I have also on a number of occasions been told that I am "dumbing down" the language. I am always careful to point out I am not desecrating any classics, but I am seriously involved in communicating information and that this information has no value unless it is understood. I suggest that we are not "dumbing down" buildings when we include wheelchair ramps, even though many of us don't need them; nor are we inflicting alternative standards on everyone when we produce information in braille, or Vietnamese. For me, plain language is a justice issue, as well as a practical one. People are entitled to whatever aids they need to help them function in society.

I also find the term "dumbing down" to be insulting, both to the population it refers to and also to the actual work involved in creating plain language. When I am giving a workshop, I always include an exercise in which participants have to make a simple sentence into bureaucratese. The results are hilarious, and people find out very quickly how much easier it is to write that way than to write in very plain prose.

And plain language certainly is practical, particularly given the present life-styles of people with developmental disabilities. We have de-institutionalised many people who have spent most of their lives in highly controlled environments. Most now have much more freedom to make choices, whether they live in group homes, or more independently. Often this is just what they want, but it can be a difficult transition for someone who has always been looked after to become instantly capable of decision-making. If you've never had to choose between having peas or carrots for dinner, choosing where to live or who to have sex with can be pretty hard. I find many of the materials we prepare involve helping readers to make choices.

Other materials aim to reduce opportunities for exploitation, a problem that is very real for people with developmental disabilities. As they become less sheltered, there are plenty of crooks who will take advantage of them. And as long as credit card applications, rental agreements and such like are too hard to understand, this will continue.

There are philosophical changes in the rehabilitation field too, with societal inclusion now being promoted. The idea is that family, friends and employers will leap in to provide support, so that paid staff become less necessary. Well, society hasn't changed much yet in that direction, particularly as most people are increasingly busy earning a living, but underfunding for staff is already moving from chronic to crisis levels, at least in Alberta. All these factors mean that accessible information is important-and will continue to be important. There are no temporary quick fixes for people with life-long disabilities.

In my work, I try to bring language to a level simpler than that needed for the general public. I don't take out every hard word, because I am writing for adults on adult topics. But when I use an unfamiliar word, I usually bold it and include a definition. So, for instance, counsellor is easier to read than psychologist; but having used that word, I would include an explanation that a counsellor is someone who is trained to listen to you and to help you with your problems.

I think that much of the work is similar to that done by general plain language writers. I use the active voice, avoid double negatives, use I and you pronouns, keep sentences short, cut out unnecessary words and keep paragraphs short, etc., etc. Then I take some of these steps further. For instance, my sentences are seldom more than 15 or 20 words, and I would not use more than two short clauses in a sentence.

I avoid euphemisms. The meaning is likely to be missed. A doctor asking if the patient is having sex is likely to get a truer answer than if she or he asked about intimate relationships. And euphemisms employed to cover up embarrassment about a stigmatised existence often cause great annoyance to those who are so labelled. Challenged and special are prime examples.