Commit fd91cf1dfd
Verified · cmc
Layout: unified · split
content/blog/2026-05-13-plain.org added +202
| @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ | ||
| 1 | #+date: [2026-05-13 Wed 13:03:00] | |
| 2 | #+title: Plain Text, Plain Language | |
| 3 | #+description: If the file is portable but the writing is opaque, you only solved half the problem. | |
| 4 | #+slug: plain | |
| 5 | #+filetags: :emacs:writing: | |
| 6 | ||
| 7 | * Plain Text Won | |
| 8 | ||
| 9 | There has been a battle around how to format and store text since computers were | |
| 10 | invented. | |
| 11 | ||
| 12 | As computers moved to a more consumer-facing market, developers faced the | |
| 13 | challenge of determining the best way to store text. Early consumer software | |
| 14 | such as WordStar, WordPerfect, and Microsoft Word implemented proprietary | |
| 15 | document formats and rich-text systems, including binary word processor files | |
| 16 | and later formats such as RTF, to let users style, print, and exchange | |
| 17 | documents. These tools made sense for office work, but they also moved writing | |
| 18 | further away from the simplest representation of text: characters in a file. | |
| 19 | ||
| 20 | Plain text never disappeared. It remained the foundation of source code, logs, | |
| 21 | configuration files, email, data formats, documentation, and the web. Now, with | |
| 22 | the rise of LLMs and agentic workflows, it feels even more obvious that plain | |
| 23 | text has won. Corporations may still save Word documents, share PowerPoints, and | |
| 24 | use other formats, but they are increasingly turning around and using agents to | |
| 25 | extract, summarize, transform, and rewrite that same content as Markdown or some | |
| 26 | other plain-text-adjacent format. | |
| 27 | ||
| 28 | Whether another format is used somewhere along the way, the center of gravity is | |
| 29 | moving back toward text that can be read, searched, copied, diffed, transformed, | |
| 30 | and understood without specialized software. | |
| 31 | ||
| 32 | * Optimizing for Usability | |
| 33 | ||
| 34 | Great, Christian believes plain text won. So what? | |
| 35 | ||
| 36 | Let's think about /why/ we store documents and text. | |
| 37 | ||
| 38 | For personal reasons, we may take notes, write stories and poems, send emails | |
| 39 | and messages of other types, post online, and any number of other reasons. For | |
| 40 | work, we do largely the same as we do personally, but we also create | |
| 41 | presentations, documents, memos, letters, notices, manuals, documentation, and | |
| 42 | other artifacts specific to our jobs. Doctors write prescriptions, architects | |
| 43 | create plans, auditors create working papers and reports, and so on. | |
| 44 | ||
| 45 | Think about each of these and then imagine that each was produced by Word or | |
| 46 | another piece of software where the document can only be opened in that specific | |
| 47 | application. If you don't have access to the same application, whether due to | |
| 48 | cost, sanctions, licensing, operating system support, or another reason, you're | |
| 49 | effectively banned from ever viewing that document, even if it's expressly | |
| 50 | intended for you. | |
| 51 | ||
| 52 | In contrast, a plain text document is accessible on every major platform | |
| 53 | available today. Modern browsers can open plain text files directly, depending | |
| 54 | on the file extension and browser settings, and desktop, server, and mobile | |
| 55 | operating systems are capable of opening these files with bundled editors or | |
| 56 | viewers. You don't have to install a separate application, accept a vendor's | |
| 57 | terms, or hope the original software still exists. You can open the file and | |
| 58 | read the content, even if lightweight markup has been applied to it. | |
| 59 | ||
| 60 | ** Plain Text Markup | |
| 61 | ||
| 62 | More specifically, I want to talk about a few options beyond literal plain text. | |
| 63 | There are numerous markup languages that provide structure and formatting while | |
| 64 | remaining readable as text, but a few sit at the top. | |
| 65 | ||
| 66 | 1. [[https://orgmode.org][Org Mode]]: Org is my personal favorite. While you need Emacs to experience the | |
| 67 | full functionality of Org's interactive components, Org files remain readable | |
| 68 | outside of Emacs because the syntax is still plain text. | |
| 69 | 2. [[https://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/][Markdown]]: Markdown is the dominant lightweight markup language. It is used | |
| 70 | across AI tools, social media, documentation platforms, static site | |
| 71 | generators, and note-taking apps. | |
| 72 | 3. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX][TeX]]: When you need a language that can handle advanced formatting | |
| 73 | requirements, such as mathematical expressions or chemical notation, TeX is | |
| 74 | the obvious choice. | |
| 75 | ||
| 76 | These languages introduce additional characters into a plain text document, but | |
| 77 | they do not usually detract from the readability of the document itself. They | |
| 78 | create documents that can be read directly for quick understanding or rendered | |
| 79 | by software that understands the markup syntax. | |
| 80 | ||
| 81 | * Plain Language | |
| 82 | ||
| 83 | Great, we've established the benefits of plain text and optional markup, but | |
| 84 | that's only half of the battle. | |
| 85 | ||
| 86 | A file can be open and still be opaque. I don't want to open your plain text | |
| 87 | document and struggle to understand the message. | |
| 88 | ||
