A recent Slashdot poll asked readers what should be in a 101 course that everyone had to pass, with a wide variety of acceptable options. Like most of these polls, both the question and the options are set up poorly — no context, an option that doesn’t work (“other, listed below” implies an AJAX-y box which one can fill in), vague options (“basic math & science”), etc.

Being a writer, I gravitated toward the “grammar/communication” option. I do admit that I first moved my mouse pointer to “computers,” but like several posters indicated in the poll comments, we already have an overabundance of Computers 101 courses that tend to be nothing more than glorified Microsoft Office training sessions.

There’s nothing wrong with IM/text-speak — it’s acceptable to tell someone “k np” or ask “how r u” because of the short, real-time nature of instant messaging and texting. It’s a different story when a professional level of writing is required, even if it’s an “informal” memo going around the office. In written communication, you want your reader to focus on the message, not spend time deciphering your paragraphs.

Many times it’s because we’re in such a hurry to hit the send or print button. We’re always working on something that was due yesterday, or needs to go out ASAP because the server is going down in 30 minutes. The art of patience is, well, a lost art.

Write once, edit twice. Find a colleague to review your draft — preferably someone who doesn’t know the backstory, someone who will read it the way your audience will. It might delay dissemination for 15 minutes, a few hours, maybe a day, but it’s worth the trouble.

Personally, I think a book like Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynn Truss should be required reading. (I know there are shelves of books like this, but Truss’s is one that I’m familiar with and actually have on my shelf.) I’d rather force that on someone than a copy of Strunk & White, which can get into some really mundane, archaic, and occasionally misleading grammar usage. Some of my college-level writing courses used Diane Acker’s A Writer’s Reference, which is a more middle-of-the-road text.

So the next time you’re writing something, take a few minutes to re-edit it twice — even if you’re confident it’s finished — and have someone else take a look at it. And don’t forget some light reading, as suggested above.

As a writer, proper terminology in both fiction and nonfiction is key — the wrong word can ruin even the best idea. In marketing, the same princple holds. So one would think that the use of the adjective “unbreakable” to describe a product is more than just irresponsible, but outright dangerous. Describing a product in such absolute terms is akin to a dare or posing the question “Will it blend?”

This year’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) featured a mobile phone from Sonim designed to take extreme abuse, much like Panasonic’s Toughbook laptop series. The product is designed to the company’s “Rugged Performance Standards,” one of which includes an unconditional guarantee, which states that if the phone breaks or malfunctions within the warranty period, it will be replaced the same day, no questions asked.

In Sonim’s defense, the marketing materials don’t directly call the phone unbreakable; a Google search of the website proves this. Here are the three results explained:

• http://www.sonimtech.com/manuals/xp3/XP3_UserGuide_english.pdf – Product manual which (on page 4) explicitly states “However, it is not dust-proof or unbreakable if subjected to overwhelming impact.”
• http://www.sonimtech.com/prdocs/pr_09_20_06c.html – Press release which uses “unbreakable” in the headline but not in the body (and uses it in quotes, too)
• http://www.sonimtech.com/presskit/SonimPRXP1.pdf – Press release with the money quote: “The Sonim XP1 is the only phone in the world engineered for people who work and play outside; people in need of an unbreakable phone. After victorious launches across Europe, it’s time to show Australia how tough this phones really is,” said Bob Plaschke, CEO of Sonim Technologies.

As a brief aside, we’ll examine the word “unbreakable” with the reference of record, the Oxford English Dictionary. The word “unbreakable” first refers back to the prefix “un,” which in the form “un-” + adjective + “-able” is generally accepted as negation starting the 14th century. Widespread use of “unbreakable” as referenced by the OED began in the mid-19th century, which followed the use of “breakable,” or “capable of being broken, frangible,” starting around the 17th century. “Unbreakable” clearly means something not capable of being broken or frangible.

So now we’ve come to the apex of this story. It appears that “unbreakable” can be entirely attributed to the company’s CEO, in theory leaving the company clear of any controversy. So when a BBC reporter at CES smashed the phone against a fish tank after the CEO said “It is basically unbreakable, and if you find a way to break it, we’re going to give you a free phone,” those words became the joke of CES.

CEOs be warned – do not speak about your product in absolute terms unless you are absolutely sure your product meets all of your claims. And don’t use the adjective “unbreakable,” because somewhere, somehow, someone will find a way to break your product.