I'd never heard of "visual language" before reading that email; the fact that it's in common usage amongst your acquaintances is probably because of self-selecting bias, rather than actual usage in the wider world. But that's not the point of the Birtspeak 2.0 section of the Eye as I see it, the point is that you shouldn't use technical jargon if there is no need for it, and from my limited understanding of that email, it wasn't really needed.
Vijay. On 16/05/2008, Robert Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't see what's wrong with that email. It's all quite > understandable. The only reason these recent Birtspeak 2.0 emails seem > nonsensical to outsiders is because they use technical terms and names > that are only used internally. > > The one bit you might be able to complain about is "visual language", > but I think that's a phrase in pretty common usage both inside and > outside the BBC. > > > 2008/5/15 vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Right, it was Cridland on a drunken rampage wasn't it? ;p > > On the topic of the website redesign, which one of you guys sent the > email > > that made it into Private Eye this week (Eye 1210 p12 Birtspeak 2.0) It > was > > a masterpiece. > > > > regards, > > Vijay. > > > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ >
