How to Simplify Complex Information in Technical Writing

The difference between a good design doc and a great one is usually clarity. Technical writing should be crisp and to the point. So, it is always better to treat every sentence like it has a cost. After writing, cut aggressively. Remove extra words. Then check if a line can go. Sometimes even a full paragraph is unnecessary. One thing I always do is to start the doc with the conclusion; this way, the reader/reviewer knows where we are heading. This is contrary to how most engineers write docs - listing every approach first and only concluding at the end. That slows readers down. I avoid this because long explanations make people lose track; most readers want the conclusion quickly. So, always start with the answer and why it matters. Then add details and alternatives below for those who want depth. A habit that helps is a quick editing pass like this: - Remove filler words and repeated ideas. - Break long sentences into smaller ones. - Prefer bullets when listing options or steps. - Check if the first section clearly states the outcome. - Add a link or short explanation where a reader may pause. Empathy matters more than most people realize. Try to read your document as someone new to the topic. Ask yourself what might confuse them. Add the missing context. Add the helpful link. Let the ideas evolve naturally from problem to solution. This skill develops over time. Use simple language and fewer buzzwords. The goal is to communicate, not impress. Simple documents get read more. More readers means better alignment and better visibility for the work. Finally, always provide enough context. A short setup about the problem, constraints, and prior decisions goes a long way. It helps readers understand why the decision exists, and, of course, it prevents unnecessary back and forth later. Hope this helps.

No one is waking up at 7am, sipping coffee, thinking, “Wow, I really hope someone explains holistic wealth architecture today.” People want clarity. They want content that feels like a conversation, not a lecture. They want to understand what you’re saying the first time they read it. Write like you're talking to a real person. Not trying to win a Pulitzer. - Use short sentences. - Cut the jargon. - Sound like someone they’d trust with their money, not someone who spends weekends writing whitepapers for fun. Confused clients don’t ask for clarification. They move on. Here’s how to make your content clearer: 1. Ask yourself: Would my mom understand this? If the answer is “probably not,” simplify it until she would. No shade to your mom, she’s just a great clarity filter. 2. Use the “friend test.” Read it out loud. If it sounds weird or overly stiff, imagine explaining it to a friend at lunch. Rewrite it like that. 3. Replace jargon with real words. Say “retirement income you won’t outlive” instead of “longevity risk mitigation strategy.” Your clients are not Googling your vocabulary. 4. Stick to one idea per sentence. If your sentence is doing cartwheels and dragging a comma parade behind it, break it up. 5. Format like you actually want them to read it. Use line breaks. Add white space. Make it skimmable. No one wants to read a block of text the size of a mortgage document. Writing clearly isn’t dumbing it down. It’s respecting your audience enough to make content easy to understand. What’s the worst jargon-filled phrase you’ve seen in the wild? Let’s roast it.

Users don't suck, but the information provided to them can. If your IFU reads like a legal contract, people won’t read it. Why? Because they’re confusing. Too wordy. Too complex. Too scattered. A great IFU should feel like having a clear-headed expert guiding you step by step. The user needs to know what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. Here's 20 recommendations/writing rules to improve your IFU↴ 1. Write procedures in short, identifiable steps, and in the correct order. 2. Before listing steps, tell the reader how many steps are in the procedure. 3. Limit each step to no more than three logically connected actions. 4. Make instructions for each action clear and definite. 5. Tell the user what to expect from an action. 6. Discuss common use errors and provide information to prevent and correct them. 7. Each step should fit on one page. 8. Avoid referring the user to another place in the manual (no cross-referencing). 9. Use as few words as possible to present an idea or describe an action. 10. Use no more than one clause in a sentence. 11. Write in a natural, conversational way. Avoid overly formal language. 12. Express ideas of similar content in similar form. 13. Users should be able to read instructions aloud easily. Avoid unnecessary parentheses. 14. Use the same term consistently for devices and their parts. 15. Use specific terms instead of vague descriptions. 16. Use active verbs rather than passive voice. 17. Use action verbs instead of nouns formed from verbs. 18. Avoid abbreviations or acronyms unless necessary. Define them when first used and stay consistent. 19. Use lay language instead of technical jargon, especially for medical devices intended for laypersons. 20. Define technical terms the first time they appear and keep definitions simple. Prioritize the user while ensuring MDR/IVDR compliance.