| 89 | It is entirely possible to write a Markdown document that is portable, durable, | |
| 90 | grep-able, and miserable to read. The format can be simple while the writing | |
| 91 | remains vague, dense, passive, or full of unexplained jargon. | |
| 92 | ||
| 93 | That is where plain language matters. | |
| 94 | ||
| 95 | Plain language is not simplistic language. It does not mean avoiding technical | |
| 96 | terms, removing nuance, or writing for the lowest possible reading level. It | |
| 97 | means writing so the intended reader can understand the point without doing | |
| 98 | unnecessary work. | |
| 99 | ||
| 100 | In practice, that means: | |
| 101 | ||
| 102 | 1. Use the simplest word that accurately communicates the idea. | |
| 103 | 2. Prefer direct sentences over inflated ones. | |
| 104 | 3. Define terms when the audience may not know them. | |
| 105 | 4. Put the main point before the supporting detail. | |
| 106 | 5. Avoid passive voice when the actor matters. | |
| 107 | 6. Remove filler that does not change the meaning. | |
| 108 | ||
| 109 | The same reasons I prefer plain text apply to plain language. Plain text removes | |
| 110 | technical friction. Plain language removes cognitive friction. | |
| 111 | ||
| 112 | A proprietary document format can make content harder to open. Bad writing can | |
| 113 | make content harder to use. | |
| 114 | ||
| 115 | ** Plain Text Without Plain Language | |
| 116 | ||
| 117 | Plain text gives you portability. It does not automatically give you clarity. | |
| 118 | ||
| 119 | A =README= can be written in Markdown and still fail to explain what the project | |
| 120 | does. A runbook can be stored in Git and still assume tribal knowledge. An audit | |
| 121 | workpaper can be easy to archive and still fail to explain the conclusion. A | |
| 122 | policy can be available to every employee and still be written in a way that | |
| 123 | discourages anyone from reading it. | |
| 124 | ||
| 125 | Have you ever read through a document or standard that is obviously meant to be | |
| 126 | accessible technologically and yet, you get nothing out of it? You could re-read | |
| 127 | it numerous times and never get an answer because the author was not focused on | |
| 128 | accessible language. | |
| 129 | ||
| 130 | The file is accessible, but the meaning is not, and that matters a lot. A | |
| 131 | document is not useful because it exists in an open format. It is useful when | |
| 132 | someone can read it, understand it, and act on it. | |
| 133 | ||
| 134 | ** Plain Language Is Not Anti-Technical | |
| 135 | ||
| 136 | Plain language does not mean removing technical precision. Sometimes the | |
| 137 | technical term is the clearest term. | |
| 138 | ||
| 139 | For example, this is vague: | |
| 140 | ||
| 141 | #+begin_quote | |
| 142 | The authentication subsystem exhibited anomalous behavior resulting in downstream | |
| 143 | workflow degradation. | |
| 144 | #+end_quote | |
| 145 | ||
| 146 | This is clearer: | |
| 147 | ||
| 148 | #+begin_quote | |
| 149 | Login failed for some users, which blocked deployments that required approval. | |
| 150 | #+end_quote | |
| 151 | ||
| 152 | This is still technical, but plain: | |
| 153 | ||
| 154 | #+begin_quote | |
| 155 | The CI runner could not authenticate to the package registry because the token | |
| 156 | expired. | |
| 157 | #+end_quote | |
| 158 | ||
| 159 | The goal is not to make everything casual. The goal is to make the writing carry | |
| 160 | the meaning directly. | |
| 161 | ||
| 162 | ** The Same Argument | |
| 163 | ||
| 164 | The argument for plain text and the argument for plain language are the same | |
| 165 | argument applied at different layers. | |
| 166 | ||
| 167 | | Plain text value | Plain language equivalent | | |
| 168 | |-----------------------+---------------------------| | |
| 169 | | No proprietary format | No proprietary vocabulary | | |
| 170 | | Easy to inspect | Easy to understand | | |
| 171 | | Works anywhere | Works for more readers | | |
| 172 | | Minimal tooling | Minimal friction | | |
| 173 | | Long-term durable | Long-term interpretable | | |
| 174 | | Easy to transform | Easy to act on | | |
| 175 | ||
| 176 | Plain text is the storage layer and plain language is the interface. Or, said | |
| 177 | more /plainly/, plain text and plain language should depend on each other and | |
| 178 | neither should be ignored. | |
| 179 | ||
| 180 | If the format is portable but the writing is opaque, you only solved half the | |
| 181 | problem. | |
| 182 | ||
| 183 | * Conclusion | |
| 184 | ||
| 185 | Plain text gives information a longer life. It makes writing easier to store, | |
| 186 | move, search, version, inspect, and transform. | |
| 187 | ||
| 188 | But plain text does not guarantee useful writing. You can put bad prose in a | |
| 189 | good format. You can store unclear decisions in Markdown. You can preserve vague | |
| 190 | notes forever. You can make a document technically accessible while leaving it | |
| 191 | practically unreadable. | |
| 192 | ||
| 193 | (Have you ever read a README clearly written by AI without any editing from the | |
| 194 | repository owner? It can quickly become nonsense as the AI tries to constrain | |
| 195 | its content to the best possible README standard, while it loses any meaning of | |
| 196 | the project itself.) | |
| 197 | ||
| 198 | That is why plain language belongs in the same conversation. | |
| 199 | ||
| 200 | If the goal is durable, useful communication, the format and the writing have to | |
| 201 | serve the same purpose. Plain text keeps the document accessible. Plain language | |
| 202 | keeps the meaning accessible. | |