This looks like a very nice guide for writing clearly.
> In 2010, US attorney Sean Flammer ran an experiment. He asked 800 circuit court judges to side with either a traditional ‘legalese' argument, or one in what he called ‘plain English'. The judges overwhelmingly preferred the plain English version (66% to 34%), and that preference held no matter their age or background.
> Put yourself in your reader's shoes when you're writing; what are they going to be most interested in? We're often tempted to explain why we've done something before we tell people what the thing actually is — especially if it's bad news or an uncomfortable message. But if your first question is what does my reader really need to know, then you can't go wrong. Are they more interested in the process we took to decide something, or how that decision affects them? (Hint: it's almost always the latter.) That doesn't mean we shouldn't explain our reasons, it just means we should explain what the impact is first.
> In 2010, US attorney Sean Flammer ran an experiment. He asked 800 circuit court judges to side with either a traditional ‘legalese' argument, or one in what he called ‘plain English'. The judges overwhelmingly preferred the plain English version (66% to 34%), and that preference held no matter their age or background.
> Put yourself in your reader's shoes when you're writing; what are they going to be most interested in? We're often tempted to explain why we've done something before we tell people what the thing actually is — especially if it's bad news or an uncomfortable message. But if your first question is what does my reader really need to know, then you can't go wrong. Are they more interested in the process we took to decide something, or how that decision affects them? (Hint: it's almost always the latter.) That doesn't mean we shouldn't explain our reasons, it just means we should explain what the impact is first.