Skip to content
STE Guide
Official PDF

Independent view

Simplified Technical English: Pros and Cons

Last reviewed: · Based on ASD-STE100 Issue 9

Simplified Technical English (STE) has strong supporters and strong critics. Both sides often describe the same facts. Supporters see consistent terms and easy translation. Critics see unnatural text and extra work. This page gives an independent view: what STE does well, where it causes problems, and how to avoid the common problems.

The examples of practice on this page come from typical experiences that technical writers report in professional discussions. They are not data from controlled studies.

What STE does well

Consistent terminology.

STE makes writers use one word for one thing. "Wet" stays "wet". It does not become "damp", "moist" or "humid" in the next chapter. This makes content easier to reuse and to search.

Fewer translation questions.

Short sentences with one meaning per word are easier to translate. Teams that use STE often report that translators ask far fewer questions.

Fewer style arguments.

When an engineer and a writer disagree about a word or a sentence, the team can refer to a published standard instead of personal taste.

Clear instructions.

Commands, one instruction per sentence and the active voice make procedures easy to follow. Readers may notice that the phrasing is different, but they understand the meaning quickly.

Useful even without full compliance.

Many teams outside aerospace and defence use STE as a style base, not as a formal requirement. They still get most of the benefits for consistency and translation.

Where STE causes problems

The text can sound unnatural.

Strict STE can sound stiff to native English speakers. Some readers stop trusting or reading text that sounds "robotic".

Some dictionary choices feel odd.

A few approved words are less common than the everyday alternative. Writers must accept these choices, or the text is not STE.

Full compliance takes time.

Checking every word and every sentence against the standard takes writer and editor time. Without training and tools, this cost is high.

It does not fix bad content.

STE controls words and sentences. It does not remove unnecessary steps, bad structure or unclear terminology. A long, badly structured manual stays long and badly structured in STE.

Partial or untrained use.

Text that is "almost STE", written without training, can be worse than good plain English. It has the stiffness of STE but not its consistency.

Limited independent data.

Many published numbers about cost savings come from tool or service providers. Independent, comparable studies are rare. Measure the effect in your own organisation.

Common criticism, and what is true

  • "STE sounds like it was written by a machine."

    What is true: Strict STE is less natural than normal English.

    What is not the whole story: STE is designed for readers who have English as a second language and for translation, not for literary style. For many readers, clarity is more important than style.

  • "Technicians do not read the manuals anyway."

    What is true: Many users skip documentation.

    What is not the whole story: This is a problem of content design and access, not of the language. STE does not make people read, and plain English does not either.

  • "The documents are still full of industry terms."

    What is true: STE allows technical names, so technical vocabulary stays.

    What is not the whole story: Technical names are necessary. STE only asks you to use them consistently. Bloated documents are a structure problem.

  • "Enforcing STE wastes writer time."

    What is true: Enforcement has a real cost.

    What is not the whole story: The cost decreases with training, terminology lists and checking tools. Teams must compare it with translation, review and support costs.

  • "STE is only legal protection for the employer."

    What is true: Documentation does have a legal function.

    What is not the whole story: Clear safety instructions protect users too. The question is whether the instructions are written for the user or only for the file.

  • "Following STE to the letter is ridiculous."

    What is true: Strict compliance sometimes forces clumsy wording.

    What is not the whole story: Outside aerospace and defence, most teams do not need full compliance. They can use STE principles and a controlled vocabulary.

  • "People who dislike STE just cannot write it."

    What is true: Some resistance comes from lack of training.

    What is not the whole story: Some criticism is valid: tone, cost and odd word choices are real issues. Do not dismiss all criticism as a skills problem.

  • "The FAA requires STE for aircraft maintenance documents."

    What is true: STE is a requirement of industry specifications such as ATA iSpec 2200 and S1000D, and of many aerospace and defence contracts.

    What is not the whole story: These are industry specifications and contract requirements. We are not aware of a general aviation regulation that mandates STE by itself. Check the requirements of your own contracts and authorities.

  • "STE mistakes have caused injuries and deaths."

    What is true: Unclear or incorrect maintenance instructions can contribute to accidents. This is why clear documentation matters.

    What is not the whole story: We are not aware of a public accident investigation that names incorrect STE as a cause. A claim like this needs a source.

  • "If you say you follow STE, you take on legal liability."

    What is true: A public claim that you conform to a standard can be used against you if it is not true.

    What is not the whole story: This applies to any standard you claim, including plain language standards. The practical answer: describe your practice accurately, for example "based on STE principles", and get legal advice for your situation.

  • "AI translation makes STE unnecessary."

    What is true: Machine translation has improved a lot.

