From jen at coury.org  Mon Jan 10 13:39:04 2005
From: jen at coury.org (Jen Kerstein Coury)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:39:04 -0500
Subject: question about phrasing
Message-ID: <200501101539.AA623247760@coury.org>

Where do you draw the line between editing for plain English and accepting that scientists use their own lingo that complicates sentence structure. To give some examples, I go back and forth between whether I should edit the following phrases:

The denominator for XXX is YYY.
I usually leave this, but it seems like there should be plain-English way of saying this.

XXX has been found to be associated with YYY.
"has been found to be" is so wordy, yet deleting it or changing it to "may be" changes the meaning of the sentence no?

Thanks,
Jen
                 



From amgreiner at lbl.gov  Mon Jan 10 13:52:10 2005
From: amgreiner at lbl.gov (Annette Greiner)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:52:10 -0800
Subject: question about phrasing
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-199293-1744228-2005.01.10-13.55.19--amgreiner#lbl.gov@lists.stc.org>
References: <LYRIS-199293-1744228-2005.01.10-13.55.19--amgreiner#lbl.gov@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <7F9F406A-6349-11D9-8F09-000A95D97382@lbl.gov>

Jen,
It depends on the context and the audience. If this is for scientists 
and in a discussion of an equation, "the denominator is . . ." wouldn't 
bother me at all. Otherwise it would probably bug me. As for "has been 
found to be associated", if you have the reference, you could safely 
turn it into something like "Smith showed XXX to be associated with 
YYY." If the statement isn't controversial, you could also simply say, 
"XXX is associated with YYY." I agree that "may be" changes the 
meaning, making it more controversial.
-Annette

On Jan 10, 2005, at 12:39 PM, Jen Kerstein Coury wrote:

> Where do you draw the line between editing for plain English and 
> accepting that scientists use their own lingo that complicates 
> sentence structure. To give some examples, I go back and forth between 
> whether I should edit the following phrases:
>
> The denominator for XXX is YYY.
> I usually leave this, but it seems like there should be plain-English 
> way of saying this.
>
> XXX has been found to be associated with YYY.
> "has been found to be" is so wordy, yet deleting it or changing it to 
> "may be" changes the meaning of the sentence no?
>
> Thanks,
> Jen
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: amgreiner at lbl.gov
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
> leave-stcscsig-l-199293A at lists.stc.org
>
=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=
Annette Greiner
Web Developer
Computational Genomics
Genome Data Systems Group

DOE Joint Genome Institute
2800 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
(925) 296-5728

www.jgi.doe.gov
=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=




From ghart at videotron.ca  Mon Jan 10 14:02:39 2005
From: ghart at videotron.ca (Geoff Hart)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:02:39 -0500
Subject: Question about phrasing?
In-Reply-To: 
 <LYRIS-101040-1744228-2005.01.10-13.55.19--ghart#videotron.ca@lists.stc.org>
References: 
 <LYRIS-101040-1744228-2005.01.10-13.55.19--ghart#videotron.ca@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <F6491CE7-634A-11D9-8072-000A95A98ABA@videotron.ca>

Jen Kerstein Coury wondered: <<Where do you draw the line between 
editing for plain English and accepting that scientists use their own 
lingo that complicates sentence structure.>>

Depends entirely on the audience. The more you edit within a genre 
(e.g., Journal of Incomprehensible Results vs. Scientific American vs. 
your newspaper's science page), the more you develop a "feel" for what 
kind of language scientists use when talking with each other versus the 
language they use when trying to communicate with the rest of humanity.

This comes down to understanding the difference between good jargon and 
bad jargon: "Good jargon communicates more efficiently with your 
audience than any alternative and is understood by the vast majority of 
that audience; bad jargon interferes with comprehension."

<<I go back and forth between whether I should edit the following 
phrases: The denominator for XXX is YYY. I usually leave this, but it 
seems like there should be plain-English way of saying this.>>

I'm not sure why you'd want to say this at all; most times you'll 
simply refer to the numerator or the denominator to draw attention to 
some aspect of it. Since this is a mathematical operation (division), 
there's no "plain English" way to say it efficiently. If the audience 
doesn't understand the mathematical concept of numerator vs. 
denominator, then you have to devote a bunch of  extra words teaching 
them the concept--or decide that you really want to be explaining 
something else entirely.

<<XXX has been found to be associated with YYY. "has been found to be" 
is so wordy, yet deleting it or changing it to "may be" changes the 
meaning of the sentence no?>>

In this case, try "XXX is associated with YYY". "Has been found" begs 
the question "by whom?", and that means you need either a literature 
citation or identification of the actor (e.g., us). This leads to 2 
simple rewrites: "Hart (1990) found..." or "we have found...".

--Geoff Hart   ghart at videotron.ca
(try geoffhart at mac.com if you don't get a reply)




From flautabaja at hotmail.com  Mon Jan 31 07:36:31 2005
From: flautabaja at hotmail.com (Nathaniel Bobbitt)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:36:31 -0600
Subject: Scientific Visualization
Message-ID: <BAY23-F1305516EC875A3A6600BD1CC7C0@phx.gbl>

I am new to this group.

Scientific visualization is a vital component of scientific: research 
exchange, knowledge management, and model development.

We already can see how VR, motion sensing (animation), 3-D modeling have 
been used in visualization. We find numerical techniques like fractals and 
wavelets play a role in analysis in energy, materials, natural science for 
commercial and academic research. The development of the scientific viz. 
technical communicator is open. I wonder how others see the future of 
scientific communication in terms of scientific visualization?

I am looking for others interested in how scientific visualization informs 
technical communication, basic research, and the capacity to simulate and 
model.

I look forward to working with members of STC and others interested in 
applications of scientific viz in the following areas:

* Grid Technology (distributed instrumentation and collaborative resources)
* Bio-Technology (modeling, imaging, structural/functional analysis 
genomic/protein)
* Diffraction Technology (imaging, sensor, optical tools, new materials 
research)
* Nanotechnology (granular modeling and measurement)
* High Performance Tech Centers (NSF, NIST, NIH, Dept. of Energy, NSF 
Visualization Centers, Supercomputer Centers)

There are some great resources out there for us to tap into.

Nathanaiel Bobbitt
http://www.nabslab.com/aboutus.asp
Houston, TX
flautabaja at hotmail.com





From galacticgourmet at nethere.com  Mon Jan 31 09:08:29 2005
From: galacticgourmet at nethere.com (Daniel A.)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:08:29 -0500
Subject: need a little help
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-198403-1815648-2005.01.31-07.38.22--galacticgourmet#nethere.com@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <BE23C22C.672D%galacticgourmet@nethere.com>

Hey folks, 

I need a little help with this:

I'm trying to get a group of inexperience laymen to come to a consensus of
opinions on which measurement scale should be specified in wind turbine
siting guidelines. To do this, I need to explain the differences, pros, and
cons of three noise measurement scales dB(A), dB(C), dB(G) to a group of
laymen. 

But I haven't even been able to find a good list of the pros and cons to
share with them. Can any one help?

-Daniel




From elaine at pop200.gsfc.nasa.gov  Mon Jan 31 09:15:59 2005
From: elaine at pop200.gsfc.nasa.gov (Elaine Firestone)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:15:59 -0500
Subject: need a little help
In-Reply-To: 
 <LYRIS-195441-1815757-2005.01.31-09.09.20--elaine#pop200.gsfc.nasa.gov@lis
 ts.stc.org>
References: 
 <LYRIS-195441-1815757-2005.01.31-09.09.20--elaine#pop200.gsfc.nasa.gov@lis
 ts.stc.org>
Message-ID: <p0611040bbe240975ad5b@[128.183.75.161]>

>Hey folks,
>
>I need a little help with this:
>
>I'm trying to get a group of inexperience laymen to come to a consensus of
>opinions on which measurement scale should be specified in wind turbine
>siting guidelines. To do this, I need to explain the differences, pros, and
>cons of three noise measurement scales dB(A), dB(C), dB(G) to a group of
>laymen.
>
>But I haven't even been able to find a good list of the pros and cons to
>share with them. Can any one help?


I have to admit to serious confusion here. If this group is indeed 
"inexperienced laymen" whose very definition is "they don't know 
anything about this area," then why do they have to come to a 
consensus?  Wouldn't the SME or even you, the science editor (I'm 
making an assumption here folks), be the one to say which scale would 
be used?

Elaine
-- 
________________________________________________________________________________
Elaine R. Firestone, ELS
Sr. Technical Editor/Writer
NASA GSFC/Infonetic
Code 293, Technical Information Services Branch
Bldg 18, Rm 280
Greenbelt, MD 20771

Phone:	301-286-9004	Fax: 301-286-1705
E-mail: elaine at pop200.gsfc.nasa.gov



From galacticgourmet at nethere.com  Mon Jan 31 11:00:11 2005
From: galacticgourmet at nethere.com (Daniel A.)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:00:11 -0500
Subject: need a little help
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-198403-1815769-2005.01.31-09.16.45--galacticgourmet#nethere.com@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <BE23DC5A.6738%galacticgourmet@nethere.com>

This a consensus building effort. We're trying to get some extremely
contentious political adversaries to feel like they have input into the
state guidelines. 

