At 1:23 PM -0400 10/27/08, Chauncey Wilson wrote:
The underlying issue here is how legal forms are evaluated. We can evaluate
whether people understand the terms, but that is not the same as the
evaluation that goes on in court. So, apart from all the opinion about
reading comprehension, is there any empirical data on the efficacy of
simplified legal forms over more complex legal forms.
The problem is that legal language is differently defined than
"normal" language. Take the infamous "give, devise and bequeath"
language that is standard in Wills. Don't they all mean "in event of
my death this should go to this other person?" Well, yes, but the
problem is that legally "give" applies generally to personal
property, "devise" is restricted to real estate, and "bequeath"
refers only to transferring ownership of personal property by a Will.
If a will is poorly written then it's possible that the desired
transfer would not take place because the transfer wasn't properly
described. So you can't just say "I bequeath my house to my
daughter," because she may end up owning the house but not the land
under it.
Similar issues exist throughout law...what sounds like the plain
English translation may carry or fail to carry very particular and
important pieces of the meaning of the statement.
kt
I see an assumption in these discussion that "no one reads the T&Cs", so is
it possible that we are making assumptions without digging in to the
details. Perhaps there are many good T&C's but we rarely look at them so we
are biased toward only the worst examples.
Chauncey
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Eva Kaniasty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perfect timing for this discussion. I get to copy & paste my thoughts
from
another list. :)
I think this is an interesting area for us usability folks to talk about.
Does legalese really have to be written in a style that is inaccessible to
99% of the population?
I would argue that there is a way to express even the most complex legal
ideas in language that can be understood by the rest of us.
I also think that the tradition of the 6 page terms & conditions is often a
subterfuge used to slip in terms that users would never agree to if those
same terms were put forth in a briefer/clearer form. Legalese is a way to
pay lip service to transparency while hiding behind an implementation that
is anything but. To me, the very importance of legal considerations
argues
for making those considerations clear to those who are unwittingly entering
into legal agreements by using websites or software. Some recent examples
that come to mind are sites whose user agreements conveniently hand over
rights to any user-generated content to themselves.
Has anybody seen examples of sites that manage to cover themselves legally
while using language that is clear and transparent? I have seen some
examples on newer websites, but now for the life of me I can't remember
where.
-eva
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
________________________________________________________________
Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!
To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe
List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines
List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
