STC Tech Valley Chapter

Professional communicators in 19 New York counties:
Albany, Clinton, Columbia, Dutchess, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Hamilton, Herkimer, Montgomery, Orange, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Schoharie, Ulster, Warren, and Washington.

PLEASE NOTE: The May 14th chapter meeting has been moved to June 15, Albany Pump House, same time. RSVP to eskelly88@yahoo.com.

Guidelines for Writing for the Web

http://www.klariti.com/

Write to be Scanned

Reduce the word count as much as possible without losing the articles meaning. Short pages tend to be read more than long unwieldy tomes.

Readers have an aversion to the Page Down button on their keyboard; most will not work their way down a page. They prefer short, snappy pages.
 
Keep one idea per paragraph. This makes it easy to read and navigate. In the readers mind theyll think, "this paragraph is about this, while this other paragraph is about that," and enjoy scanning the article. If you bury multiple ideas inside a paragraph, theyll resent it and go elsewhere.  

Use bullet lists, bold the important text and put in sub-headings to highlight the main points.

Use an "inverted pyramid" style so that the main points are the top of the page and the rest of the story sits underneath it. Classic journalism writing style!
Use oodles of White Space to present the text more clearly. White space conveys space, openness and confidence. In contrast, pages that are cramped with small fonts and dense blocks of text appear tight-fisted and miserly as if the designer wouldnt share his space with the reader.    

Remember that most visitors will read only one or two pages of your siteafter that they gone. So, its critical that you catch their attention immediately and offer clean uncluttered text that will enjoy reading
 

Gender Communications

Gender Issues: Communication Differences in Interpersonal Relationships

Cynthia Burggraf Torppa, Ph.D.,
Family and Consumer Sciences Agent, Morrow County,
Ohio State University Extension, The Ohio State University

 A lot of media attention has been devoted to the idea that women and men communicate very differently—in fact, it is sometimes stated that women and men communicate so differently from one another that they must come from different planets! Although at times differences in women's and men's communication styles seem to be constant and overwhelming, they are really quite minor. For example, both women and men can be nurturing, aggressive, task-focused, or sentimental. What is important to think about, however, is that women and men sometimes perceive the same messages to have different meanings. In fact, it may be as a result of the differences in message interpretation that the "battle of the sexes" occurs.

Studies indicate that women, to a greater extent than men, are sensitive to the interpersonal meanings that lie "between the lines" in the messages they exchange with their mates. That is, societal expectations often make women responsible for regulating intimacy, or how close they allow others to come. For that reason, it is argued that women pay more attention than men to the underlying meanings about intimacy that messages imply. Men on the other hand, to a greater extent than women, are more sensitive to "between the lines meanings" about status. For men, societal expectations are that they must negotiate hierarchy, or who's the captain and who's the crew (Tannen, 1990; Wood, 2001).

These differences in emphasis on interpersonal vs. status implications of messages typically lead women to expect relationships to be based on interdependence (mutual dependence) and cooperation. Women more frequently emphasize the similarities between themselves and others, and try to make decisions that make everyone happy. In contrast, it is more typical for men to expect relationships to be based on independence and competition. Men more frequently emphasize the differences between themselves and others, and often make decisions based on their personal needs or desires.

How are these differences seen in marriage? In the ways women and men communicate! Women tend to be the relationship specialists and men tend to be task specialists. Women are typically the experts in "rapport talk" which refers to the types of communication that build, maintain, and strengthen relationships. Rapport talk reflects skills of talking, nurturing, emotional expression, empathy, and support. Men are typically the experts in task accomplishment and addressing questions about facts. They are experts in "report talk," which refers to the types of communication that analyzes issues and solves problems. Report talk reflects skills of being competitive, lacking sentimentality, analyzing, and focusing aggressively on task accomplishment.

These differences can create specific, and commonly experienced, misunderstandings. Here are three examples:

Misunderstanding #1
He: I'm really tired. I have so much work to do—I don't know how I'm going to get it done!
She Me, too. There just aren't enough hours in the day!
He: There you go again! You never think my contributions to this marriage are good enough!

