Explaining a technical project detail to a non-specialist viewer

1. Choose one point worth explaining

Start with the question the viewer needs answered. A list of impressive terms can make a film harder to follow if none is connected to the project story. Choose a detail because it helps explain a contribution, a constraint or a visible result.

Write a short explanation in ordinary language before deciding which specialist words must stay. If the point cannot yet be stated clearly, identify what information is missing.

• Detail being explained:
• Audience and likely starting knowledge:
• Question this detail should answer:
• What the viewer must understand afterwards:
• What the explanation does not need to cover:
• Specialist responsible for checking it:

If different audiences need substantially different levels of detail, record that in the audience story-use map. Do not try to satisfy every specialist and first-time viewer with the same unexplained terminology.

2. Decide which terms need explanation

The Australian Government Style Manual recommends familiar words as the starting point and explaining necessary specialist terms. It also advises spelling out shortened forms when first introduced. Apply those principles to your preparation notes, then ask the technical reviewer whether the simpler wording preserves the meaning.

A necessary technical term may belong in the film. The issue is whether the viewer has enough context to understand it. Replacing a precise term with an inaccurate everyday word is not a useful simplification.

• Term or shortened form:
• Meaning in this particular project:
• Plain-language explanation to discuss:
• Reason the exact technical term must remain, if any:
• Likely confusion or alternate meaning:
• Approved wording and reviewer:

Separate terms that the audience needs to remember from details that can remain in supporting material. Avoid making the spoken explanation carry every label from a technical document.

3. Give the viewer a place to look

Before a close view can explain a detail, the viewer may need to know where it sits within the project. Consider the relationship between a wider view, the relevant area and the particular feature. Record what each proposed picture would explain.

A drawing or existing photograph may help when the detail is no longer visible, but its accuracy, revision and permitted use still need checking. A picture selected for convenience can create the wrong impression if it shows another stage or a different part of the work.

• Wider context the viewer needs:
• Specific feature to identify:
• Available picture, drawing or other visual reference:
• Stage or revision shown:
• What the picture can demonstrate:
• What it cannot establish:
• Person confirming accuracy and permitted use:

Discuss any labels, diagrams or other explanatory treatment with production before treating them as included outputs. The worksheet identifies a communication need; it does not choose a filming position or authorise access.

4. Check what the viewer could wrongly infer

An explanation can use accurate words and still leave an inaccurate overall impression. Check whether it makes the team’s role clear, distinguishes a proposed result from a completed one and avoids implying that a picture proves more than it does.

Read the proposed line alongside the proposed picture. Then ask what someone unfamiliar with the project might assume.

• Possible mistaken inference:
• Word, omission or picture that could cause it:
• Context or qualification needed:
• Evidence that supports the corrected explanation:
• Person who must approve the correction:

Keep qualifications near the claim they affect. If a condition changes the meaning, do not rely on a distant note to explain it. Describe only what the approved project information supports.

5. Work through an invented example

Imagine a fictional project team wants to explain a change to the location of a service route. The initial note says, “We resolved the interface issue.” A viewer outside the team would not know which elements met, what the issue was or what changed.

The preparation discussion could ask the responsible specialist to identify the relevant area, explain what needed to fit together and describe the team’s actual contribution. A wider view might orient the viewer, while an approved drawing could identify the area being discussed. Whether that drawing is suitable for publication remains a separate check.

A possible plain-language outline is: what needed to connect, which constraint affected the layout, what decision was made and what the approved evidence shows afterwards. The team would need to supply and verify the real details before any line was used.

This is an invented communication example, not technical guidance or a claim about a completed Live Images project. It deliberately provides no construction method or unverified performance result.

6. Check understanding before treating the wording as ready

Ask a suitable reviewer who was not involved in writing the explanation to describe what they understood. Choose someone whose background is reasonably close to the intended audience. Ask open questions before offering your own explanation.

• What do you think the detail is?
• Why did it matter to the story?
• What do you understand this team’s contribution to be?
• Which word or picture was unclear?
• Did the explanation suggest anything the evidence does not support?

Record the wording reviewed, the response and the change you propose. A small informal check can reveal questions to address; it is not proof that every viewer will understand the film. Return any revised technical meaning to the responsible specialist for approval.