Don Mansfield Posted November 29, 2018 Report Share Posted November 29, 2018 How readable should a Federal solicitation be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaal Valentine Posted November 30, 2018 Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 Federal solicitations require boilerplate information that lowers readability, but if we are talking 'should' based on opinion: Grade 7-8 seems appropriate. This is based, in part, on the Department of Defense use of Flesch-Kincaid reading ease standards; the Plain Writing Act; and success with plain language contracts in industry. In the Flesch reading-ease test 8th and 9th grade is considered plain English; 10th to 12th is considered fairly difficult to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Fleharty Posted November 30, 2018 Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 The answer is context dependent. Some requirements and specifications for systems (think aircraft or spacecraft design or quantum computing) require terminology that will naturally reduce readability - I don’t think it is reasonable to assume the Government should write those solicitations at a Grade 7-8 reading level. Ultimately, the Government should strive to be an attractive business partner and readability of solicitations is certainly part of that; however, I think one standard to rule them all would have second and third order effects that could reduce the accuracy of a solicitation in an attempt to enhance accessibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PepeTheFrog Posted December 3, 2018 Report Share Posted December 3, 2018 PepeTheFrog agrees with Jamaal Valentine and Matthew Fleharty. The technical specifications (SOW or "PWS") will necessarily be at a higher level, but everything else should be dumbed down as much as possible to the minimum level of 7-8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted December 3, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2018 On 11/30/2018 at 5:59 AM, Matthew Fleharty said: The answer is context dependent. Some requirements and specifications for systems (think aircraft or spacecraft design or quantum computing) require terminology that will naturally reduce readability - I don’t think it is reasonable to assume the Government should write those solicitations at a Grade 7-8 reading level. Ultimately, the Government should strive to be an attractive business partner and readability of solicitations is certainly part of that; however, I think one standard to rule them all would have second and third order effects that could reduce the accuracy of a solicitation in an attempt to enhance accessibility. Thanks, Matthew. Now when are you going to do my new Problem of the Day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Fleharty Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 On 12/3/2018 at 5:54 PM, Don Mansfield said: Thanks, Matthew. Now when are you going to do my new Problem of the Day? Looks like someone beat me to it, I’ll try to be quicker on the next one. You know I enjoy them 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted December 7, 2018 Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 Don, what did you win? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted December 7, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2018 Nobody won anything. However, I am going to have a contest with a prize soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAR-flung 1102 Posted December 12, 2018 Report Share Posted December 12, 2018 I think we as a profession have barely nibbled at the plain language buffet so far. Here is a link to an example of plain language being used to explain comlicated stuff; Einstein's General Theory of Relaivity "using only the ten hundred words people use the most often": https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-space-doctors-big-idea-einstein-general-relativity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted December 13, 2018 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2018 20 hours ago, FAR-flung 1102 said: I think we as a profession have barely nibbled at the plain language buffet so far. Here is a link to an example of plain language being used to explain comlicated stuff; Einstein's General Theory of Relaivity "using only the ten hundred words people use the most often": https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-space-doctors-big-idea-einstein-general-relativity Loved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deaner Posted December 14, 2018 Report Share Posted December 14, 2018 On 12/12/2018 at 12:56 PM, FAR-flung 1102 said: I think we as a profession have barely nibbled at the plain language buffet so far. Here is a link to an example of plain language being used to explain comlicated stuff; Einstein's General Theory of Relaivity "using only the ten hundred words people use the most often": https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-space-doctors-big-idea-einstein-general-relativity I used to follow this author's web comics. I haven't followed it in a while to know if he still posts regularly, but his website is still active. https://xkcd.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.