provides information about any benefit or service provided by the Federal government, and
• any document that explains to the public how to comply with a requirement the Federal government administers or enforces.

The Act applies to letters, publications, forms, notices, and instructions, but does not apply to regulations. (Ironically, because of the way the Act is structured (in particular, subsection 3(2)) it’s a bit tricky to figure out that there’s an exception for regulations. The exception could have been expressed in a clearer – plainer – way, but never mind.)

So what is plain writing? The Act basically defines it as writing that's clear, concise, well-organized and appropriate to the intended audience (something I usually refer to as “reader-focused writing”).

Timelines
Federal agencies have nine months to prepare and implement a number of plain writing requirements, including training their employees in plain writing and creating a plain writing section of their website. By October 13, 2011 (one year from the date the Act was signed by the President) Federal agencies must use plain writing on all “covered documents” they issue or substantially revise.

As a plain language consultant and advocate, I’m thrilled about the Act because it is recognition of both the importance of plain language, and the need for it. As a citizen, I cheer the U.S. government’s efforts at making their communications understandable. Though the Act only applies to documents created by Federal agencies, I have to believe that companies and organizations in the private sector will see the benefit and will hop on the bandwagon.

Are you winning the war?

When the topic of PowerPoint comes up in my line of work, it seems most clients either love it or hate it. Personally, I'm neutral about it. But, deep down, I sometimes wonder whether my neutrality is really just a cover for a deep-seated insecurity about it. Though I probably shouldn't admit this in print, I will: Over the years I've sat through many PowerPoint presentations that have challenged my comprehension skills.

With this in mind, this heading in today's Toronto Star caught my eye: Is PowerPoint making us stupid?

Naturally, I read the article with some interest. Unfortunately, it didn't cover any new ground, though it did present the most common arguments raised about the evils of PowerPoint: it stifles discussion, critical thinking, and thoughtful decision-making. It even mentioned my favourite argument against PowerPoint being used for everything: the fact that some thoughts simply do not lend themselves to being crafted into a bullet list. Hear, hear, I thought!

But perhaps the best thing about the article is a picture of a PowerPoint slide and a quote about the slide allegedly attributable to U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, leader of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The slide, shown to McChrystal last summer, contains a diagram the article describes as looking like a bowl of spaghetti but which was drawn to portray the complexity of the military Coalition's strategy in Afghanistan. According to the article, when McChrystal saw the diagram his comment was: "When we understand the slide, we'll have won the war." Well, well -- I guess I'm not the only one whose comprehension skills are sometimes challenged during PowerPoint presentations!

So, with this in mind, my wish for all whose life includes PowerPoint is simple:

May you never create a PowerPoint presentation that prompts a comment like that and may you never have to try to making sense of such a PowerPoint slide!