EditorThis is a near-verbatim transcript of an in-person interview I did with Kate Harrison Whiteside in Vancouver, BC, on October 18, 2017, as part of my project to compile an oral history of the plain language movement in Canada between 1980 and 1995. Although the transcript reflects her views at the time, those views might have evolved since the interview took place.
***
IC: Thank you for taking the time to meet with me!
KHW: You’re welcome!
IC: So I guess the first question I have for you is “When did you become involved with the plain language movement, and what inspired you to join?”
KHW: I got a contract to simplify a federal government financial form, much like your Revenue Canada tax application form—it was for an agriculture agency; it was a national program. And I instantly recognized that it needed some simplification, and someone mentioned to me, “Oh, you know, there’s a conference going on in Vancouver. Why don’t you go there? It’s plain language, it’s legal, but why don’t you find out about it?”
So I went… came to Vancouver, and that’s where I met Cheryl Stephens, and that’s where I got my first intro to plain language and what was going on here, which was quite—I won’t say radical—but it was very progressive compared to what was going on elsewhere. I hadn’t even heard of it at that time. I had been simplifying technical agricultural scientific documents for a number of years, but I didn’t know what I was doing was plain language. [Laughs]
After I went back to Manitoba, I called up Cheryl, and I said, “You know, this is way too important to just be left to kind of happen on its own—let’s do something.” So that was my introduction to plain language, my introduction to Cheryl Stephens, and then we thought, “OK, let’s do something.” So, we formed the Plain Language Consultants Network and decided to do a conference. And back then, early ’90s, all we had was email, and that had just happened. I remember just looking at my fax machine going, “I wonder what’s going to happen to you.” And through Cheryl’s contacts, we were able to do the first conference in 1995 in Winnipeg, which was really successful. So that was my introduction to plain language.
IC: So you had been working in plain language—you just didn’t have that label.
KHW: Yes, I just didn’t have that label for me, exactly, so I was trying to take technical information, simplify it for farmers and farm families to use. It was at the time when Canada was just switching from imperial to metric, which had a huge implication for farmers, because all their applications, all the measurements of the goods they bought and sold were all in imperial and had to be converted. And so it was a really challenging time with lots of debate. And I think it really drove home the fact that we need to be clear—for production reasons, for safety reasons, for all kinds of reasons. There had to be an understanding of the information.
IC: And you sort of touched on this, but when did you realize that it was, you know, a movement beyond a set of practices?
KHW: I think once we held the conference and I saw that there were people—people came from Australia, they came from England, they came from Europe—and then I felt that it had more of a global strength to it, so that’s when I sort of felt it was a movement. And the people who joined it at the time were—I’d say the vast majority, if not all—were consultants. Because there wasn’t… jobs in plain language back then, so people were doing it either as a specialty and—like, lawyers were specializing in it, or writers and editors were adding it to their profile, but it was an add-on. But you could feel that there was commitment to it. These people came to a conference in Winnipeg from, you know, all over the globe, mostly at their own expense. So you could feel that there was commitment to it. And that’s when I felt, “OK, this has got something going.” So even at that first conference, we agreed to do another one.
IC: So, how would you compare the movement in Canada at that time to the movement in other places around the world? What were some similarities and differences that you noticed, either from people coming to your conference or from your travels abroad?
KHW: Yes. I think to begin with, it was quite driven by the legal field. So the legal field was being pushed or pushing forward with it, and so then that sort of started to spill over into other areas. So I think at the time, Canada was pretty much the same as everywhere else—that was good. There was a bit of government interest, there was a bit of legal interest, and then that just grew and expanded over the years to, you know, where it became law in the US, where entire governments would take it on, national guidelines were set up—things like that. But at that time I think it was a pretty narrow focus, and all that I was aware of was a bit of legal and a bit of government.
IC: And what would you say were some of the most important events, either politically, socially, or culturally, that influenced those… what we could call the early days of the movement in Canada?
