Life is short and ‘YOLO’, but when it comes to the vast mix of industry jargon, acronyms and misnomers, David Meyer explains why he is not ‘ROFL’…

We work in an industry rife with technical jargon and a seemingly endless list of acronyms. Understanding and interpreting what it all means is key to optimal project outcomes, while being able to effectively communicate technical concepts can really help with team and client interactions.

However, this is often challenged by some common terms being misunderstood and/or misused, however innocuously. And then there’s the misnomers that, although often somewhat benign in nature, can still lead to misinterpretations, especially when conflated with all manner of marketing terms.

Becoming a technical interpreter of sorts can be quite an art, but it’s important to know how to extract and apply the right information that you need for your business and clients.

Interpreting Jargon

Technical jargon can be like speaking another language. According to the Oxford dictionary, jargon means “special words or expressions used by a profession or group that are difficult for others to understand”.

This makes me think back to one of the many business meetings I had in China years ago in which two Chinese colleagues were speaking in their native language to try to find an engineering solution. The conversation was so heavy in jargon, for which there were no Chinese equivalents, that I was able to follow the gist and comment accordingly. I actually had them fooled (for a short time) that I could speak Chinese, but really, I’m just fluent in industry jargon!

However, most of the time, using too many such terms with people that simply don’t speak technical language, such as most of society, can make their eyes glaze over. And if you don’t connect with a prospect, they’re less likely to become a client. Understanding and being understood is fundamental. Using big words doesn’t always make someone sound smarter.

Speaking of smart, there’s also a number of terms that are not so much jargon, rather blanket terms that have become so broad and abused as to border on meaningless. As such, even seemingly simple terms can sometimes be confusing and require interpretation.

“Smart” is one such example. Of course, we know that in this context smart — smart phone, smart TV, smart home, etc. — really just means it’s connected to the internet and interacts with it via apps. Once upon a time that was special; now it’s just normal.

But “digital” is another term that drives me nuts. For example, “digital transformation” or “digital edition”. Almost everything we deal with in our industry has been digital for a long time. Audio went digital in the 1980s, surround sound went digital in the 1990s, video went digital in the early 2000s, every modern display technology is digital, and every bit of communication over any network is already digital. The list goes on. It’s so ubiquitous that oftentimes the word digital also requires interpretation.

In the context of a gaming console, disc and “digital” versions are of course both entirely digital, the latter actually referring to it being download-only with no physical media. The meaning lies in the interpretation, not the term itself.

Digital is also commonly used to describe readying networks to support the Internet-of-things (IoT), another term that has become quite broad. Mitchell Klein from Silicon Labs, and 2019 CEDIA Lifetime Achievement Award winner, says of IoT that it doesn’t really need the internet, sometimes leveraging local or edge computing, and it’s not just things as it can also be software. So, he says, what we’re left with is “of”.

Sure, Mitch is being facetious, as am I. And don’t even get me started on AI! The point is to be clear in both interpreting what you read and conveying what you state. If your clients or even design partners — architects, etc — ask you about smart home, smart devices, digital readiness, IoT, or even AI, it’s important to strike a balance of meaningful information and relatability, and to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Using the words are fine, just please give them some meaning so that they are understood.

Decoding Acronyms

Acronyms seem to rule all corners of our lives, but in technology we amass them! But sometimes, decoding acronyms can be dependent on one’s perspective. For instance, ask an integrator what “IP” stands for and the reply will most likely be Internet Protocol. Ask a landscaper and they’ll say it’s Ingress Protection, and a lawyer will tell you it’s Intellectual Property. So, have fun with that if you want to patent an outdoor networking product!

Fact is, most of us in this industry reference all three of these IP meanings at times, and can quickly figure out the appropriate one by its context. For example, it’s not hard to know what an IP rating means for outdoor speakers, as distinct from IP control. It’s a different story for most of the general public who might not have any idea what IP stands for in any context. As such, if you need to use acronyms, spell out what they mean in order to be understood. Acronyms are simply another form of jargon.

This reminds me of the time I was listening to a CEDIA podcast in which a former CEDIA colleague referred several times to “SMEs”, even going so far as to say it like a word: smees. In the context of the conversation it meant Subject Matter Expert, but some people might not be familiar with that acronym and might instead understand SME to mean Small-Medium Enterprise. If anyone thought that, then the conversation might not have made much sense.

Please keep this in mind when dealing with clients and partners. We deal with acronyms so habitually that it’s easy to forget and just include them in conversation or even proposals. But to them it might be like speaking Klingon, or at the very least risk being interpreted wrongly. Like putting “lol” in a condolence notice, when its sender wishes to express “lots of love”.

Interpreting Misnomers

Just to clarify, when I talk about “misnomers”, I’m referring to industry accepted terms that are technically inaccurate, but we use all the time anyway. I’m not for a moment implying that they amount to misinformation, and provided we know with some certainty what they refer to, then does it really matter? Answer: most of the time, no, but where such information influences decision-making and design, it is still best to be clear.

A really common example of a misnomer is that of cable “speed,” such as a High Speed or Ultra High Speed HDMI cables. It’s widely understood that higher speed means more bits-per-second, but they don’t actually travel through the cable any faster. It simply means that every one of the billions of bits occupies a shorter time interval, and when something is shorter in time, we tend to call it faster.

It’s like comparing a 10-wheeler and an 18-wheeler truck. The latter can carry more and has extra technical considerations, but both travel at 100km/h and will deliver their payload in the same timeframe. Therein lies the interpretation for cable speed: it’s about payload, not literal speed.

Why does that matter, you might ask? Because I’ve seen speed used as a basis for selling the virtues of fibre over copper, citing that fibre uses light, and there’s nothing faster than light-speed. In reality, both are instant (delays through processing notwithstanding). An 18Gbps copper cable is the same speed as an 18Gbps fibre cable, the two having pros and cons for a raft of other reasons.

Sure, I realise I’m being pedantic (as usual). But again, I’m just pointing out the need for informed interpretation, upon which decisions can be made.

Interpreting Misuses

Lastly, there’s the possibility of terms being misused. Most often this is not through any misleading intent, rather simple misunderstanding. But that’s yet another thing that requires interpretation.

The example above suggesting that fibre could deliver a signal from A-to-B faster than copper could be viewed as a misuse of the term “speed”. There’s really no harm done, so long as you know what is meant and can apply the information effectively in making decisions, and that outcomes follow as expected.

Another example is using the x.x.x syntax to represent the number of speakers (the incorrect way) instead of the number of channels (the correct way) in a multi-channel audio system. For instance, stating 7.4.4 to represent a system with seven listener-level speakers, four subwoofers, and four height speakers. But there’s only one low-frequency effects (LFE) channel, even if it’s being reproduced by four subwoofers. As such, it should be 7.1.4.

After all, playing a mono soundtrack through two speakers does not make it 2-channel. Having said that, I’ve discussed this with people way smarter than me and heard arguments for both sides, and I get that what’s technically accurate and what looks good may sometimes conflict.

The bottom line, as is the recurring theme here, is the need to understand what the presented information really means. Learn how to interpret as a matter of habit, if you’re not doing so already. Be curious and always asking questions, and as my friend and former CEDIA colleague Dave Pedigo always says, “be a lifelong learner”! Learning is a never-ending process, though I think it’s fair to say that the steepness of the curve typically lessens with experience. Enjoy the journey.