You spend twenty minutes explaining a technical concept. The other person nods and says they understand.
Then they ask a question, and you immediately realize: they did not understand at all.
The problem is usually not that you used words that were too complex. The problem is that you skipped the steps they needed to build understanding.
Why technical explanations fail
When a technical explanation does not work, it usually fails for one of three reasons:
1. You started in the middle
You have a complete mental model of how something works. When you explain it, you jump straight to the conclusion because the earlier steps seem obvious to you.
But those earlier steps are not obvious to someone without your background. They are missing the foundation you are building on.
Example:
"We need to implement rate limiting to prevent API abuse."
If the listener does not know what an API is, this sentence contains three unexplained concepts:
- What is an API?
- What does "rate limiting" mean?
- How does an API get "abused"?
Better version:
"Our system lets other apps request data from us automatically—that's what an API does. If one app makes too many requests too fast, it can slow down the system for everyone else. Rate limiting means we set a maximum number of requests per minute, so no single app can overwhelm the system."
The second version explains the foundation first (what an API is), then the problem (too many requests), then the solution (rate limiting).
2. You used jargon to define jargon
When you explain one technical term using other technical terms, the listener ends up with two things they do not understand instead of one.
Example:
"A CDN caches static assets at edge locations to reduce latency."
If the listener does not know what a CDN is, they probably also do not know:
- What "caching" means in this context
- What "static assets" are
- What "edge locations" are
- What "latency" refers to here
Better version:
"When someone visits a website, their browser has to download images, stylesheets, and other files. If those files are stored far away, it takes longer to load. A CDN stores copies of those files in multiple locations around the world, so people download from whichever location is closest to them. That makes the site load faster."
This version uses everyday concepts: downloading files, distance, speed. It explains what a CDN does and why it matters, without requiring the listener to know technical terms first.
3. You explained what it is, but not why it matters
A technically accurate definition can still be meaningless if the listener does not understand why they should care.
Example:
"We're migrating to a microservices architecture."
That statement is clear to someone who knows what microservices are. To everyone else, it is just a phrase.
Better version:
"Right now, if we need to update one part of the system, we have to redeploy the entire application. That means more downtime and more risk. We're breaking the system into smaller, independent pieces so we can update each piece separately without affecting the others."
This version starts with the problem (can't update parts independently), then explains how the solution addresses it. The listener understands the value even if they do not know the term "microservices."
Use analogies, but choose them carefully
Analogies can make abstract concepts concrete, but only if you choose the right comparison.
A good analogy uses something the listener already understands and maps the structure, not just the surface.
Example: Explaining database indexes
Weak analogy:
"An index is like a table of contents."
This is too abstract. The listener still does not know what an index does or why it helps.
Strong analogy:
"Imagine you're looking for everyone named 'Smith' in a phone book. Without an index, you'd have to read every single page. With an index, you can jump directly to the 'S' section. A database index works the same way—it lets the system find data without checking every record."
This analogy uses a concrete scenario (finding a name in a phone book) and shows the difference between having an index and not having one. The listener can now understand why indexes make searches faster.
Start with the impact, then explain the mechanism
Most people care about results more than processes. Tell them what will happen before you tell them how it works.
Example: Explaining memory leaks
Mechanism-first version:
"A memory leak happens when allocated memory isn't properly deallocated, causing the heap to grow indefinitely."
This is accurate, but it assumes the listener knows what "allocated memory," "deallocated," and "heap" mean.
Impact-first version:
"The app will get slower and slower over time, and eventually crash. That's because it's holding onto memory it's not using anymore, and eventually runs out of space. It's like never throwing away boxes after you unpack them—eventually your house is full of empty boxes and you can't move."
This version starts with what the user will see (slowness, crashes), then explains why it happens using a relatable analogy. The listener understands the problem without needing to know the technical terms.
Explain in layers, and let the listener choose depth
Different people need different levels of detail. Give a short version first, then offer more depth if they want it.
Example: Explaining encryption
First layer (sufficient for most people):
"Encryption scrambles data so only people with the right key can read it. Think of it like a locked box—anyone can see the box, but only someone with the key can open it and see what's inside."