KHW: I think the energy of the literacy movement and, you know, the UN’s confirmation of World Literacy Day—those kinds of things—really brought home how important it is for people to understand information. And then I think at that point, there was kind of a synergy between plain language and literacy. And I think that focus on literacy helped drive plain language, and now we can stand on our own two feet, if you will. And, you know, we do work together, and I’ve done projects that were literacy based with plain language influence and vice versa. But primarily we can now both stand on our own two feet.
IC: I want to hear more about your roles and activities in the plain language movement. Are there any accomplishments related to the movement that you’re especially proud of?
KHW: I think organizing the first conference was huge, and it was very successful nationally, at least. We got lots of media attention from CBC. We got lots of energy from it and good information. And then we followed that up very quickly with a conference in ’97 in Calgary. I think we missed ’99, and then in 2000 Cheryl and I agreed, “OK, this is bigger than the two of us. We’re both self-employed consultants—this needs to be a proper organization.” And so at the 2000 conference in Texas, we passed it on to a group to manage. So, I felt really good about that, because I felt that the child that we’d given birth to [laughs] was finally able to stand on its own two feet and merited that kind of attention.
And then I think things got… the base for it got solid and expanded in a meaningful way. I mean, I think up until then we just felt like we were doing this and people would come—yes, that was great—but we didn’t really see where it was going in the future. But once we handed that over, then we could see that it was going to have a life.
And then I think the other big influence in all of that, and Cheryl was a leader, was the internet, the web, and social media. I mean, suddenly people had websites and you could share information, and I think that really pushed the plain language movement ahead.
Because up until that point, really, all we had was email. But after that 2000 conference, then things started to get going. Books started to be published, and that was also with a lot of e-pub… some of them with e-publishing, some of them with traditional publishing.
I think that helped them start to collect data and give it some substance, and the leaders in the field were able to then put their stamp on what plain language was and have some influence on where it was going. And at the time, I was living in England, and I think I realized then that it had no boundaries in terms of language, or I did projects that involved multilingual websites geared towards multiple countries in Europe, and it didn’t matter. Plain language guidelines worked. And I think that was a really big step forward. And I think a lot of people realized that then—it’s not just an English thing; it can work anywhere.
IC: How would you compare what you saw in the UK with what was happening within Canada and also regionally within Canada? You know, I’ve talked to people in Ontario and in BC, but I’m interested in… you were in the Prairies. What did it look like there?
KHW: It was pretty… I have to say at the beginning, it was pretty isolating—and isolated. There was only one or two of us doing it. One was in the legal field, an educator, and myself. I think I was one of the only consultants—communication consultants—doing it. So it was pretty isolated, pretty hodgepodge, and that was why I think the network was so important. Because there was no other way—because we were so individual that it was pretty important to be connected. And that was the only way, was through the network. I have to say, now, it’s a lot more pleasant to be able to just google it and stuff comes up, but back then that just wasn’t happening.
So I think it was pretty hit and miss as to what was happening—there was a bit here, a bit there. If there was a strong literacy movement, then there was probably a good opportunity. Financial… I feel that after the legal field, the financial services field was the next one to kind of get on board, and a lot of the projects I did in the early days were related to finances and insurance.
And then came the corporate interest, if you will. Big companies that were more interested in… You know, when customer service became in vogue, I think plain language became more in vogue as well. And now I think it just stands on its own.
Following the financial field came the health care field. A lot of times, it was driven by cost. Lawsuits, how much it cost to prepare something, cost of errors if information wasn’t clear. So to me, that’s interesting, because I don’t really think that’s been acknowledged in the plain language field, but a lot of it, I think, was driven by cost.
So, like any other movement, it has gone up in popularity, dropped down, come back up again. Well, I feel now it’s kind of gone to another level where I think people know what plain language is.
In the beginning we always had to explain what is plain language. What does it mean. Thank goodness that now people are asking what I call more intuitive questions. Like, “OK, I’ve heard of it—so what’s in it for me?” or “Well, I thought our information was good. Why do you think we need it?” Well, have you asked your clients? You know. “Well, do I have to redo the entire company?” You know, those kinds of questions where you at least can go in satisfied that they know what it is. They just need to know how to do it.
