In Defense Of "Boring" Writing

A while ago, there was a post on Language Log regarding a particular familiar six-word phrase or saying. Part of the comment discussion went to the question of why some phrases appear very frequently "in public" (meaning: on the web / in Google's index). While, in contrast, research has shown that almost any other phrase of at least 6 words will be completely unique, even within a space as vast as the entire public web.

My explanation for why many "common" phrases are so common: There's a vast degree of utility to them! Not only for the supposedly-"lazy" author, but they can be extremely helpful to the reader. As an example, consider the following...

A few years back, one particular bank in my area attempted to "humanize" their ATMs. In some misguided bid to make the interface more "friendly", the standard prompts and options were rewritten to use casual phrasing and less stilted language. Messages to the user were frequently written in first-person form ("What can I help you with?", "Please tell me your secret code"), and even the "Yes" and "No" selection buttons became "Sure" and "No, Thanks".

I doubt that software is still in place, but I wouldn't know — it drove me away from using those ATMs almost immediately. The simplest transaction took me at least twice as long on their machines, and the number of times I chose too quickly and accidentally hit the wrong option became intolerable. It was quicker and less aggravating to walk an extra block to a different bank, than to face their "friendly" interface.

We expect to see "Yes" and "No", when we're making choices at an ATM. They don't use those particular words because they're thrilling and clever turns of phrase, but because they're not! They're the most common, boring representations of their respective concepts. We're immediately able to match those words to the choices they represent, and we don't even need to consciously read the labels. But replace "Yes" with "Sure", and you're forced to read the words, then actively think about their meanings and determine which one represents your intended response, before you can press the correct button.

Cliches and "standard" phrasings serve a similar purpose, in purely utilitarian communication. I can recognize and derive meaning from the words "before turning the gun on himself" without even reading the entire phrase, because it's immediately familiar to me. Which, in turn, means that I can read an article written using such phrasing far more quickly, and without devoting nearly as much concentration to the act, as when I read something crafted using unique, elegantly-formed, interesting sentences.

Interesting, unique writing has its place, and its appeal. But to facilitate the simplest and most efficient transfer of knowledge/information, so does its opposite.

Posted via email from ferdnyc's posterous

I Write Like...

According to I Write Like, based on the content of my previous entry ("The MTA's Signage Stupidity, 138 St. - 3 Av. in the Bronx")...

I write like
David Foster Wallace

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Ummm... 'kay. Thanks, I guess? Never actually read him.

(Just as long as I don't kick at 46! Tho I doubt I have the cojones to hang myself; probably in the clear, there. *phew!*)

-FeRD

Posted via email from ferdnyc's posterous

The MTA's Signage Stupidity, 138 St. - 3 Av. in the Bronx

As a New Yorker born and raised, and someone who's spent the bulk of his life in this City, I often feel like I've grown immune to the colossal blunders the MTA can make. I start thinking that I've seen every kind of stupid they can possibly be, and nothing at all would surprise me anymore. Then, they go and do something like this, and I find out just how wrong I am.
Finally, after years of waste, mismanagement, and delays, the program to install electronic arrival-time signage in stations along the Lexington Ave line (The 4, 5, and 6 trains) is fully underway. The signs -- which display the number of minutes until the next train arrives, as well its designation (4 vs. 6, local vs. express) and information on several future trains -- are operational at most of the local stops in the Bronx and Manhattan. (I haven't been to Brooklyn in years, so I don't know the current status at stations in that boro. The express stops are not yet online, which is annoying, but the signs are physically in place and should be working "soon".)
All in all, I like the new signs. Late at night, especially, they allow me to sit on the station bench, relax, and read or do whatever I wish, while knowing exactly how much time I have until the train will be pulling up to the platform. No more peering over the platform edge hoping to see lights down the tunnel, in order to know when the train's near. I've also changed my travel plans based on the arrival-time information, opting to run up to a nearby bodega, or walk to the next station down the line. At most stops, since there's an arrival board just inside the turnstiles, you can check this information before swiping your MetroCard.
But then we have 138 St. - 3 Av, my home stop on the #6 line. Arrival-time signage was installed there, and is fully functional. Here are some photos showing the new signs. First, on the track level, the platforms are fully covered by double-sided signs like this one, visible from almost anywhere you're standing (except for a some staircase-obstructed areas at the platform ends):

Since the 138 St - 3 Av entrance & booth "straddles" the platforms, allowing access to trains in both directions from a single set of turnstiles, there's just a single waiting area on the upper level. The MTA also installed a new sign there, so that people waiting upstairs know when they need to head down to the track level. I snapped the photo at a bad time, but you can see the new sign (displaying an NYPD safety notice) as it looks from the waiting area inside the turnstiles:

And now, here's the same view from the other side, which is what you'd see after you'd just walked through the turnstiles, or if you were in the token booth area preparing to enter the system:

...This actually makes me physically angry every time I pass it on my way to the platform.
It's incomprehensible to me that they can be spending millions of dollars on this new system, years behind schedule, and then find a way to implement it (at least in my station) in such a way that actually robs it of any practical usefulness! The new signs are great, and they make the station- or platform-wait much more convenient, but they're not particularly useful once you're already in the system. It's not like you can make a lot of decisions about your travel planning. You're stuck there, and knowing how long you have until the next train arrives is at best a peace-of-mind convenience.
The only time the signs are useful, in terms of travel planning, is before you've swiped your MetroCard. (In fact, to provide the most utility, these signs should also be at street level -- but that's another argument. It may even be part of phase 2 or 3 of the overall project, which would be great. I don't know.)
Before you've paid your fare and crossed the turnstiles, you could make decisions based on the time available. Change your route, perhaps, or simply make a quick stop first -- hopefully, if you time it right, without missing your train. You could do all those things at 138 St. - 3 Av, that is... if the MTA hadn't decided to install all of the signs so that they're only visible from inside the subway system!
Heroically stupid. Congratulations, MTA -- you've managed to surprise me once again.
-FeRD

Posted via email from ferdnyc's posterous

The text editing in here is RICH. I can format!