“You explain things so well—how do you make Tech sound so simple?” I get this question a lot. And here’s the answer: When I write, I don’t dumb things down. I just connect the dots differently. Because at the end of the day…
What’s the point of sounding smart if nobody gets it? When I write about machine learning, I don’t imagine I’m speaking to an expert. 
I imagine I’m talking to: • My curious friend who’s just getting started • My younger self who thought ML sounded intimidating • Or someone who’s smart… but just tired of tech bros making everything harder than it needs to be. Here’s what helps me: 
🔹 I look for analogies in real life 
🔹 I avoid jargon when a simple word will do
🔹 I test it on people who don’t code, if they understand it, I’ve done my job Tech doesn’t have to feel like an elite club.
You can build cool things and explain them like a human. So next time you feel stuck trying to explain something complex… Try this: “How would I say this to a 10-year-old who asks ‘why?’ 10 times?” You’ll be surprised how much clarity that unlocks.

SaaS companies, stop overcomplicating your content. Yes, you’re creating an advanced solution. But if you can’t explain it simply – your customers won’t understand it. And what happens when they don’t get it? 👉 Confusion 👉 Frustration 👉 No conversions Here’s the fix: 1/ Break it down Use everyday language. And when things get technical, try: • Give an example – Walk them through a real-life scenario • Provide an analogy – Compare it to something they already understand 2/ Focus on clarity Make every sentence count. You should: • Cut the fluff – Keep things direct and easy to digest • Avoid jargon – Don’t alienate your audience with technical terms 3/ Guide them step-by-step Lead them through the process by: • Creating a roadmap – Show them the clear path to the solution • Using simple steps – Break down your solution into bite-sized actions Simple, clear, and relatable content drives conversions. PS. Share it with a technical founder who struggles to communicate their product’s value.

