14

I often hear and read people using the word transparent in sentences like the following:

  1. The change of senior management in our company should be transparent to our customers.
  2. We should be transparent to our customers about the source of cost escalations.

I have understood the word transparent to mean something which is clearly visible or not hidden. Sentence 2 above follows this interpretation, but sentence 1 seems to be using it to actually mean "opaque" (The change of senior management should not make any difference to our customers, or in other words, it shouldn't be "visible" to our customers.)

Which of these interpretations is correct, and why is it used in confusing ways like this?

Masked Man
  • 3,792
  • 11
  • 36
  • 52

6 Answers6

13

For both an acknowledgment of the counterintuitive meaning and an example of the confusion it causes, just head to Wikipedia's article for Transparency (human-computer interaction):

Any change in a computing system, such as new feature or new component, is transparent if the system after change adheres to previous external interface as much as possible while changing its internal behaviour. The purpose is to shield from change all systems (or human users) on the other end of the interface. Confusingly, the term refers to overall invisibility of the component, it does not refer to visibility of component's internals (as in white box or open system).

Other editors object to this as doublespeak and an improper use of the term, so they've flagged the article as factually disputed. You can see a lot of discussion arguing back and forth, as some users apparently reject the meaning that transparent has clearly taken on. But the user at 24.144.124.84 describes both meanings:

At times, transparent is used in the sense that glass is transparent. The details behind the "transparent" glass are clearly visible.

Yet, transparent can also mean the details are obfuscated to avoid confusion. We use this sense when we say, "transparent to the user." In other words, the user enjoys the benefits of a particular function without being aware of how it is accomplished.

In a way, you can think of the details themselves as transparent, i.e. the user "sees through" them as through glass.

I bolded the key explanations above, because I think they accurately describe the way transparent is being used. In one sense, the system as a whole is transparent (you can see how its internals work). In the other, the component is transparent—in this case, that component is the process of changing senior management, and because it is transparent (invisible, really) it doesn't affect the way the customer sees the system as a whole (the company).

Somehow, most people understand which sense is meant, despite the two apparently opposite meanings. Confusing? Probably. But that's English for you.

  • Thanks for the detailed explanation. I do usually understand from the context which sense is used, but there are some cases where there is not enough context, and it is a problem. The incident that got me thinking is the following "question" in a test: (paraphrased) Is the following statement true or false? "User threads are transparent to the kernel." It is impossible to figure out which sense is intended, unless you can read the author's mind. :) – Masked Man Feb 18 '14 at 18:31
2

Transparent means you can see through it.

1) The customers don't see any change caused by the change of management. The change is transparent.

2) We should be transparent means the customers can see the reasons for the cost escalations. They are saying that they will not hide the reasons hoping that if the customers see the reasons then they will accept the cost escalations.

QuentinUK
  • 441
  • 2
  • 6
  • is a bit subtle here, and could be interpreted in two ways. The change of senior management (the fact that the people or structure are new) is plainly visible to customers, with nothing hidden, OR it means that customers should simply not notice any effect on the business or on customer relations, or even necessarily be aware that the change happened. The first sense is more commonly used, especially for corporate governance and accountability, something of great interest since the Financial Meltdown.
  • – Phil Perry Mar 28 '14 at 17:36