I think one of the important things you should be thinking about is whether (given your complexity is already tripping up automated tools) it will start tripping up your coworkers.
Grammar checkers flag more than "invalid" grammar. Historically lots of arbitrary rules have been improperly applied to English to make it seem like a classical language. I like to enable checks for passive voice but completely eliminating it creates a stilted result and isn't practical, especially in technical writing. These tools are guide. I am free to ignore its advice when I know better.
... and yet you used an expression that seems unnecessarily idiomatic and parochial (British right?). I can easily imagine someone in Asia struggling to fit that literal expression to your intended meaning.
Bland is forgettable. You don't want important biz comms to be forgotten. Bland doesn't spark thought in the reader. Clarity is achievable without being bland
I think one of the important things you should be thinking about is whether (given your complexity is already tripping up automated tools) it will start tripping up your coworkers.
Yes. Bland is better than "unusual but perfectly valid grammar" any day of the week.
Grammar checkers flag more than "invalid" grammar. Historically lots of arbitrary rules have been improperly applied to English to make it seem like a classical language. I like to enable checks for passive voice but completely eliminating it creates a stilted result and isn't practical, especially in technical writing. These tools are guide. I am free to ignore its advice when I know better.
... and yet you used an expression that seems unnecessarily idiomatic and parochial (British right?). I can easily imagine someone in Asia struggling to fit that literal expression to your intended meaning.
>> any day of the week
Bland poetry is bad.
Bland biz comms are not only acceptable but preferred.
Bland is boring and boring documents tend not to be read.
Succinct writing with some humor or at least some character to it will actually get that functional spec read.
Joe Spolsky wrote a good piece on this topic: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/10/02/painless-functiona...
Sense of humor?
1) humor? it's subjective
2) you better be spot on because humor can easily be misinterpreted.
3) along the same lines, it's likely not everyone reading will be of the same native language and/or culture. Humor will likely marginalize them.
4) Frank Luntz "Words That Work". Chapter 1 is comms evergreen gold.
https://www.amazon.com/Words-That-Work-What-People/dp/140130...
Bland is forgettable. You don't want important biz comms to be forgotten. Bland doesn't spark thought in the reader. Clarity is achievable without being bland
You're talking about copy writing. That's different than peer to peer biz comms.