And I also think the other big thing that’s helped the movement is training and education in plain language. At first it wasn’t available, and now it is—it’s available online, it’s available at universities, it’s available at conferences—and so there’s a greater understanding and a greater ability for people to access information on plain language, which I think is really important.
IC: And how do you feel about the quality of the training that’s available right now?
KHW: I think it’s OK. I think it needs to come up a notch. I think people have accepted the fact that it’s more than a readability test. [Laughs] It’s more than just writing and editing. You have to involve your audience—that is what makes it different than anything else. That’s what’s kept me interested in it, is the fact that because it always involves your audience, every time, you’re going to learn something new, it’s going to be something different.
So I think that’s a much more mature approach to plain language than when I first started, and it was… you just did a readability test score, you know. [Laughs] But it had to start somewhere. It started on a very solid foundation, and people still use that, but there’s been so many more things done. People like Karen Schriver that have really looked at the whole testing and evaluation. Sweden and Norway, where entire countries have embraced it. And I’m not sure that Canada will ever get to that stage. I think we’re too small a population, too spread out, too diverse. And although we have federal government guidelines, I think they need to be looked at more often by even non-government people. I think they’re a good set of guidelines, but I think we still lean towards the US for resources. But I just think it’s the sparse population that makes it difficult.
IC: Mm-hm. Even with the communication networks that were put in place.
KHW: Yeah, yeah. I still think we’re so different in every province—I’ve lived in two or three, so. It’s just a different culture based on what the industry is there or what the focus is. And I think places like—for example, Ottawa, where it’s the capital of the country, has a very specific government personality, and so there will be a level of activity there that won’t be the same as what’s happening in Calgary where it’s very business-oriented, or be like what it’s like in Vancouver where there could be multicultural issues or health issues or social issues that might not appear in Toronto. And I think that’s just the way Canada is for all things that I don’t really ever see—although I’d love it—but I don’t see a unified push for a certain type of plain language in Canada. I think it’ll always be rooted in industries.
IC: OK. And you have experience in the agricultural industry.
KHW: Yes.
IC: Do you want to speak more about that?
KHW: I think it was an interesting field to be in—and then going back into it, which was interesting as well. But the fact that the audience was… At the time in the ’80s, the audience was perceived to be older farmers who perhaps didn’t have a high level of education. But my personal experience with that was quite contrary—that there was a lot of younger farmers, and with a lot of older farmers, you couldn’t measure their education in the traditional way, because they had to constantly read, they had to constantly learn, because their field was constantly changing. The products they used, the systems they used, how their products were sold, the kind of products they could grow. So they were in a constant learning mode. But I think some of the people who were serving them thought, “Oh, there’s my persona of a farmer.” This age, this education. And I always argued that. And I think that really helped me get a grip on the importance of the audience in the plain-language process.
And the other thing was the word “process”—Cheryl Stephens said to me early on, “Plain language is a process.” And when I heard that and got my head around that, I realized it’s way more than writing and editing, it’s way more than readability testing. And I’m so pleased that people in the field have worked to develop different ways of testing materials with audiences—and technology is a big help to that—but it just makes it easier. Because it used to be there was… all you had was a focus group, which was expensive and time consuming and involves a lot of resources. Now we have tons of different ways to involve people, and I think that’s going to… I think that alone and the technology, how it can help, will give a really good foundation moving plain language forward.
IC: I would like to hear more details about the Plain Language Network itself—the consultants’ network. What happened in the early days? Were there any challenges you came across when you and Cheryl were working on the network? What were your triumphs? What were you happiest about?
KHW: Well, I think we were a bit naive. [Laughs] We just sort of jumped on this. Cheryl was the idea person, and I was just the “get it done” kind of person, and she had some contacts, and we were able to pull off a conference—and that in itself was, “Oh my goodness, what have we done here?” And we got good media support, which was really, really important. National media support. But it was by hook or by crook—I mean, we didn’t really know.