    What is not the whole story: Translation quality still depends on the source text. An ambiguous sentence gives an ambiguous translation. Clear, consistent source text helps both human and machine translation. Safety-critical translations still need review.

  • "STE has no benefit for readers with English as a second language."

    What is true: Research results are mixed. An FAA-funded study found that STE had no consistent effect on errors by non-native speakers outside the United States, and that translation into the reader's language was the most effective measure.

    What is not the whole story: Earlier research found benefits for non-native speakers in the United States. STE is one tool. For some readers, translation is the better one.

What research says

Independent research on STE is limited, and the results are mixed.

  • Research for the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (Drury, Ma and Marin, 2006) looked at language errors in aviation maintenance. It found that errors occur when complex tasks, poorly designed documents, low English ability and time pressure come together.
  • The same research found that STE had no consistent effect on errors by non-native English speakers outside the United States. Translation into the reader's language was the only consistently effective measure. Partial translation, with technical terms left in English, worked as well as full translation.
  • Earlier research had found that STE helped non-native speakers in the United States.
  • Researchers and practitioners also report that STE is difficult to apply correctly, and that it is often misapplied.

Conclusion: STE is not a guarantee of understanding. It works best together with good content design, training, review and, where necessary, translation.

Source: Werfelman, L. "Simplifying the…", AeroSafetyWorld, Flight Safety Foundation, August 2007

When STE is a good choice

  • Maintenance, operation and safety procedures.
  • Content that is translated into many languages.
  • Readers who use English as a second language.
  • Large teams that need one consistent style.
  • Industries or contracts that require ASD-STE100.

When STE is not the best choice

  • Marketing and sales text.
  • Legal text, where specific legal wording is required.
  • Content for a small group of expert readers who need a high level of nuance.
  • Short-lived internal notes, where the cost of compliance is higher than the benefit.

For these, plain language principles are often sufficient. See STE vs Plain English.

Bad STE: when simplification goes wrong

Simplification can remove information that the reader needs. These examples show over-simplified text and a better version.

Over-simplified

WARNING: Be careful with the battery.

Better

WARNING: Do not short-circuit the battery terminals. A short circuit can cause a fire and burns.

Why it is clearer: The short version removed the action and the risk. A warning must say what to do and what can happen.

Over-simplified

Tighten the bolts.

Better

Tighten the bolts to 25 N·m in a diagonal sequence.

Why it is clearer: Short is not the same as complete. The torque value and the sequence are necessary information. (The values are an example.)

Over-simplified

Clean the part.

Better

Clean the part with isopropyl alcohol and a lint-free cloth. Do not use solvents that contain acetone.

Why it is clearer: A general verb with no method lets each technician do it differently.

Over-simplified

If there is a problem, stop.

Better

If the pressure is more than 6 bar, stop the pump.

Why it is clearer: "A problem" is not a condition that the reader can check. Give a measurable condition.

How to introduce STE without the common problems

  1. Train the writers. STE is a skill. Untrained "almost STE" causes most of the problems.
  2. Start with a terminology list. Consistent technical names give a large part of the benefit.
  3. Decide the level of compliance. Full compliance, or STE principles as a house style. Write the decision down.
  4. Use tools, but do not trust a score alone. A checker finds patterns. It does not understand meaning. Use the STE Checker for a first check, then review.
  5. Have safety content reviewed by an engineer. A simpler warning must not lose technical information.
  6. Test with real readers. Short usability tests show if readers understand the text and if the tone is acceptable.
  7. Measure the effect. Track translation questions, translation cost, review time and support questions before and after.
  8. Do not claim compliance that you do not have. If you use STE as a house style, say "based on STE principles", not "ASD-STE100 compliant". For contractual or legal questions, ask a lawyer.

Frequently asked questions

+Is STE worth it?

It is usually worth it for procedures, safety content and documentation that is translated into many languages. For marketing, legal or short-lived content, plain language is often enough.

+What are the main disadvantages of STE?

The text can sound unnatural, full compliance takes time, some approved words feel odd, and STE does not fix badly structured content.

+Do I have to follow STE 100%?

Only if a contract, a regulator or your industry requires it. Many teams use STE principles and a controlled vocabulary without formal compliance.

+Does STE make documentation safer?

Clear, unambiguous instructions reduce the risk of misunderstanding. But simplification can also remove necessary information, so safety content needs a technical review.

Check your technical text with the free STE Checker.

Open the STE Checker

STE vs Plain English →

Key differences, with a comparison table.

Writing Rules →

The eight rule groups of STE.

ASD-STE100 Examples →

Before-and-after rewrites.

STE Training and Certification →

How people learn STE.