Design Communication: Speaking the Language, pt. 1

In my philosophy major days, I had difficulty at first reading Aristotle. The information density per sentence rivalled what most authors would take several paragraphs to compose. After a full semester, I finally learned to read with the slower, deliberate pace required to digest the hearty meal of Aristotelian prose.

Most of Aristotle’s extant works were primarily lecture notes, either those he scripted for his own use or those transcribed by his students; they were not fully fleshed-out manuscripts. When delivering his lectures, he would expand upon the scant outlines with rhetoric Cicero called, “Flowing rivers of gold,” delivering clarity and impact for his argumentation. But the distilled words demand the modern reader insert intellectual inferences between clauses and fill in gaps between steps in the argumentation.

In much the same way, construction documentation can present a learning curve that takes some time to ascend. We have specialized terminology, grammar and ways of presenting information that not only have to be learned to read, but also to be written. In an audience-focused approach to design communication, we must recognize and adjust to the pros and cons of jargon for the benefit of those receiving our documentation.

Linguists speak of registers in communication as a distinct category beyond language and dialect. While we may not change language or dialect, we would use a different register when speaking to a judge hearing our case than we would use ordering from a drive-through attendant. Different registers exist also within construction, and two that are relevant here for our jargon is the register of what is on the page and the register of what is said in the field.

Our prints may use the jargon of “EC” for “Electrical Contractor” when saying, “EC to terminate all line-voltage wiring.” It may be jargon, but it is appropriate to the register of the page. What we would not write is, “Sparky to terminate all line-voltage wiring.” While “Sparky” might be a term of endearment in the register of the field, it would not be wise to use in our documentation. Further, much field jargon can be regional and different crews may be unfamiliar with some jargon.

Jargon can be appropriate in our documentation, but be mindful of its register and familiarity with the readers. Jargon can allow us to speak with brevity and precision, but let field-register jargon stay in the field. Gauge the familiarity of terms with your audience and avoid terminology, even more precise terminology, that may be unfamiliar or cause confusion.

Our jargon can also introduce precision that might otherwise be time consuming to explain in full language. A common example is the difference between the words “furnish” and “provide.” In everyday language these mean the same thing. However, if I were contracted to provide recessed lights, handed them over at the job site and wished everyone a good day, I’d find myself in a contract dispute over why I failed to finish the job. My job was to provide them, yet I had only furnished them.

This might be confusing in plain language, but our industry specifically uses “provide” to mean both furnish and install. Using the terminology correctly can add great precision to scope delineation, but using the wrong term imperils you to scope gaps or other risks if your meaning is mis-taken.

Jargon can add precision and brevity when used correctly. The converse is also true, namely that incorrect usage can cause confusion and introduce risk. When doing specification work, many of the division specifications carry definitions as do many of the drawings in the front matter. Study these to know exactly how others use language so that you can learn to speak it too.

When we talk about speaking the language of our reader, we often think about the words we use. To someone from an adjacent field like myself coming from the AV and lighting world, the ceiling is just full of a bunch of beams. Calling them all beams would annoy the structural engineer who reserves distinctions for beams, joists, girders, purlins and so on. We can’t expect to be specialists in every field, but careful study of the drawing sets other trades use can lead us to a common vocabulary for where our work interfaces with theirs and more effectively communicate our coordination needs.

The linguistic study of semiotics covers not only words as signs for the real things they represent; semiotics also covers symbols. The study of other trades’ drawings can also reveal a rich symbology as a common language. These can be the navigational aids of architectural drawings with section lines, detail callouts and the like that show our readers where to find additional information. Other trades use symbols for devices that we may often have to replicate. Using the same library of symbols eases friction as other trades don’t have to learn new symbols just to read our drawings.

I ran into a drawing set from another lighting contractor that had idiosyncratic symbols for electrical receptacles. The symbol is best described as one of those Women are from Venus/Men are from Mars types of symbols. I cannot imagine why the firm felt the need to develop a unique symbol and it certainly wasn’t a good symbol. I had to zoom very far in to decipher the difference between the single-pole and two-pole versions. But even if the symbol was better than the typical one, it’s still a different symbol than the receptacle symbol that every electrician in North America is already familiar with. The otherwise “better” symbol is now a hindrance to communication.

Learn and use words and symbols consistent with those already familiar to the reader. There may be instances where unique symbols are helpful. Criteria may include if its use is restricted with your trade or if the symbol provides enough clarity and precision to make up for the unfamiliarity. Perhaps more than in any other area of reader-focused design communication, this is the one closest to the heart of the thesis; we want to accommodate what we write in a way best suited to what the reader can understand and not expect the reader to struggle to understand what we write or draw.

Aristotle was an early proponent of the tabula rasa theory of the mind–a blank slate into which ideas can be inscribed. Those of us who practice design communication often find ourselves staring down an empty page as we consider how to fill it to impart knowledge of the design to the reader. We have looked at a few tactics here of how to use the language of our industry to effectively communicate the design. In our next post we will look at a few more tools to keep in our workbox as we seek to speak the language of design communication.