FAQ: GLOSSARY

[Heliotrope]

Yes

[GrumblesMcGee]

PsyGuy wrote:
> I find my position sufficient strong to withstand debate.

And your grammar, too.

PsyGuy wrote:
> If I was so
> disposed to creating barriers, why would I create a glossary and explain
> terms when asked.
> Introducing them on first use is not very helpful, its a minority of
> readers that will go back to read previous posts on common topics.
> Searching for "Glossary" takes less than a minute.

This is just asinine. First, you incorrectly read an element of intent into my comment. I never argued that you were "disposed to" creating barriers. I just argued that your writing (both your awful grammar and your eccentric use/invention of acronyms) creates barriers. In fact, my post concludes with the words "whether it's his intent or not." So, to borrow from your predictable tone: intent is irrelevant.

Second, the argument that you mitigate your inaccessible drivel by creating additional resources (e.g., "creat[ing] a glossary and explain[ing] terms when asked") doesn't carry the day. Sure, it's better than nothing. But you're asking people who are already (supposedly) relative non-experts in an area to do additional reading BEYOND your post...just to understand your post. And for what? It's one thing to say "part of your question involves tiers of schools, which have been addressed at length here. Click <here> for my bizarre treatise on tiers. To the rest of your question..." It's another to intentionally decrease the accessibility of a text through jargon and acronyms, and then ask the reader (or just expect/hope that they will search) to consult another of your own texts just to decipher the first one. Again, there's no need for it. It's saving you less time than you wind up spending answering replies from confused conversants, and it's wasting TONS of their time. Many are just going to give up and never fully comprehend the "wisdom" you're attempting to convey. Which brings me to...

PsyGuy wrote:
> Accessibility is irrelevant, only data matters, as is whether theyre
> pretentious or not, reasonable people can differ, and we appear to
> disagree.

Data is irrelevant if no one can understand it...at least in this context. We're basically discussing a help forum. You're providing advice/perspectives to people seeking information and/or guidance. You can have the best data in the world, but if you can't (or in this case, won't) communicate it, the results suffer. If your aim here is to actually help the people to whom you are replying, maybe you should take that into account. Hell, even the nascent health communication "field" has recognized that "mediocre" doctors are more effective than their more "elite" counterparts if they are better able to convey information to patience and secure patient compliance (e.g., convince patients to take their meds as prescribed). In that sense, the data is less relevant that strategic communication--which revolves around accessibility. And yes, there's "data" to back that up.

As for reasonable people differing as to whether your acronym obsession = pretentious, your opinion is irrelevant, as I don't view you as a reasonable person (not on this front, at least).

PsyGuy wrote:
> OTT is an acronym used by the TCL/TRA, its their term, you can find it
> here:
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/qualified-t ... status-qts
> First use is under "Teachers trained or recognized in Scotland or
> Northern Ireland"

The fact that you have to explain further supports why you shouldn't be overusing acronyms.

[PsyGuy]

@GrumblesMcGee

I "incorrectly read an element of intent into my comment" or you failed to properly write your intent, am I responsible for what you intend to write?
So the difference between being disposed to creating barriers or that my writing creates barriers differentiates the barriers how? Your position is my writing creates barriers, mine is that it doesnt.

Yes it does carry the day, thats how the technical aspects of any field work, textbook publishers do the same thing.
You mean additional reading beyond the main text such as consulting the glossary, because that happens ALL the time, its a common occurrence.

The time and typing savings are significant, I dont overuse them I use them just enough.

What Im concluding is that you dont like jargon, acronyms and technical language and your against their use, despite being a common practice in edu and my previous post and example support that. Your opinion on whether its pretentious or not isnt relevant to me, Im not going to change or adapt alternative usage as I find your position lacking in merit and unpersuasive.

[Heliotrope]

If a lot of people have to look up the acronyms used, in a glossary they might not know exists, it does create a barrier.
It's pretty standard to introduce acronyms upon first use (as mentioned before by @GrumblesMcGee: "This is particularly an issue for Overseas Trained Teachers (OTTs)..."), and it's standard for an obvious reason: it lowers the barrier.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

Well readers will have to explore the text to determine if there is a glossary. I do introduce new terms hen first used, I do so more than once.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope
>
> Well readers will have to explore the text to determine if there is a
> glossary. I do introduce new terms hen first used, I do so more than once.


That's if they even consider there might be a glossary.
And perhaps you introduce new terms upon first use on the forum, but not upon first use in the thread. You can't expect readers to go through all other threads before reading the one they are interested in.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

Their consideration is immaterial, there is a glossary. I can expect pretty much anything I want, I can reasonably expect a reader to consult the glossary or a member to ask if they have exhausted other sources of definitions.

[Heliotrope]

We can't expect a reader to consult a glossary, when in most cases he/she won't even know it exists. Just as you can't expect people to find the thread in which the acronym was first used.

The forum is supposed to help people, and writing in a way that makes it hard to understand what you mean seems counterproductive. I've seen so many topics where readers had to ask you, after one of your comments, what one of the acronyms you like to use mean.

I assume all or most of us went to university. If so, introducing an acronym at first use (within a thread, not on the forum of course) should be second nature. That is, if ones objective is to truly help people.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

I can have whatever expectations I want. In those scenarios Ive always defined the term used.

[Heliotrope]

Yes, you can have whatever expectations you want, but the fact that you don't introduce the acronyms upon first use within a thread, but only upon first use on the entire forum, will make your contributions less accessible to the public.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

So sad, if only there was some kind of glossary on the forum.

[Heliotrope]

As mentioned at least twice before: in most cases the readers confused by your acronym(s) won't even know the glossary exists, so they won't think to look for it.
Plus it adds a step, where introducing the acronym upon first use in the thread isn't much extra work, plus it should be second nature to you if you ever attended university.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

Yes they will, your claim they wont know a glossary exists is not self authenticating because @Heliotrope claims its true.
So what, lots of systems processes can add a step, its a step, type 'glossary', click search. Its not climbing Everest.

[Heliotrope]

No, they won't.
Your claim that they will know a glossary exists is not self-authenticating because @PsyGuy claims its true.

We disagree.

[PsyGuy]

Sure