The struggle with editing jargon

I’ve been editing a piece that’s loaded with industry jargon, and it’s been a challenge to strike a balance between clarity and technical accuracy… Has anyone else found effective strategies for simplifying complex information without losing its essence — would love to hear your thoughts.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​⁠​⁠​‍​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‍‍‌​‌​‌​‍​‌‌‌‌‌⁠‌​‌​‍‍‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍⁠​⁠​⁠‌​‍‌​⁠​‌‌​‌​‌​⁠​​⁠​‌‌‍⁠‍‌​‌‌​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​

One thing that’s helped me is using analogies to make complex concepts more relatable. For instance, if you’re editing something technical, relating it to everyday experiences can clarify meaning without losing accuracy. I found it useful while editing a finance piece recently; sometimes it’s about finding that common ground, don’t you think?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠‍​​⁠‍‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​‌​⁠​‌‌‌​⁠‌⁠​‌‌‌‌‍‌‌‌⁠​⁠​‌‌​‌⁠‌‌​​‌​⁠‍​⁠​⁠‌⁠‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

And i totally get the struggle! I once edited a tech article and tried weaving in metaphors like comparing data flow to a river. It sounds quirky, but it did help clarify some complex ideas.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠‍​​⁠‍‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠‌​​⁠​​​⁠‌​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌​‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌‍‍⁠‌‌​‍​⁠​​‌‍⁠‌‌​‌⁠‌‌‍‌​⁠​‌‌​‍‍‌‍​⁠‌‌‍​‌‍‍⁠‌‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌​‍​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

I totally get the challenge! For editing jargon, I often simplify terms by defining them in plain language within parentheses. It keeps the technical accuracy while aiding understanding.

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍‌⁠‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‌⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠‍​​⁠‍‌​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‍​⁠​​​⁠‌​​⁠​​​⁠‌‍​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‌‍‌​‍‍‌‌‍‍‌‌​​‌​⁠⁠‌​‍​‌​​‍‌⁠​​‌‍‌‌​⁠‌⁠‌‌‌​‌‌‌⁠‌‌‍‌‌​‍⁠‌‌‌‍‌‌​​​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