So once we did the first one, we thought, “OK, that worked—we should do it every couple of years.” And so we started working on the next one, and Cheryl start recruiting more people to get involved. So the first one was in Winnipeg, the second one was in Calgary, and I think at the time, we just thought “This is as far as it’ll go—it’ll be some consultants getting together every couple years and sharing what they’re doing and, you know, that’s what it’ll be.”
I think at the time we were fairly satisfied with that. But I think after the second conference, we felt, “OK, this is the second time around we’ve got really good support from around the globe; maybe we need to push this a little bit further.” And then I moved to England, and there were some big players there.
But in England you’ve got a massive audience in a very small space, and you can… and the media… the media has played a big role in plain language—there’s no doubt about that. And in the UK, the media love a story of that nature—you know, especially where if somebody uses words that are confusing, they can play with that. So in the UK there was quite a bit of publicity around plain language. More so than in Canada, I’d say.
So I don’t know who—I’m sure it was Cheryl—decided “OK, we need to move this organization to the next level.” And then I kind of left the field for a few years and just was working on some books with Cheryl and then came back to it in 2011 when I came back to Canada.
But at the conference in Graz this year, I mean, the entire country of Norway, with, you know… All the government leaders are totally behind plain language. It’s a national movement. Whereas here I think it’s been very spotty, either industry-related… I can’t say there’s been one province that I’m aware of—maybe BC started it, but I’m not sure they stuck with it very long—there hasn’t been a province or territory or the Canadian government that says, “OK, we’re going to be a plain language country. We’re going to do it.”
IC: Right. To have the top-down leadership committing to using plain language in all of their communications.
KHW: Well, I think, like, a lot of things in Canada, we’ll just continue to struggle along, and a lot of it will be behind the scenes, which I see happening in the health care field, where people just commit to it, embrace it, and do it and maybe get recognized, maybe not.
So that’s kind of where I see it. And I don’t see that changing in Canada just because of the way we’re governed, our population, and our geography.
IC: Yeah. I was just thinking about how, when you said that there was quite a bit of media support and media interest, I’m thinking that we would struggle to get that kind of media attention or media support now.
KHW: Oh, yes. Yeah, definitely, yeah. Unless there’s a massive lawsuit or… I think maybe the equivalent of it is public backlash, say, to the recent federal government’s proposed business tax changes. People want to be clear—What does that mean? What are you saying? And people have picked up on areas, you know, lacking in clarity and gone after it. And so that’s, again, a subtle plain language issue, but that’s never been called a plain-language issue. But I think it shows that people are very aware now, more aware, of their rights to be communicated to in a way they understand. And not just with the tax changes but real estate changes—all kinds of things. People are going, “I want to understand what is happening to me.” Whereas before, that wasn’t really an issue.
IC: Um, I feel as though you might be sort of downplaying [laughs] how the network became PLAIN. This international organization that, you know, is one of the go-to places that plain language professionals would find their colleagues and find training. Did you want to say anything more about that?
KHW: Um, no, I think… you know, I’m sure that’s what it looks like from the outside, but from the inside we were just… we put a lot of energy and effort into making it go, not really knowing where it would end up. I think we were very pleased with… certainly with the conferences and the kind of information that was being presented at them and the kind of networking that was going on. And then I think we just hit the wall—we knew this is too big for us; we can’t… So I think recognizing that and moving that forward and having the impetus to say, “OK, people. We need everybody to come on board and take this and run with it” was a pretty pivotal moment—but primarily driven by Cheryl at that time. And it was actually funny because I had just gotten married in the States, and my husband went back to England, and I went to Texas with Cheryl [laughs] for the conference and that’s where we handed it over. So it was kind of like a new marriage—another couple could take over running it.
And then it took the organization a while to get on its feet and find its focus and decide what the priorities would be, but that’s normal in the lifecycle of a nonprofit organization, which is basically what it is. But I kind of feel, like I said, I think the field has a new energy, I think PLAIN is going to get a new energy. It’s got a fantastic board with tons of people on it. Like, it went from, you know, the two of us—there’s probably nearly 15 or 20 people on the board now that are leading it, so… But it could have gone either way. We could’ve gone there and it just floundered and disappeared, and Cheryl and I would have said, “Well, that was a good experience and it was nice meeting all those people” and just gotten on with it. But I think at the time we were—I won’t say naive—but I don’t think we had a 20-year vision for it, for sure.
IC: You also were involved with your network’s newsletter—Rapport, right?
KHW: Yeah, that was Cheryl’s. Yeah, and we both contributed to that. That was just another way again of documenting what was going on, really—keeping a history. It seems like—well, I guess it was ages ago, but it seems like ages ago.
IC: But it’s such a valuable archive, I think.
KHW: Yes.
IC: To see in real time what was happening.
KHW: In 2011 when I moved back to Canada… Cheryl called me up and said, “They’re looking for somebody to organize a conference.” And I said, “Oh, really.” [Laughs] And I hung up and I thought to myself, “I’ll give her a few days, and she’ll come to her senses.” And she called me back and said, “Oh my goodness—did I say that? We’re not doing that. No way. We’ve done it two or three times, that’s enough.” And then she called me back and she said, “Oh, let’s do the conference.”
IC: [Laughs]
KHW: So we did it. And that was the first conference where we put all the papers on a website, and now all those websites from each of the conferences is going to go under PLAIN. And I think that’s gonna be radical. That’s gonna be fantastic. That’s gonna be just an excellent resource that didn’t exist back then. You know, newsletters are great when you write them, but do they have a shelf life? Who knows where those newsletters are now for people. But having the latest research and presentations online is going to be excellent. I think the technology will inadvertently keep the movement going in a healthy way for a long time to come. And I think some of the countries like Sweden and Norway that can just push it forward as a country will create research and documentation that will help anybody else who wants to get into the movement.
IC: Mm-hm. So I have a couple of questions that seem to divide the community. [Laughs] One is whether you think there should be legislation. Because you talked a little bit about how we need government leadership. [Noise interruption.] So, yeah, you talked about how we need top-down leadership from the governments who actually will, as a government, commit the entire jurisdiction to plain language. Do you think that legislation, such as the Plain Writing Act in the US, would help?
KHW: That’s an interesting question. I think it would help in the sense that it gives some legitimacy to the plain language movement, but I think it still has to… So I appreciate the benefits of top-down support, whether it’s within a small organization or company or provincially or in a city or nationally. There’s benefits to that. But there still needs to be somebody to actually physically carry out the work. And I think that that kind of activity is going to carry on regardless. But if we had that kind of commitment—open commitment—to it, it would be fantastic. It would be brilliant, because it would just, again, take it to a higher level where those of us who are doing the practical work would not have to explain why we’re doing it or what it is—we could just go in and do it. It would be part of it.
And it was interesting because the very first project I had in the ’90s, that same client came back to me a couple of years ago and said, “OK, we would like you to look over our information, but we don’t want you to simplify it. We want you to tell us how to simplify it.” And to me that was interesting because it just showed they knew what it was, they had a commitment, they just wanted some help in implementing it. And that’s quite a ways away from where they were when I first met them, when I had to arm-wrestle them at the table to get them to simplify one word. So I think it’s come a long way, for sure. I think it’s got enough energy to keep going. I think people, the general public, if you will, are getting more sophisticated as to their rights and what they want, and I don’t think they’re gonna let that go. I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
I think the training thing is becoming more integrated into the process, so I think people are learning more as they go, and there’s more resources there, so I don’t really see it going away. Yes, it would be really nice if our prime minister would say, “We are going to be a plain language nation, and I want everybody to work as hard as they could,” but I just don’t see that happening in Canada for some reason.