In this conversation, she is trying to communicate something like "We're partners and share similar experiences." Her intended "between the lines" message is: "I understand what you're going through; you're not alone." The "between the lines" message he hears emphasizes competition for status: "What are you complaining about? You aren't any better than I am!" or "Your contributions to our marriage aren't any more significant than mine!"

Misunderstanding #2
She: I'm really tired. I have so much work to do—I don't know how I'm going to get it done!
He Why don't you take a day off and rest, if you're so tired?
She: (sarcastically) Thanks a lot! You think my contribution to this household is so trivial that I can do nothing and the difference won't even be noticed?

Here, he is trying to communicate something like "Oh, you need advice and analysis? I'll focus on the details and facts, and offer a solution." His intended "between the lines" message is: "I will help you solve your problem because I think I know something that might help." The "between the lines" message she hears him saying: "I don't want to understand your feelings; I'm different from you and I know what you should do."

The problems here result from some subtle differences in the ways that women and men approach problems. Women sometimes deal with problems (especially emotional concerns) by talking about them, sharing their feelings, and matching experiences with others. This can be frustrating to men, who more typically deal with problems by focusing on the facts and seeking an immediate solution. Occasionally, men perceive women to be ungrateful for the advice and solutions they offer and ponder in frustration why women don't want to resolve their problems! Similarly, when men offer a solution, rather than talking about a problem, women may feel hurt, dissatisfied, and put-down by the lack of empathy men show.

Misunderstanding #3
She: I'm really tired. I have so much work to do—I don't know how I'm going to get it done!
He That's ridiculous! Nothing bad is going to happen, so just trust that I'll get there safely! If something bad does happen, I'm sure you'll hear about it!

In this final example, she is trying to communicate something like, "We're connected and I care about you and your safety." Her intended "between the lines" message is: "You are loved and important to me." The "between the lines" message he hears her saying is: "You had better check in with me! I want to know where you are, who you are with, and what you are doing at all times."

The misunderstandings in these examples probably result from differences in the ways that women and men show affection. It is more common for women to show affection through talking, but it is more common for men to show affection by doing things—either doing things together or doing separate things within the same physical space. Sometimes not talking—not having to talk—is a sign of trust and intimacy for men.

What does all this mean to us?
Understanding differences is the key to working them out. When we misunderstand one another, we often think that the other's motives are not reasonable, are mean spirited, or worse! But by knowing that women and men sometimes see—and hear!—things through different filters, we can begin to share with one other the distortions we experience, and thereby find our way to clarity.

So, the next time you feel surprised, disappointed, or angry with someone's response to something you have said, ask yourself if he or she may have "misheard" you. Is the other responding to your problems with a solution, when you wanted to receive sympathy? Is the other responding to your message of affection with a message of status? If so, you will be able to help the other to understand the source of your miscommunication, and avoid the hurt feelings and conflicts that sometimes follow.

References
Tanner, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Ballantine Books.
Wood, J. (2001). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture (4th Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Differences Between Oral and Written Communication

Vincent Ferraro and Kathryn C. Palmer
Mount Holyoke College

Most of us intuitively understand that there are differences between oral and written language.  All communication includes the transfer of information from one person to another, and while the transfer of information is only the first step in the process of understanding a complex phenomenon, it is an important first step.  Writing is a fairly static form of transfer.   Speaking is a dynamic transfer of information.  To be an effective speaker, you must exploit the dynamism of oral communication, but also learn to work within its limitations.  While there is a higher level of immediacy and a lower level of retention in the spoken word, a speaker has more ability to engage the audience psychologically and to use complex forms of non-verbal communication

The written language can be significantly more precise.  Written words can be chosen with greater deliberation and thought, and a written argument can be extraordinarily sophisticated, intricate, and lengthy.  These attributes of writing are possible because the pace of involvement is controlled by both the writer and the reader.  The writer can write and rewrite at great length, a span of time which in some cases can be measured in years.  Similarly, the reader can read quickly or slowly or even stop to think about what he or she has just read.   More importantly, the reader always has the option of re-reading; even if that option is not exercised, its mere possibility has an effect upon a reader's understanding of a text.  The written word appeals more to a contemplative, deliberative style.

