Tech Jargon: The Latest Excuse For Employee Slacking
from the wipe-it-out dept
We've certainly noted the problems with techie jargon before. From intimidating buyers to confusing people into buying something to being a security threat, tech jargon is often complained about. The latest such survey says that it's killing productivity, as three-quarters of people asked claim that they waste an hour or more each week deciphering tech jargon. An hour or more a week? That seems extreme. It may depend on the job that you do, obviously, but once you do figure out what a certain piece of computer jargon means, you're usually set for life on that particular piece of jargon. It's hard to see how it would be a weekly thing. And, sure, new jargon shows up, but on a weekly basis and requiring that much study? Seems a bit questionable. There may, indeed, be too much tech jargon out there, but it's hard to see it having that big an impact on time worked for that many people.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
tech not the winner!
Somehow I think we have a new winner for timewasting... ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only an hour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only an hour?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech Jargon???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tech Jargon???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
where's the problem?
Considering the vast range of functions performed by technology in business there is surprisingly little jargon. I'll see your IBM server handbook and raise you a company tax return.
He, he! I ask the finance department dumb questions about interest rates and they ask me dumb questions about how to disable macros!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More needed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tech jargon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech jargon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jargon? Try learning the NAMES for things....
Why not so with computers? Where I work, the employees call LCD projectors "Proximas" (a company that makes Projectors), and almost any part of Office "Microsoft". I never know whether they mean "Word", "Excel", or something else. For some reason they actually call Powerpoint by it's name.
Knowing the name for a program is not Jargon. Referring to "Easy Grade Pro" (a grade book app) as "IG Pro" (a competing gradebook app) is just dumb. Referring to "Word" as "Microsoft" is also stupid.
Once people stop using pet names, and completely incorrect names for things, then they have earned the right to complain.
As a tech I've done my part. I don't call memory RAM. I don't refer to clock speed, I simply say "Faster" or "Slower". I make sure to specify storage for hard drives, and explain if neccesary. I use small words when possible. My point is that as techs many of us work with degreed individuals who refuse to learn the barest essentials of the equipment that it's their job to use. RTFM, I say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jargon? Try learning the NAMES for things....
I think users are on a learning curve. Just like motorists know what an exhaust pipe is, bit by bit people are going to come to terms with the concepts of a drivers and dlls - even if they dont ever learn how they work. They will get there - eventually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jargon? Try learning the NAMES for things....
I'm not sure that it won't be willful ignorance that prevails. It's amazing how many people don't even attempt to learn something, instead calling a tech and waiting an hour for it to be done for them. This includes things as simple as setting up an Outlook profile (which involves remembering "Exchange server" and "companymail1" or "companymail2"). I refuse to play this game, always making them sit and enter the information themselves. I work in the educational sector now, which is even worse than corporate america in this regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jargon? Try learning the NAMES for things....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech jargon
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
It has been my experience that once I have setteled on a useful and contextual description of most tech jagon I find I can understand and use it fully. As the author of this comment correctly implies, it seems likely that a person who needs an hour per week to assimilate this information is simply looking for an excuse to explain their wasted time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tech jargon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Over and over again
It wastes 2 hours of my week because people can't remember tech jargon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
`It's easy to spend an hour a week deciphering jar
There are lots of such documents in the tech industries. If you are writing new kinds of software or bidding on projects, or reviewing regulations affecting your work, or writing specifications, you run into these docs all the time.
- Precision Blogger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]