Most DeepTech founders either dumb down their science (lose credibility) or write academic papers (lose readers). To avoid this trap, here's my 5-step roadmap on how to explain complex tech without compromise: Step 1: The "Technical Sandwich" Method. To master this: → Start with a simple outcome ("We reduce ocean plastic by 40%") → Layer in the technical mechanism ("using bio-enzymatic polymer chains") → Close with the human impact ("saving 2M marine animals annually") Start here, then move onto Step 2. Step 2: Choose your Precision Framework. Now you have two options: 1/ Analogies (quantum computing = library with infinite books in one space) 2/ Metrics (latency from 200ms to 3ms = Netflix vs buffering) There's no wrong answer, but you must decide. Step 3: Master two Core Communication Pillars. 1/ Simple Hooks. → 9 words or less in your opener → Lead with outcomes, not process → Use contrast ("$100K sensors vs our $4,900 buoy") Once you master this, focus on: 2/ Technical Credibility. → Drop one precise term per paragraph → Link to peer-reviewed sources → Show the math when it matters Step 4: Know when to embrace complexity. Most founders oversimplify everything. Your audience is smarter than you think. Here are your options: → Technical founders? Go deeper on mechanism → Investors? Show the physics constraint you solved → General audience? Keep the complexity in comments The key is matching depth to reader expertise. Step 5: The credibility check. This final step is how you: → Validate claims with independent sources → Show real deployment numbers → Name the institutions backing you Do this and you can unlock both reach and respect. It's as easy as that. — What's the hardest technical concept you've had to explain in plain English? PS. I've ghostwritten for 10+ climate tech founders. The ones who balance simplicity with precision get 10x the engagement.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗧𝗘𝗖𝗛𝗡𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗪𝗥𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗗𝗩𝗔𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗚𝗘: 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗞𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗗𝗢𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗬𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗦𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗥𝗬. Most cybersecurity professionals can find vulnerabilities. Almost none can document them properly. I see brilliant security analysts who can't write a clear incident report. They bury critical information on page three, use jargon executives don't understand, and forget remediation steps. Meanwhile, the analyst who writes clear, actionable documentation? They get promoted. → Here's why writing is your career multiplier: • Good writing scales your impact beyond your hands. Your vulnerability finding protects one system. Your documentation of that finding protects the entire organization. Your clear incident report prevents the same breach from happening twice. Your well-written security policy protects thousands of employees who'll never meet you. Technical skill solves the immediate problem. Writing skill prevents the next hundred. • Leadership trusts communicators during crisis. When a breach hits at 2 AM, executives don't want technical deep-dives. They want answers: What happened? What's the business impact? What are we doing about it? How do we prevent recurrence? The analyst who can translate chaos into clarity becomes the voice of security in the boardroom. That's the person who gets pulled into strategic conversations, invited to leadership meetings, and promoted to architect or manager roles. Crisis communication ability is a leadership signal. • Executives make decisions based on how you write, not just what you found. Two analysts find the same critical vulnerability. Analyst A writes: "CVE-2024-1234 affects OpenSSL 3.0.1, CVSS 9.8, allows remote code execution via buffer overflow in SSL handshake." Analyst B writes: "Critical vulnerability in our web servers could allow attackers to take full control of customer-facing systems. 50 servers affected. Exploit code is public. Recommendation: Emergency patching this weekend, 4-hour maintenance window. Risk if delayed: potential data breach affecting 2M customer records." Analyst B gets the budget, the resources, and the executive attention. Same finding. Different outcome. • The formula that works every time. Executive Summary (what happened, business impact, recommended action, 3 sentences max). Technical Details (for your security team to act on). Timeline (when events occurred, aids investigation). Remediation Steps (prioritized by risk: critical now, high this week, medium this month). Lessons Learned (how we prevent this next time, what gaps this exposed). This structure works for incident reports, vulnerability assessments, risk analyses, and security proposals. Master it once, use it forever. Rank these in order of what executives care about most: business impact, technical severity, remediation cost, timeline. No right answer, just yours ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ＤＲ. ＩＴ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ＹＯＵＲ ＦＡＶＯＲＩＴＥ ＣＹＢＥＲＳＥＣＵＲＩＴＹ ＣＯＡＣＨ ｜ ＭＥＮＴＯＲ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Engineers strip out everything that feels unscientific. That instinct is killing your submissions. I spent 9 years reviewing submissions at FDA. The ones that moved fastest through review had something in common: they made the reviewer care about the patient before they got to the data. A photo of the patient population. A face. A real person who needs this device. Engineers hate this. It feels soft. Unrigorous. Like you're manipulating the process. You're not. You're doing what good communicators do: giving context before complexity. FDA reviewers are human. They respond to human things. When they understand who suffers without this device, they read the technical sections differently. The other thing I see constantly: summaries that are just compressed versions of the full technical document. Dense. Jargon-heavy. Written for an expert audience. Your summary should do the opposite. Strip the complexity out. Give the reviewer a clean, simple picture of what the device does, who it helps, and why it's safe. If they have to work hard to understand your summary, you've already lost ground. Nine out of ten founder-prepared submissions I see need a full rewrite, not a proofread. The technical content is usually fine. The communication is the problem. Write for a smart person who doesn't know your field yet. Add a face to the patient. Cut the jargon from your summary. Have you ever seen a submission win or lose based on how it was written, not what it contained?

The #1 mistake technical founders make when pitching? It’s the same one I used to make: we explain like engineers. We lay every part of the system on the table: every module, every edge case, every detail. We think completeness equals clarity. But to the listener, it’s chaos. Psychologists call this the curse of knowledge: once you know something deeply, it’s almost impossible to imagine not knowing it. So you end up explaining in a way that makes sense to you, but loses your audience. Engineering communication research backs this up. Most engineering programs train us to write technical reports, heavy on detail, designed for readers who already share the background. What they don’t train us to do is tell a clear, simple narrative for non-technical audiences. That gap shows up in the pitch room. The irony is that the secret to better pitching is right on the cover of the bible of computer science: Introduction to Algorithms. That Calder-mobile. If you put all the pieces flat on a table, it’s just noise. But hang them from a single thread, and suddenly it’s balanced, coherent, beautiful. Your pitch needs that thread. - Start with a backbone. One center narrative: the user problem, or why you’re uniquely capable. - Use tiered detail. Give the high-level first. Only go deep when the audience is ready. - Test it with a non-technical person. If they can’t follow, it’s too much too soon. And remember: the goal of the first meeting isn’t to prove completeness. The goal of the first meeting is to earn the second one. Every engineer-founder deserves to be understood. Never let your pitch bury its spine in details. Before you write or pitch, think of that Calder-mobile. Find your thread. Let the structure hang first — then let the parts dance. What’s the hardest part for you when simplifying your pitch? ♻️ Please repost if you found this useful. Share it with a founder or an engineer who’s benefit.