Speeches can also be precise and indeed they ought to be.  But precision in oral communication comes only with a great deal of preparation and compression.  Once spoken, words cannot be retracted, although one can apologize for a mistake and improvise a clarification or qualification.  One can read from a written text and achieve the same degree of verbal precision as written communication.  But word-for-word reading from a text is not speech-making, and in most circumstances audiences find speech-reading boring and retain very little of the information transmitted.

On the other hand, oral communication can be significantly more effective in expressing meaning to an audience.  This distinction between precision and effectiveness is due to the extensive repertoire of signals available to the speaker: gestures, intonation, inflection, volume, pitch, pauses, movement, visual cues such as appearance, and a whole host of other ways to communicate meaning. A speaker has significantly more control over what the listener will hear than the writer has over what the reader will read.  For these techniques to be effective, however, the speaker needs to make sure that he or she has the audience's attention--audiences do not have the luxury of re-reading the words spoken.  The speaker, therefore, must become a reader of the audience. 

Reading an audience is a systematic and cumulative endeavor unavailable to the writer.  As one speaks, the audience provides its own visual cues about whether it is finding the argument coherent, comprehensible, or interesting.  Speakers should avoid focusing on single individuals within an audience.  There are always some who scrunch up their faces when they disagree with a point; others will stare out the window; a few rude (but tired) persons will fall asleep.  These persons do not necessarily represent the views of the audience; much depends upon how many in the audience manifest these signals.  By and large, one should take the head-nodders and the note-takers as signs that the audience is following one's argument.  If these people seem to outnumber the people not paying attention, then the speech is being well-received.  The single most important bit of evidence about the audience's attention, however, is eye contact.  If members of the audience will look back at you when you are speaking, then you have their attention.  If they look away, then your contact with the audience is probably fading.

Speeches probably cannot be sophisticated and intricate.  Few audiences have the listening ability or background to work through a difficult or complex argument, and speakers should not expect them to be able to do so.  Many speakers fail to appreciate the difficulties of good listening, and most speakers worry about leaving out some important part of the argument. One must be acutely aware of the tradeoff between comprehensiveness and comprehension.  Trying to put too much into a speech is probably the single most frequent error made by speakers.

This desire to "say everything" stems from the distinctive limitations of speeches:  after a speech, one cannot go back and correct errors or omissions, and such mistakes could potentially cripple the persuasiveness of a speech. A speaker cannot allow himself or herself to fall into this mentality.  At the outset, a speaker must define an argument sharply and narrowly and must focus on only that argument.  There are certainly implications of an argument that are important but cannot be developed within the speech.  These aspects should be clearly acknowledged by the speaker, but deferred to a question-and-answer period, a future speech, or a reference to a work that the audience can follow-up on its own.  Speakers must exercise tight and disciplined control over content.

As a rule of thumb, the audience will remember about one-half of what was said in a twenty-minute talk.  After twenty-minutes, recall drops off precipitously.  Oral arguments should therefore be parsed down as much as possible.   There are very few circumstances in which an audience will recall a great deal of the information in a speech longer than twenty minutes.  Most evidence suggests that audience recall declines precipitously after 16 and one-helf minutes.

Oral communication uses words with fewer syllables than the written language, the sentences are shorter, and self-referencing pronouns such as I are common.   Oral communication also allows incomplete sentences if delivered properly, and many sentences will begin with "and," "but," and "except."

The upshot of these differences is that one should not think about speeches as oral presentations of a written text.  Speeches are genuinely different from written prose, and one should not use the logic of writing as a basis for writing a speech.