I invited a couple of community noise assessment experts to participate, but
none accepted. So we are without an SME on this project. Hence my plea for
help. 

-Daniel

> From: Elaine Firestone <elaine at pop200.gsfc.nasa.gov>
> Reply-To: "STC Science SIG discussions" <stcscsig-l at lists.stc.org>
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:15:59 -0500
> To: "STC Science SIG discussions" <stcscsig-l at lists.stc.org>
> Subject: [stcscsig-l] Re: need a little help
> 
> 
> I have to admit to serious confusion here. If this group is indeed
> "inexperienced laymen" whose very definition is "they don't know
> anything about this area," then why do they have to come to a
> consensus?  Wouldn't the SME or even you, the science editor (I'm
> making an assumption here folks), be the one to say which scale would
> be used?
> 
> Elaine




From amgreiner at lbl.gov  Mon Jan 31 13:57:36 2005
From: amgreiner at lbl.gov (Annette Greiner)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 12:57:36 -0800
Subject: need a little help
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-199293-1815757-2005.01.31-09.09.20--amgreiner#lbl.gov@lists.stc.org>
References: <LYRIS-199293-1815757-2005.01.31-09.09.20--amgreiner#lbl.gov@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <ea508982e793d95763183c5220bcb10b@lbl.gov>

This sounds like a situation where you really need to get hold of 
someone who is a specialist in this area. If you're being asked to 
develop consensus on this among people with no expertise, IMHO, you are 
being asked to do something that an editor shouldn't be asked to do. 
I'll bet the people who would be affected by the guidelines would 
provide an SME if they knew they would otherwise be developed by 
laymen.
-Annette

On Jan 31, 2005, at 8:08 AM, Daniel A. wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> I need a little help with this:
>
> I'm trying to get a group of inexperience laymen to come to a 
> consensus of
> opinions on which measurement scale should be specified in wind turbine
> siting guidelines. To do this, I need to explain the differences, 
> pros, and
> cons of three noise measurement scales dB(A), dB(C), dB(G) to a group 
> of
> laymen.
>
> But I haven't even been able to find a good list of the pros and cons 
> to
> share with them. Can any one help?
>
> -Daniel
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to stcscsig-l as: amgreiner at lbl.gov
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
> leave-stcscsig-l-199293A at lists.stc.org
>
=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=
Annette Greiner
Web Developer
Genome Data Systems

DOE Joint Genome Institute
2800 Mitchell Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
(925) 296-5728

www.jgi.doe.gov
=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=::=




From ghart at videotron.ca  Mon Jan 31 14:42:19 2005
From: ghart at videotron.ca (Geoff Hart)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:42:19 -0500
Subject: Scientific Visualization
In-Reply-To: 
 <LYRIS-101040-1815648-2005.01.31-07.38.22--ghart#videotron.ca@lists.stc.org>
References: 
 <LYRIS-101040-1815648-2005.01.31-07.38.22--ghart#videotron.ca@lists.stc.org>
Message-ID: <FB9D541C-73D0-11D9-B3CB-000A95A98ABA@videotron.ca>

Nathaniel Bobbitt reports: <<I am new to this group.>>

Welcome! Always nice to "see" a new face and get a conversation started.

<<Scientific visualization is a vital component of scientific: research 
exchange, knowledge management, and model development.>>

Very much so. [Puts on newsletter editor hat:] If you're interested in 
writing about this for the newsletter, drop me a line privately so we 
can discuss details. Ditto if any of your colleagues would be 
interested; you don't have to be a SIG member to contribute to the 
newsletter. [Removes hat]

<<We already can see how VR, motion sensing (animation), 3-D modeling 
have been used in visualization. We find numerical techniques like 
fractals and wavelets play a role in analysis in energy, materials, 
natural science for commercial and academic research. The development 
of the scientific viz. technical communicator is open. I wonder how 
others see the future of scientific communication in terms of 
scientific visualization?>>

I certainly see it as one of the crucial tools in our tool kit, and 
have done a ton of reading in information design to develop better ways 
to create informative graphics. Interestingly, STC seems to feel the 
same; our keynote speaker and honorary fellow at the annual conference 
this year will be Felice Frankel, author of "Envisioning Science" and a 
noted visual communicator. Hope to see you there!

--Geoff Hart   ghart at videotron.ca
(try geoffhart at mac.com if you don't get a reply)
www.geoff-hart.com