技术写作与文档2012windows.microsoft.com
微软将服务条款改写成易读的问答形式
Microsoft updates their Terms of Service to an easily readable Q&A format
导读
微软把冗长的服务条款改写成问答式，引发关于“法律文本能否写得通俗”的讨论。对写作者来说，这是一堂关于精确与通俗如何取舍、如何用结构降低阅读门槛的案例课。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
用问答或分节把复杂信息拆成可跳读的小块，让读者按需检索而不是从头啃到尾。
- 02
精确与通俗往往要取舍：把专业文本简化成大白话，几乎一定会引入原本没有的歧义。
- 03
长文档要配目录和锚点链接，结构本身就是可读性的一部分。
- 04
改进格式不等于真正易读，要认清文档的实际读者是谁、他们为何而来。
HN 评论精选
复杂流程靠分层编号和清晰结构承载可读性。
评论逐条拆解微软如何用分节编号（10.1–10.5）安排消费者争议流程：先发争议通知、经60天非正式协商、可随时改走小额法庭、否则按AAA规则强制仲裁、只以个人名义且不与集体诉讼合并等。要点是：复杂程序靠清晰的分层编号变得可循。
grellas查看英文原文
What caught my eye here is the expert handling of procedures for consumer disputes. In legalese, this can be summed up as follows: if you live in the U.S., you agree to binding arbitration and to waive any right to participate in a class action (Section 10); before you can initiate arbitration, you are required to give a notice of dispute to Microsoft and to go through a 60-day period of trying to resolve it informally (10.1); nothing in this arrangement prevents you from taking your dispute through small claims court at any time in lieu of arbitration and whether or not you went through informal negotiations first (10.2); if informal negotiation fails or if you do not use small claims court, you agree to give up your right to litigate your dispute before a judge or jury and to pursue your claims exclusively through binding arbitration under AAA rules (10.3); you agree that your claim will be resolved exclusively "on an individual basis" and that it will not be combined with other claims, either in arbitration or in the courts, where a party acts as a representative in a class action (10.4); you agree that the arbitrator can only grant remedies besides a money award (e.g., injunctive relief) only to the extent required to satisfy your individual claim (10.5); if you are an individual and you use the services for personal or household use, or if the value of the dispute is $75,000 or less whether or not you are an individual, your dispute will be resolved under the AAA's special simplified-procedure rules for consumer-related disputes (10.5); you are required to initiate your dispute with AAA either in your county of residence or in King County, WA and Microsoft will promptly reimburse you for your filing fees and will pay for the arbitrator's fees and expenses (10.5, 10.6); in the case of such small disputes, if you reject Microsoft's last written offer made before the arbitrator was appointed and thereafter get a better result when an award is made, Microsoft will pay the greater of the award or $1,000, will pay twice your reasonable attorneys' fees, and will reimburse you for expenses that your attorney incurs in preparing and proving the your claim through arbitration (normal AAA rules on these issues apply if your claim exceeds $75,000) (10.6); in turn, Microsoft will ask for reimbursement of the arbitrator's fees and expenses only if the arbitrator finds that your claim was frivolous or filed for an improper purpose (10.6); all claims are subject to a private statute of limitations expiring within one year (10.8). Translated, here is what Microsoft is saying: 1. If you have a real problem with us as a consumer, we want to hear about it and deal with it if possible before you initiate a formal fight over it. 2. If we can't agree, we will give you every opportunity possible to make your case easily and without procedural barriers outside the regular court system, whether in small claims court or using streamlined AAA procedures in which we pay all the processing costs, including your filing fees. 3. If our negotiations with you yielded an offer from us that is less than what you get through a formal process, we will pay you even more, including double your attorneys' fees. 4. We will not play games with you by saying that arbitration can be held only on our home turf but will make certain that the prescribed procedures let you fight the battle in your local area, ensuring that you do not face arbitrary obstacles in getting your claim decided. Whether one agrees with the approach or not, the message here is loud and clear: if you deal with Microsoft as a consumer, there will be no juries (i.e., no realistic chances of getting punitive damage awards), no claims by which lawyers try to get nuisance payouts by grinding little claims through the formal court system, no arbitrations by which lawyers try to use complex discovery, etc. to arbitrarily complicate what should be an otherwise straightforward claim, no class acti…
精确与通俗存在取舍，简写会引入歧义。
说“这本来该写得更好”很容易，但用500字覆盖所有要点并不简单。它是在用不精确的英语表达极精确的内容；法律文体像一层精确规则叠加在英语上，编译出来自然冗长。任何“简化成大白话”的尝试，都会带来你几乎必然引入的歧义，以及相应的责任。
menacingly查看英文原文
Like virtually everything else about which people say "this should be better!", it's not as simple as it sounds to toss up a 500 word document that covers the bases. It's an attempt to convey something very precise (a legal document) in an imprecise format (English). We should be more sympathetic. We have formal languages, they don't. If we had to explain the operation of quicksort in written prose to use and communicate it, we'd quickly develop some long-winded idioms that got frequently reused. Think of it not as English, but as a coordinated layer of precise rules on top of English that results in very verbose output when compiled. Any attempt to shorten it to "plain English" also takes on the liability of any ambiguities you almost certainly introduce in shortening it.
格式改进值得肯定，但离真正易读仍有差距。
“易读”有点夸张，但我喜欢这个新格式，也认可他们在改进服务条款上的努力，比大多数地方好得多。
BlackJack查看英文原文
I think "easily readable" is quite a stretch, but I do like the new format and the fact that they're putting effort into improving their ToS. It looks much better than that of most places.
长文档需要目录导航，也要认清真实读者很少。
它仍然长到需要带链接的目录，也长到只有想找法律依据的人才会去读。
s_henry_paulson查看英文原文
It's still long enough that it needs a table of contents with links, as well as long enough that the only people reading it are people looking for legal recourse.
同类还值得读
编写更好文档的框架
A Framework for Writing Better Documentation
这是 Divio 的文档写作框架，把技术文档按「读者的目标」分成四类：教程（学习导向）、操作指南（问题导向）、参考（信息导向）、解释（理解导向）。
技术写作与文档2021 · 637 分 · 76 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写好一份设计文档
Writing a good design document
这篇 HN 帖子标题为《Writing a good design document》，主题是如何写好一份设计文档；对写作者来说，它值得作为技术写作和结构化说明文的参照。
技术写作与文档2025 · 581 分 · 147 评3 条写作要点编辑精选技术写作课程
Technical Writing Courses
这是 Google 官方免费技术写作课程（两门），讲受众定义、主动语态、短句、文档结构等基础方法。
技术写作与文档2020 · 571 分 · 73 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写出更好的错误信息
Write better error messages
这篇帖子讨论如何写出更好的错误信息，评论补充了开发者场景下的具体做法和真实反面案例。
技术写作与文档2022 · 566 分 · 253 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写一本技术书的经济账
The Economics of Writing a Technical Book
一位技术书作者拆解写书的真实经济账：版税收入往往远低于投入的时间成本。
技术写作与文档2018 · 519 分 · 149 评4 条写作要点编辑精选