| |
 |
 |
| StyleWriter
Reviews |
 |
The
Daily Telegraph
by Richard Jones - Editor of
the Good Software Guide |
 |
|
StyleWriter
teaches the art of editing; how to run the editor's pen
through inadequate writing; how to cut the waffle, how to
turn a draft into clear and concise plain English. It persuades
users to change their ingrained style. It persuades writers
to produce prose that helps readers - effectively and briefly.
And it is really very good.
The program works by analyzing writing for 35,000 known
style and usage faults. To take two simple examples, it
suggests altering "It was decided by the committee..."
to "The committee decided..."; and "This
pamphlet is intended to show..." to "This pamphlet
shows...."
Blindingly obvious when you think about it. And it is what
plain English is all about - clear, concise and effective
writing. It also highlights complex words and suggest simpler
alternatives, draws attention to abstract words, over-complex
phrases, confused and misused words (a far more common problem
than poor grammar) and the bare minimum of self-evident
grammatical errors.
The results of using plain English are stunning. The UK
Employment Department saved £250,000 a year in paper
alone, merely by reducing the number of words used. StyleWriter
may well be a surprise when you start to use it, mainly
because its advice is so devastatingly sensible.
Poor writing is often the result of slipshod thinking or
the muddled memory of unnecessary rules.
StyleWriter has the chance to break habits most writers
are not aware they had. Anyone smug enough to think they
have no writing problems should remember the old saying
"Most writers only have two writing problems: first
they don't know how to write; second they think they do!"
It is time to break these habits, either by joining the
Plain English Campaign, or, on computers, using StyleWriter.
It had a significant effect on me, and I know I knew it
all. These people are talking my language, or indeed our
language - English - clearly. |
|
|
| |
The
Manual
Anne Bradbeer
reviews a software package that should bring a touch of
style to your work. |
|
|
I first
encountered StyleWriter tucked away unpretentiously at the
back of a computer exhibition. It was competing for attention
with a virtual reality game, free teddy bears, and a reconstruction
of a Parisian cafe. At least you could tell what the StyleWriter
stand was promoting. I liked it already.
The package comes from the UK-based company Editor Software.
"StyleWriter is designed for people who do a lot of
writing, but wouldn't necessarily consider themselves writers",
according to the program designers. I'm sure it could benefit
many people who do consider themselves writers!
As a manual writer myself, I believe that good software
needs a good manual. When a product claims to help with
writing style, its manual is doubly important. The StyleWriter
(CD) manual is excellent. It is clear, to the point, and
gives you every confidence in the claims of the software.
The
Software
The
package is easy to use; you certainly don't have to be
a computer genius. It accepts text directly from the most
popular word processing packages or through the clipboard.
If you have a little computer experience its use is pretty
intuitive, but the computerised manual and tutorial provide
thorough backup.
StyleWriter has two kinds of online help. Predictably,
one is about using the program. The other is like having
the Chicago Manual of Style at your fingertips. For example,
if you forget how to use the exclamation mark correctly,
advice is available at the press of a key.
As it checks your text, StyleWriter looks for stylistic
horrors such as long sentences and passive constructions.
It also watches for sexist language, jargon and foreign
terms amongst a host of other problems. It checks for
up to 26 different categories of stylistic and proofreading
pitfalls. The house style category lets you include your
own organization's style rules for checking.
The Verdict
StyleWriter is undoubtedly useful for anyone who writes,
not just technical authors. It takes the hard slog out
of editing, and draws your attention to stylistic faults
you probably didn't know you had. In an ideal world, every
technical author would have a copy of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|