IC: So, if I understand you correctly, having some sort of government initiative or legislation would be good in that it raises awareness…
KHW: Yes.
IC: …but most of the work will still have to be coming from the grassroots.
KHW: Yes. Personally, I think that’s where it should come from, but I think having it come from the top down, whatever or whoever that top is, just… and I love working for organizations where that happens, but they seem to be few and far between. It just gives it a longer shelf life. It just gives it more value.
IC: And another seemingly divisive question—as much as you can divide the plain language community, which I don’t think is that much, because we all seem united in a cause—how do you feel about the term “plain language”?
KHW: Right. I think “plain language” is a bit like ”Kleenex.”
IC: [Laughs]
KHW: You know, I think it’s gonna hang around for a long time. I totally get that it… I think in the beginning, it was… it showed “Oh, OK. This information is confusing. We’re gonna make it plain and simple.” And that kind of drew a line in the sand, if you will, and then you moved on from that. But I think with the integration of design as part of communication, with technology and access issues to information, I think “plain” just doesn’t hold it anymore. But I don’t see us getting away from it, because historically that’s where it began. I personally prefer “clear communication” because I think clarity is what is at the guts of it. It’s been proven that conciseness isn’t always clear. But clear is clear is clear. So I’m hoping that in five years or so, we’re mostly talking about “clear communication,” ”clear design.” I do like the terms “user friendly,” “reader friendly”—I think those are better used within a project or within an activity, but I think “clear communications” is where we are heading, and I heard it used more at the conference in Graz, but it’s within the name of the organization, so I don’t think it’s going away. But I think people understand that it’s become too simple even for itself. [Laughs]
IC: It’s beyond language.
KHW: It’s beyond language, it’s beyond plain. It’s a whole bunch of things and it’s, you know, what people want, what people need, what people can understand, it’s how it looks, it’s how it works, it’s the results it gets. So it’s… But, like I said, it’s like “Kleenex”—I don’t think it’s going to go away.
IC: This oral history project—it focuses on 1980 to 1995. But you’ve been involved in a lot of plain language initiatives beyond that window, and if you want to talk about that, I’d love to hear about it—for instance, you were involved in establishing the International Plain Language Day…
KHW: Yes.
IC: …and also the Plain Language Academy that you’re doing now, so did you want to talk about those?
KHW: Yeah. Cheryl was, again, the brains behind the International Plain Language Day, and it was based around the day October 13th when the law [the Plain Writing Act] came in, in the US. But I think for a movement to have some stability and longevity, there needs to be some kind of recognition, some kind of day, some kind of reward, if you will, for the punishment. [Laughs] So it’s nice to have that, and now that PLAIN, the organization, is going to take over the management of International Plain Language Day in the same way it took over the management of the organization, that’s really gonna help, because we’ve been mostly relying on people’s goodwill and sending out messages, and, you know, people who are celebrating around the world but in their own little ways, and I think this will bring it together. And I think that’s gonna help push it forward. I’ll be glad that they take that over, because I think it deserves some stability, and I think it’ll get that through the PLAIN organization, so.
And PLAIN does have awards that gives out, and it’s increasing that, and I think that’s important as well.
IC: These are awards for recognizing key people in the community…
KHW: Key people in the community and key work that’s being done in the community of plain language. Those things are all contributing to the growth of it, and just the network feels more—what’s the word I’m looking for? I just think it feels more solid than it did. I think it feels like it’s got longevity. You go to one conference and the next conference is announced, and people are ready for it and energized. So there was a lot of energy in the last conference that happened—it felt really good. [Laughs]
And then Cheryl and I just got talking, and I said, “You know, I think I’ll put one of my courses online. I’m going to find a place to put it online.” She said, “Why don’t we put all of the courses that we’ve developed over the years? Why don’t we look at the whole process and design six courses that cover the scope of plain language?” So she said, “I’ll give you the materials; you do the technology.” So, once again, we pooled our intellectual resources and have come out with the Plain Language Academy. I’m kind of excited about it. The first two students who have taken all six courses are just about to finish. We just did our first webinar, which is going to generate a new course.
