Reviewed 31 August 2026 · next review 28 February 2027
Simplified Technical English vs plain language
Both can improve technical communication, but they are not interchangeable: ASD-STE100 is a defined controlled-language specification, while plain language is a broader reader-centred approach.
Last updated · Written and reviewed by Jonatan Tensetti · Tensetti Tools
Method 1.0.0 · reviewed 31 August 2026 · next review 28 February 2027
ClearSpec uses an independent proprietary clarity method. It is not affiliated with ASD/STEMG, is not an ASD-STE100 checker or certification service, and does not certify ISO 24495-1 conformance.
| Dimension | ASD-STE100 / controlled language | Plain language |
|---|---|---|
| Core mechanism | A defined specification combining writing rules and a controlled dictionary with approved meanings. | Reader-centred principles applied to organisation, wording, context and usability. |
| Vocabulary | Controlled according to the official specification and approved meanings, with project-specific technical vocabulary governed separately where permitted. | Not inherently restricted to a fixed dictionary; precise technical terms can remain when the intended reader needs them. |
| Governance | Usually requires writer training, terminology decisions, review rules and a process for applying the specification consistently. | Can range from a lightweight house style to a mature content-design and user-testing practice. |
| Best fit | Where ASD-STE100 is required or deliberately adopted, especially in technical domains that already use controlled-language workflows. | Where the objective is clear, usable communication for a defined audience without a formal controlled-language requirement. |
| Translation effect | Vocabulary and structural consistency can make translation workflows more predictable, but the effect depends on the language pair, content and translation process. | Consistent terminology and well-structured source text can also help translation; benefit should be measured in the actual workflow rather than assumed. |
| How quality is judged | Against the current ASD-STE100 specification within the organisation's writing and review process; software may support but does not replace that judgement. | Against the chosen plain-language principles and, ideally, evidence that intended readers can find, understand and use the information. |
Where the approaches overlap
They often converge on practical goals such as reducing avoidable ambiguity, keeping terminology consistent, making actions and conditions easier to identify and writing for a known audience. That overlap is useful, but it does not make a general plain-language rule equivalent to an ASD-STE100 rule or vice versa.
How to choose
- If a customer contract, programme or organisational standard requires ASD-STE100, obtain the current official specification and implement the necessary terminology, writer training and review process. Do not substitute a generic checker for the specification.
- If there is no formal STE requirement, start from the reader, task and risk. A clear house style, stable terminology and review against real user needs may be sufficient.
- Measure the result you care about: review defects, task errors, support questions, translation rework or another observable outcome. Do not assume a style label proves that a document works.
What this tool does, and does not do
ClearSpec applies its own deterministic checks for actor clarity, ambiguity, consistency, structure and safety wording. It does not reproduce, implement or certify ASD-STE100 or ISO 24495-1, includes no protected ASD-STE100 dictionary content, and does not establish technical accuracy, legal sufficiency, usability or safety. It is a review aid for humans who keep the final decision.
Questions
- Is ClearSpec affiliated with ASD or STEMG?
- No. ClearSpec is an independent, proprietary tool. It is not affiliated with ASD or STEMG, does not reproduce or certify ASD-STE100, and does not include protected dictionary content.
- Can a checker make a document conform to Simplified Technical English?
- A checker can support writers by finding particular patterns, but its output alone does not establish ASD-STE100 conformance. If STE is required, use the current official specification, your approved terminology and a competent review process.
- Which approach should a documentation team choose?
- If a contract, customer or programme requires ASD-STE100, use the official specification and implement it deliberately. If the goal is broader reader-centred clarity without a formal STE requirement, plain-language principles and consistent terminology may be the more proportionate starting point.
References
Checked 31 August 2026. Referenced for context only; no standard text or dictionary content is reproduced.
- ISO 24495-1:2023 Plain language — Part 1 — ISO. Official standard information page. Context only; the standard is not reproduced or certified.
- ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English — official STEMG site — ASD Simplified Technical English Maintenance Group. Official source for ASD-STE100, currently Issue 9 dated 15 January 2025. ClearSpec is independent and does not claim to implement or certify the standard.
- ASD-STE100 official downloads and guidance — ASD STEMG. Official copies and STEMG guidance, including the explicit warning that automated tools do not replace correct application of ASD-STE100.
- Clear content objective — W3C WAI. Accessibility-oriented clear-content guidance informing general principles.
- Writing for web accessibility — W3C WAI. First-party accessibility writing tips informing general principles.
22 checks, no account, and the text is analysed in your browser.
ClearSpec reports automated heuristics from method version 1.0.0. The clarity indicator is not a measure of technical accuracy, usability, legal sufficiency, safety or standards conformance. A competent person must decide the final wording, especially for safety content.