Second layer (if they want to know more):
"The 'scrambling' uses mathematical formulas that are easy to do in one direction but nearly impossible to reverse without the key. That's why even if someone intercepts the encrypted data, they can't read it."
The first layer gives enough understanding to make decisions. The second layer explains the mechanism in simplified terms. The listener can stop at the first layer or continue to the second, depending on what they need.
Use concrete examples, not abstract definitions
People understand specific scenarios better than general principles. Show them an example first, then extract the concept.
Example: Explaining APIs
Abstract definition:
"An API is an interface that allows different software systems to communicate."
This is technically correct, but it does not help someone visualize what an API does.
Concrete example:
"When you use a weather app on your phone, the app doesn't store all the weather data itself. It asks a weather service 'What's the temperature in New York right now?' and gets back an answer. That request-and-response system is an API. It's how apps talk to each other."
The example uses a familiar scenario (weather app) and shows how information flows. The listener now understands what an API does, even if they do not know the technical details.
Common mistakes that make explanations harder
1. Oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy
Why people do this:
They worry the listener will not understand the real explanation.
Why it backfires:
A wrong simplification is worse than a complex but accurate explanation. It creates misunderstanding that is harder to fix later.
Example:
"The cloud is just someone else's computer."
This is technically true in a narrow sense, but it is misleading. It ignores redundancy, scalability, managed services, and everything else that makes cloud infrastructure different from renting a single server.
Better approach:
Simplify the explanation, but keep it accurate. If you cannot explain it accurately in simple terms, explain it in layers and let the listener ask for more detail.
2. Using "basically" or "just" to force a comparison
Why people do this:
They want to quickly connect a new concept to something familiar.
Why it backfires:
"X is basically Y" usually means X and Y are quite different, and you are glossing over the differences.
Example:
"Kubernetes is basically Docker for production."
This comparison hides more than it reveals. Someone who knows Docker will be confused when Kubernetes behaves differently.
Better approach:
"Kubernetes and Docker both work with containers, but they solve different problems. Docker helps you package an app. Kubernetes helps you run many containers across multiple machines and manage them automatically."
3. Assuming the listener knows your abbreviations
Why people do this:
In a professional environment, abbreviations feel like common knowledge.
Why it backfires:
The listener may have no idea what the abbreviation stands for, and they may not ask because they do not want to seem uninformed.
Better approach:
Spell it out the first time, with the abbreviation in parentheses: "We're using a Content Delivery Network (CDN) to speed up the site."
After that, you can use the abbreviation.
4. Using jargon while trying to explain jargon
Why people do this:
They do not realize certain words are jargon because those words are normal in their field.
Why it backfires:
The listener still does not understand, but now they have more unfamiliar terms to keep track of.
Self-check:
If a word would not come up in everyday conversation outside your field, it is probably jargon. Either define it first, or find a way to explain the concept without using it.
A quick self-check before you explain
Before you explain something technical, ask yourself:
-
Am I assuming the listener knows certain concepts already?
If yes, either explain those concepts first, or find a way to explain without relying on them. -
Is the analogy I'm using something the listener is familiar with?
Do not use an analogy from another technical field. Use something from everyday life. -
Have I explained why this matters, or only what it is?
If you only explained what it is, the listener may not understand why they should care. -
If I read this explanation to a ten-year-old, would they understand the main idea?
This is not about treating the listener like a child. It is about testing whether your explanation depends on specialized knowledge.
What plain English actually means
Plain English does not mean treating the listener as if they are uninformed. It means acknowledging that your specialized knowledge is not common knowledge.
A good technical explanation does not "dumb things down." It builds a path from what the listener already knows to what you need them to understand.
The goal is not to make everything sound simple. The goal is to make the explanation followable.
When the tool is useful
If you need to explain something technical and you are not sure how to make it clearer, Explain With AI can help. It is not about removing all technical terms. It is about making sure the explanation is structured in a way that someone without your background can follow.
The goal is not to avoid complexity. The goal is to make complexity understandable.