I mean, it’s a big undertaking for two people—as was the Plain Language Consultants Network, but I think it’ll grow… It’ll just have its own life, like all the other plain language things. And, you know, I hope there’s lots of courses on plain language that people can take in lots of different venues, because there’s so much to learn, and I think once it becomes as popular as writing and editing courses, then we’ve got it—we’re mainstream. That’s what I think we all want. We just want to be out there. We don’t want to be something that’s different or confusing or needs to be defined every time we do it. We just want to be there. Because we see the value of it.
And that’s the other thing that the research is starting to come forward with, is proper research statistics saying, “If you write in plain language, you can write in 50 percent less time, 50 percent less drafts, 50 percent more satisfied customers…” So we’re getting some hard stats to support the movement, but I just want it to be, you know, as common as any other studies that someone might take. But I want it to stand on its own. I don’t necessarily want it to be watered down into other things. I want plain language to be plain language—to be taught as a process. It is a process. The thing that makes it different is audience involvement and testing. I want that to stay strong and be part of it. I think it’s come a long way, baby. [Laughs] I’m quite pleased with where it’s at right now.
IC: I have to say that out of all of my interviewees, you’re possibly the most optimistic about where things are… [Laughs]
KHW: [Laughs] Although maybe I’m naive again! [Laughs] No, I think being at the conferences has made me more positive—when I see people doing new things, stretching the boundaries, if you will. I’m just happy to talk about it and share it—then I always feel optimistic, you know.
IC: What are some examples of new things or stretching the boundaries…
KHW: Just research that people are doing. New ways they’re looking to apply it in different environments. Research on testing. Gathering statistics. Challenging assumptions we’ve been making about what is plain language and how to apply it. So I think we’re at a confidence level where we can do those kinds of things.
IC: Right. You did mention that a lot of what’s driving the movement is recognition of the financial benefits.
KHW: Yes.
IC: So that’s what might motivate clients. What motivates you?
KHW: What motivates me is just that look of satisfaction on people’s faces when they say, “Oh my goodness—it used to look like this. Now it looks like this. Yeah. That works.” You know? So a lot of my focus has been, as well as doing it, has been training people in it. And it’s just that “Oh! I can write better? I can write in less time? Oh, that’s great! Oh, some tools!”
Because I think so many people have been thrown into writing, particularly with technology, that have probably not had any writing training for a long time, but when they can see that it can be done simply and clearly, just the embracing of that is really what motivates me to keep going.
IC: That’s great. Well, those are all of the questions that I had planned, but if you have anything more to add, I’m happy to hear it.
KHW: Um. No, I don’t think I really do. I think that as the profession grows, there will be things like apps developed and there are already software programs developed to help it. There may even be specialized groups come up to deal with it—say, in the health care field. And I think we need to embrace all that. I think we need to look at plain language from every angle we can, with every lens we can, to ultimately make it easier for people to understand what’s going on around them.
IC: How do you feel about the software that’s out there right now?
KHW: Um, I don’t use a lot of it. I’m familiar with it, but I don’t use it a lot. I think, like readability testing, it’s got a role to play. I think it’s very helpful. It can certainly pinpoint particularly repetitive problems that maybe a usability test might not show up, but I still think that the… I mean, you might do a tonsillectomy the same way every time, but I think with plain language, you’ve got to do it differently every time. You’ve got that process—that nice line of tasks that you need to do—but I think once you start involving individual people and getting their feedback, you’ve got to be open to different ways to do it.
IC: Because each audience is different.
KHW: Each audience is different. Exactly. Keep it coming. The more ways, the better. If anything comes up that helps promote it and publicize it, I’m for it. [Laughs]
IC: That’s wonderful. OK.
KHW: OK.
IC: Thank you!
KHW: Thank you! That was interesting, I’m so glad we got together. [Laughs]
IC: I’ll stop the recording.