Not at ease with bureaucratese
Why is the passive voice still all over our websites?
By Dave Hallworth
Dave is a content designer and strategist at Scroll, with years of experience in the public and third sectors. He’s led teams and transformed content everywhere, from Barnardo’s to the Department for Education.
Passive aggressive
Content designers: we’ve all done the training, we’ve read the style guide, we’ve checked out the GDS words-to-avoid list, we’ve probably done a few accessibility workshops. We know the passive voice and formal vocabulary make our content inaccessible to millions of users. These include those with low literacy, neurodiversity and learning disabilities, as well as non-native users of English.
So why is this stuff still all over our websites?
Here are some examples I found on GOV.UK this afternoon.
Air Quality Standards are concentrations recorded over a given time period, which are considered to be acceptable…
As well as being a pain to read, the passive is unnecessarily mysterious. Who considers these Standards (sic) (don’t even get me started on capitalisation) to be acceptable? The government? If so, why not say so? Or if it’s someone else, surely it’s even more important to tell us who gets to decide what’s acceptable for us to breathe.
New measures have been introduced that will create a bigger, better private rented sector…
Who is introducing these measures? The government? If so, why be so coy about it. Why not just say:
The government has introduced new measures…?
But that’s still not very clear. Users unfamiliar with bureaucratic or figurative language may also be confused by ‘measures’. Something to do with the size of flats, perhaps? Why not just say:
The government has made new rules for people renting flats and houses.
It’s for the birds
I also saw one about measures being introduced to protect birds from avian flu. Is that something to do with the size of birds? And what’s all this about introducing? Mr Crow, this is Ms Sparrow; she has a wingspan of 20cm. Ms Sparrow, meet Mr Crow; his beak is 6cm long…
Couldn’t we just say:
The government has made new rules to prevent the spread of bird flu.
Mysteries everywhere
Modern General Practice Access should be implemented by moving practices to digital telephony
Yet more mystery and vagueness. Who should be implementing this: the government? The NHS? The practice manager? Their mum?
And what does ‘implemented’ even mean?
Does the writer actually mean to say that someone should improve GP access by setting up digital phone systems?
Or do they really mean someone should implement GP access? If we understand ‘implement’ to mean to carry something out or make something happen, that would imply that until someone makes it happen, there is currently no GP access at all.
No wonder it’s so hard to get a doctor’s appointment.
Double trouble
This lovely example has 2 passives in one sentence.
Outages may be required on occasions where essential upgrades to the service need to be implemented
Doubly mysterious. Who may require outages (whatever they are)? And who needs to implement upgrades (whatever that means)? My guess is that it means:
The service may not be available occasionally while we upgrade it.
So why not just say that?
Lost in vagueness
It is recommended that officials consult the supplementary guidance on transitional arrangements provided here for more details
Who recommends this? Who are these officials? If you’re not an official, does this mean you shouldn’t read it?
Why so vague?
Couldn’t we just say:
See the supplementary guidance on transitional arrangements for more details.
We really need to do something about this
Or should I say, it is considered imperative that something be done about this.
If you come across examples like these — or any other kind of bureaucratese or inaccessible language — in a content audit or a draft that someone has sent you to publish, there are 2 things you can do.
1. If the meaning is clear to you, just rewrite it, as in this example:
Voters will be required to show photographic identification.
Just change it to:
Voters must show photographic identification.
Or even, if the content is clearly addressing voters:
You must show photographic identification.
2. If the meaning isn’t clear, get in touch with the subject matter expert or content ‘owner’ and ask them to clarify.
This works better on a friendly call than in writing, as people tend to use plain English in informal conversation.
I often say something like, “Sorry I don’t understand this bit… and if I don’t, then a lot of our users probably won’t. Can you just tell me what we’re trying to say here…”
I have pen and paper ready so I can scribble away as they explain what they actually mean. Then I ask, “So could we write:…?” (reading out what they just said).
They usually say, ‘Yeah that’s perfect’.
Job done.
And if a piece of content is so unclear you can’t just rewrite it, and you can’t find anybody willing to take responsibility for it, the chances are it’s been sitting there for a very long time. So this might be a good time to question whether it needs to be there at all.